As EVERYONE knows by now, the other happened Friday morning. So, socialized medicine and redefined marriage joins the liberal ranks of welfarism and abortion. Progress has never looked so abysmal in its masquerade as norm.
Nonetheless, here's perhaps the best reaction I've heard all day...
TheGospelCoalition: Now that the Supreme Court has issued its sweeping ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, we can expect an avalanche of commentary, analysis, and punditry. I’m not a law professor, a politician, a talk show host, or a public intellectual (whatever that is)... So as we pour over legal opinions and internet commentary, let us not forget what the Bible says.
The Bible says the Lord alone is God and we should have no other gods before him (Ex. 20:2-3). Not the state, not the Supreme Court, not our families, not our friends, not our favorite authors, not our cultural cache. No gods but God.
The Bible says we should love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). And who is your neighbor deserving of such love? Wrong question, just worry about being the neighbor you’d want for yourself (Luke 10:25-37).
The Bible says love is not the same as unconditional affirmation (James 5:19-20). Love is patient and kind. It does not envy or boast. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor. 13:4-7).
The Bible says that disciples of Jesus will be hated as Jesus was hated (John 15:18-25; 2 Tim. 3:12). If the world loves us, it is not a sign of our brilliance, but that we belong to the world.
The Bible says that when reviled we should not revile in return (1 Peter 2:21-25). We should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44).
The Bible says Jesus came into the world to save sinners, especially the worst of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). That means people like me, like you, and like the Apostle Paul who at one time opposed everyone and everything he later came to love and defend.
The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Mal. 2:15; Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9) and that homosexual practice is sin (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7), but a sin from which we can be washed clean (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Any Christian who really believes the Bible must believe all of the Bible. You can’t applaud what Jesus says about loving your neighbor from Leviticus 19, if Leviticus 18 and 20 are throwaway chapters. You can’t unpack the good news of Romans 8, if Romans 1 is overstuffed with cultural baggage. You can’t marvel at the goodness of God’s creation, if there is no good design in how he created things. Either the Bible is God’s Word or we are sufficiently godlike to determine which words stay and which words go.
The cultural breezes are blowing against us. The worldly winds are stiff in our faces. But the hard parts of the Bible are no less true for being less popular. The Bible says what it says, so let us be honest enough to say whether we think what the Bible says is right or wrong. Diarmaid MacCulloch, a decorated church historian and gay man who left the church over the issue of homosexuality, has stated the issue with refreshing candor:
This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity, let alone having any conception of homosexual identity. The only alternatives are either to cleave to patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, or say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong. (The Reformation: A History, 705).
Yes, those are the only alternatives. I know books are right now being written by the dozens trying to make the case that the Bible is really keen on gay marriage, but it can’t be done. Not with exegetical and historical integrity.
Not with gospel integrity either.
A holy God sends his holy Son to die as an atoning sacrifice for unholy people so that by the power of the Holy Spirit they can live holy lives and enjoy God forever in the holy place that is the new heaven and new earth. Is this the story celebrated and sermonized in open and affirming churches? What about twenty years from now? And what if we flesh out the gospel story and include the tough bits about the exclusivity of Christ and the reality of hell? What if the story centers on Calvary, not as a generic example that love (defined in whatever we choose) wins, but as beautifully scandalous picture of a love so costly that God sent his Son into the world to be the wrath-bearing propitiation for our sins? What if the story summons us to faith and repentance? What if the story calls us to lay down everything–our ease, our desires, our family, our preferences, our sexuality, our stuff, our very selves–for the sake of the Storyteller? What if part of the story is believing that every jot and tittle in the Storybook is completely true?
I’d rather not talk about homosexuality again. But the world hasn’t stopped talking about it. And the Bible hasn’t stopped saying what it has always said. So let’s not be shrill and let’s not be silent. If you already know what the Bible says about homosexuality, don’t forget what the Bible says about all of life and godliness. We can be right about marriage and still wrong about everything else that matters. And if you like most everything else the Bible says, why would you on this matter of homosexuality decide the Bible suddenly can’t be trusted? If you won’t count the cost here, what else will you be willing to sell? The support for homosexual behavior almost always goes hand in hand with the diluting of robust, 100-proof orthodoxy, either as the cause or the effect. The spirits which cause one to go wobbly on biblical sexuality are the same spirits which befog the head and heart when it comes to the doctrine of creation, the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the second coming, the reality of hell, the plight of those who do not know Christ, the necessity of the new birth, the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, and the centrality of a bloody cross.
If Jesus is right and the Scriptures were spoken by God himself (Matt. 19:4-5) and utterly unbreakable (John 10:35), then the place to start when it comes to something as fundamental as marriage is also the place to end, and that’s by asking the question “But what does the Bible say?” As Christians living in the midst of controversy, we must keep three things open: our heads, our hearts, and our Bibles. Don’t settle for slogans and put-downs. Don’t look to bumper stickers and Facebook avatars for ethical direction. And don’t give up on the idea that God has a clear word and a good word on this issue. God has already spoken, and he specializes in gracious reminders, so long as we stay humble, honest, and hungry for the truth. After all, man does not live by bread alone (or sex alone), but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4).
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”
“And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
Rinse, repeat. Once again, the same turncoat Chief Justice REWRITES the same unconstitutional decree to appease the same imperial president...all the same sycophants rejoice. This doesn't bode well for other decisions, nor the future of jurisprudence...or America's for that matter...
RedState: For all the liberal bloviating about the new direction of SCOTUS under CJ Roberts, today’s opinion in King v. Burwell demonstrates that essentially, nothing has changed. The court is still forced into feckless pragmatism whenever a conservative principle is at stake, but is perfectly willing to venture beyond the expressed will of Congress in order to advance liberal agenda items on their own initiative.
Today’s decision, upholding the Obamacare subsidies in states that did not set up an exchange, is simply indefensible as a matter of statutory interpretation. There is no other way to put it – nothing in any sort of legal training from any reputable university would have led anyone to believe that the Court would have been permitted to essentially rewrite the statute the way they did today. And make no mistake, that is exactly what they did, in refusing to apply Chevron deference and merely stating that henceforth Obamacare says something different than what its actual words contain.
In many ways, this decision (which was joined by both Roberts and Kennedy) is the most irresponsible arrogation of power by the Court in decades. When the Roberts court upheld Obamacare initially as a tax, despite the fact that neither side had argued or claimed that it was a tax, I actually found that to be a defensible decision and generally respectful of the idea that SCOTUS should only invalidate a Congressional statute under relatively extreme circumstances. However, what the Roberts court did today was to essentially elect themselves to the positions of both Congress and the President and amend a duly passed statute on their own initiative. This was a blatantly unconstitutional power grab and Roberts’ decision to author it adds another stain to the legacy of George W. Bush.
No other statute in history has been the beneficiary of such blatant judicial largesse. As Justice Scalia noted in dissent, the issue now goes beyond Obamacare itself, and goes to the heart of how Courts are supposed to interpret statutes. In twisting itself into somersaults to uphold Obamacare, SCOTUS has forever blurred and/or destroyed canons of statutory interpretation, leaving nothing but absolute guesswork for lawyers who come along in this decision’s wake, attempting to determine how a given statute will be interpreted for their clients:
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.
Indeed.
One wonders how many decades of electing Republicans to the Presidency are needed before the Supreme Court finds itself reformed in all the many ways we are continually promised by Republican candidates. One further wonders how long we will continue deluding ourselves into believing that it will ever actually happen.
More importantly, John Roberts has now been fully exposed for what he is – a craven, unprincipled hack, determined to protect the interests of his own power and his institution’s prestige over and above the interests of doing his job well and honestly. In other words, he’s basically the Mitch McConnell of the Supreme Court.
And our most post-Constitutional president is ever so thankful for it.
If you think the courts will protect us you’re wrong: they’re for centralized government and will continue to deliver for big government. Even a Supreme Court justice should have enough reading comprehension skills to know that those four words in Obamacare had meaning, but the John Roberts court is too stuck on blazing a trail of social activism. Not just with the Obamacare case, but with the decision of the Texas housing case, which the Supreme Court decided we all have unconscious prejudice. Roberts is just like President Obama – more concerned with the legacy than upholding the Constitution. The Framers spent so much time ensuring separation of powers, but Congress and the Supreme Court have destroyed the balance. If Obama and the Supreme Court justices don’t respect the rule of law, why should we?
If the left wants to have a conversation about race, we need to go beyond the Confederate Flag and have the discussion. Democrats have destroyed black communities and families in many places, and continue to do so today. Democrat ideology doesn’t provide any answers, which is why they don’t give any. ~ The Mark Levin Show, 6/23/15
Don't think I can say 'AMEN!' loud enough.
And it should also be noted that while you have all the manipulated white guilters and black activists demanding flags and statues be removed, schools and parks be renamed, there is a Democratic political and media-driven underbelly guiding this movement, desiring to remove these emblems, not because of connotation or offense, but because they want to ERASE the roots of their own racist past that leads directly to today's racialized present.
In addition to the introduction of blacks during Revolutionary War times, Barton extensively debunks the purposeful Democratic misinterpretation of the Constitution's three-fifths clause (something I've heard Levin explain on numerous occasions), and how the true meaning behind it began to lead towards the early abolition of slavery, including abolishing the slave trade in 1808...that is, until the rise of the Democratic Party...
Here's where the brutal truth begins with the 1820 Missouri Compromise, followed by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law and the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, all strengthening slavery and all supported by Democratic Congresses, leading towards the 1857 Dred Scott Decision, handed down by a Democratic-controlled Supreme Court, to eventually rip the country apart with the succession of the Democratic, pro-slavery Confederacy. (also note in this segment the correlation of slavery to abortion, and how both, with strong Democratic backing, have affected the black American community). Contrast all of that with the Republican-backed abolition of slavery in 1862 and the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, followed by early civil rights laws passed in 1864, including the repeal of Democrat's Fugitive Slave Law...
...and finally the abolition of slavery with the 13th Amendment in 1865, with only 19 out of 82 congressional Democrats supporting its passage compared to 100% of Republicans' support...
Note in this segment the mass shooting of 1866 in New Orleans by Democrats (just saying, if the current president wants to talk about those in relation to gun control). Also, here's where we're introduced to the Democratic terrorists of the time, the Ku Klux Klan. And when the 14th Amendment (1868) finally came about, granting citizenship to freed slaves, not a single Democrat in the House or Senate voted for this civil right.
While modern Democrats like to play demographic politics, and have begun baiting Republicans into doing so as well, this segment begins to show the sharp dichotomy of the many congressional black Republicans throughout history vs. their limited black counterparts residing on the Democratic side of the aisle. But following, to take a line from the narrator, "While black Americans immediately following the Civil War had indeed begun a distinguished chapter in their history, the opposition to their rapid success grew just as rapidly as had their successes." More Democratic intimidation and violence...but inevitably leading to the 15th Amendment (1870), where once again, not a single Democrat from the North or South voted for blacks to have the right to vote.
So a quick review so far...
Today, Democrats abuse the hell out of these three Amendments, twisting their original intent into something they were never meant to be (reminiscent of the way they've reinterpreted the 3/5ths clause and so much of the Constitution), creating 'civil rights' out of everything under the sun, all for the sake of reshaping an American society with moral relativism, radical egalitarianism and national welfarism (just to name a few) at the helm controlled by an all-powerful, centralized government. In essence, recreating a new kind of slavery.
But the Democratic rejection of civil rights for black Americans didn't stop there. In the 1875 Civil Rights Bill, all Republicans supported it, all 114 Democrats opposed it. This bill was the last of almost two dozen other civil rights bills passed by Republicans with overwhelming Democratic opposition. It would be nearly 90 years before another civil rights bill was passed. Why? Because in 1876, Democrats regained Congress for the first time since the beginning of the Civil War, and not only successfully blocked support on any further progress, causing civil rights momentum to wane, but also brought Reconstruction to an abrupt close, bringing the South back under Democratic control and reestablishing institutionalized racism. From the barring of federally held offices for the next 70 years to the intimidation over education, segregation had begun. 1954's Brown v. Board of Education ending segregation in schools begins to be discussed in the segment...
...and what follows is the uncompromisingly racist and absurd Democratic responses that lapse into the following segment. Also echoed is the sentiment of those Democratic leaders who stood in the doorway then, doing so again with the insistence of black students remaining in failing schools and rejecting vouchers or parental choice in education. Backing up a bit, by the 1880's, the Democratic political movement known as Southern Redemption had begun to reverse Reconstruction and Republican-passed civil rights laws, once again depriving black Americans of civil rights with poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, suppressive procedures and Black Codes (i.e., Jim Crow Laws)...
...not to be forgotten, forced segregation within state Democratic laws replaced federal anti-segregation laws in 1875 and regrettably became the legal standard for the next 75 years, along with gerrymandering of congressional districts and white-only primaries. The Supreme Court went back and forth with the Democratic Party over white-only primaries, finally striking them down from party policy in 1944. Intimidation and violence was also used for Democratic disenfranchisement of black Americans, alongside the revision of state constitutions and other Democratic devices to prevent blacks from voting (some of which weren't struck down by the courts until the 1970's). By the turn of the 20th century, the Democratic Party had proven successful in black voter suppression, and actively sought to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments...
In 1915, the racial film Birth of a Nation was released to bolster Klan recruiting to its heights, and Woodrow Wilson seemingly embraced it. Recognizing all of this, we begin to ask what happened to create the dramatic shift towards what we currently observe today with black Americans' levitation towards the Democratic Party? Well the first attempt was made with FDR's invitation to vote; however, with the lynchings of the 1930's, black Americans remained steadfast in their knowledge of who the Democratic Party was (note, between 1882 - 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched, 3,446 blacks, 1,297 whites). While Republicans led the effort to pass anti-lynching laws and consistently called for a ban on lynching, Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never condemned lynchings. Also of particular note in this segment is the faith shared by the black community as they went through these troubling times (the Rev. Richard Allen and the AME church are even mentioned!)...
Although, political warning bells were rung by such statemen as Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey prior to the turn of the century...
“You gentleman on (the Democratic) side of the House have voted against all the … amendments of the Constitution and the (civil rights) laws enforcing the same. … Now you come to us and say that you are our best friends. … The Democratic Party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are Republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans as long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us.”
...here's where we begin to see the further paradigm shift in the Democratic Party's attempt to garner the black vote, with Democrats under FDR placing language in their platform calling for an end to racial discrimination. Yet, Democrats continued to kill every piece of civil rights legislation in that era. Proving more courageous than FDR, Truman worked boldly to change the Democratic Party and institute an aggressive civil rights package. However, the Democratic Party killed all of his proposals as well. Then came Eisenhower, who, well aware of the southern Democratic congressional commitment to racial segregation, sought the elimination of all racial discrimination under his authority, even managing to set up a Civil Right Division of the Justice Department. Nevertheless, Democrats continued to prevent progress towards civil rights, gutting meaningful provisions as they passed through Congress. Through two more Democratic presidents, JFK and LBJ, against the will of their own political parties, the latter was able to sign into law the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As Barton highlights, "These two important civil rights acts were signed into law under a Democratic president, but it was the Republicans in Congress who made possible the passage of both acts...Democrats had it completely within their power to pass those bills, but they did not. Republicans overwhelmingly came to the aid of Democratic President Johnson." If not for strong Republican support, neither bill (both of which retained the heart of Eisenhower's work) would have become law...
As a result of these civil rights laws, black Americans made some of their earliest and most significant political strides in the modern era while affiliated with the Republican Party, which has continued within our generation. Yet, many of these strides have gone unreported in a mainstream media beholden to the Democratic Party. Barton illustrates an important point here through these elections, some of which contribute to the paradigm shift:
In Democratically controlled states, rarely are African-Americans elected statewide, with the exception of U.S. Senators in Illinois and a governor in Virginia. And most African-American Democratic members of Congress usually are elected only from minority districts; that is, Democratic districts where minority voters make the majority, rather than where there's a Democratic majority of white voters. On the other hand, African-American Republicans are usually elected statewide in Republican states or in congressional districts with large white majorities...
This is the utilization of demographic politics that the Democratic Party has come to perfect.
There's also another attesting factor to the paradigm shift (although not included in this video documentary, but mentioned in a review of the book):
(It is significant that over recent years, a popular rumor has been widely circulated across the African American community that if Republicans were elected to Congress or the presidency, they would not extend the 1965 Voting Rights Act and would, in fact, remove the right to vote from African Americans. (Certain provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act must be periodically renewed by Congress.) Many in the African American community have believed this rumor and surveys have indicated that a belief in this rumor was a substantial cause for voting against Republicans. Even though the NAACP has condemned the long-standing report as totally false (the 15th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees African Americans the right to vote, not the Voting Rights Act), it has been an effective political tool for Democrats to use against Republicans. In fact, in the 108th Congress when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed of Democrats) for fear that they would lose an effective political tool against Republicans.) …many African Americans today have picked up the Democrats’ long-standing hatred for Republicans without understanding its origins; yet the racial issues behind the generations-long Democratic hatred for Republicans is well documented.
Combine this also with LBJ's institution of welfarism under the misleading moniker of a 'War on Poverty', which 50 years later has proven to be a total failure, but an attractive allure nonetheless, and the deceptive shift of black Americans away from the Republican Party over to the Democratic Party unfortunately begins to take shape. What Rainey described as 'proper senses' no longer 'hold sway over us.' At this point, Barton says that though the political history of black Americans has often proven Frederick Douglass right when he reminded them that "For colored voters, the Republican Party is the ship, all else is the sea," he professes that no one from any background, whether political, religious or racial, should ever love any political party above principle. He also presents the disclaimer that although history is clear about the major differences in how political parties treated blacks, neither party is completely blameless in all of its actions, nor have all the leaders in a party always been good or bad...
Both of these segments, and thus the remainder of the documentary, conclude with the assertion that we must allow our moral, religious and constitutional heritage to guide us towards noble leaders, not necessarily a particular political party.
So before we continue on about a flag or a name, perhaps we should take note of those making the most noise, along with THEIR history, and consider what's really going on here. And by all means, prayer and meditation for Providence would certainly help. We need the clarity of faith and unity, alongside the power of knowledge, now more than ever in our modern society.
ADDENDUM: Levin shared at least an hour's worth of 'missing' Democratic history on Wednesday's program...
We need to defend our American heritage against a leftist political movement using tactics based in hate, division, and race. The left wants to talk about tolerance while President Obama hosts anti-Israel activists and the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. The history of the Democrat party is full of racism, including celebrated figures like Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. Confederate Flags and monuments will be taken down left and right, but schools and roads named after FDR and Wilson will go unchanged. It’s amazing how the Republican party is now viewed as the anti-civil rights party when it is truly the party of liberty.
There's no way to slice anything good out of this. Once again, an imperial president not only gets what he wants, but is given what he wants...by his purported opposition.
Don't be fooled.
Where the TPA vote is being heralded as a legislative victory for Obama and McConnell (and Boehner for that matter...what sordid bedfellows)...
RCP: Tuesday morning, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell pledged the legislature would pass bills giving the president trade promotion authority "by the end of this week."
At least 60 senators must vote for it to clear a procedural hurdle Tuesday for a final vote tomorrow. In a May 21 vote, 62 senators backed fast track, but some like Sen. Ted Cruz have returned to "undecided."
"We shouldn't let this opportunity for a significant bipartisan achievement slip past us," McConnell said Monday. "If we simply vote the same way we just did a couple weeks ago, we won't."
TheHill: The Senate on Tuesday voted to advance President Obama’s trade agenda, approving a measure to end debate on fast-track authority.
The 60-37 motion sets up a vote on final passage on Wednesday. If the Senate approves fast-track or trade promotion authority (TPA), it would then be sent to Obama’s desk to become law.
Fast-track authority would allow Obama to send trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes. The White House wants the authority to conclude negotiations on a sweeping trans-Pacific trade deal.
Thirteen Democrats backed fast-track in Tuesday’s vote, handing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a major legislative victory. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) voted against the procedural motion.
The Democrats cast "yes" votes even though the trade package did not include a workers assistance program for people displaced by increased trade. The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program was a part of the last fast-track package approved by the Senate in May, but became a key part of opposition to the package among Democrats in the House.
To move fast-track forward, the White House and GOP leaders in both chambers decided to break TAA away from fast-track and to try to approve both in separate votes.
After the Senate votes Wednesday on final passage for fast-track, it will take a procedural vote on a package that includes TAA and trade preferences for African countries known as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
McConnell has promised both bills will reach Obama’s desk by the end of the week.
“If we all keep working together and trusting each other, then by the end of the week the President will have TPA, TAA and AGOA and Preferences on his desk,” he said on the floor.
The House has already passed fast-track but it must still vote on the package including TAA, which faces opposition from conservatives.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reiterated on Tuesday his pledge to vote again on TAA as soon as it clears the upper chamber.
“The House will consider TAA once it passes the Senate as part of a new trade preferences bill. And we are ready to go to conference on the customs bill. Our goal is to get TPA and TAA to the president's desk this week and deliver this win for the American people,” he said in a statement.
...it's been a legislative dud for both the American people and constitutional conservatives, Cruz in particular, who finally reversed support of this disaster in the 11th hour, because he realized how corrupt the process is in the House. But it ain't just the House, Senator!
Breitbart: The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.
Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.
As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.
But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.
I'm pretty certain this is what Sen. Sessions was warning about just last week that some didn't want to believe. And it would appear as though the time to filibuster has passed.
Like I said, all in all, no way to slice any good from this.
Levin sounded equally disgusted tonight...
On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: The idea that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and their cronies in Congress would support this further surrendering of power is unacceptable. President Obama has already told Democrats he intends to use the powers he’d get from the trade bill to advance his positon on global warming, immigration, and his entire leftist agenda. McConnell is so proud to be working with Democrats while he and Boehner force Republicans to deliver Obama his agenda. Mark speaks with Sen. Ted Cruz about the trade bill fiasco and the current state of Congress.
UPDATE: And the Senate passes 'fast-track' Trade Promotion Authority on Wednesday...Republicans marching lockstep with Obama towards globalization. Insanity, ain't it?
LegalInsurrection: Today the Senate voted to approve the “fast track” Trade Promotion Authority bill.
Yesterday’s test vote revealed that today’s final vote was likely to swing in favor of the controversial procedural bill, which has both hardline conservatives and pro-union Democrats at odds with an unlikely bipartisan coalition.
Now, the trade debate will head back over to the House, where Democrats who were successful last week in blocking fast track’s passage will have to decide whether or not they will switch gears and support the TAA companion legislation.
Votes on the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill will be taken separately, forcing Democrats to bank on promises from Congressional leadership that the supplemental aid package will indeed come up for a vote. Earlier this month, Dems opposed to the trade legislation shot down TAA in an effort to stall passage of fast track trade authority in the House.
Today the Senate also advanced a bill that combines both TAA and African trade provisions. Once this bill passes the Senate (the cloture motion passed with over 70 votes, so it’s reasonable to assume the final vote will swing in the bill’s favor), it will head to the House, where it is also expected to pass.
Many have commented on this image throughout Monday, but perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that this so-called mainstream media objectivity is our political playing field going into the 2016 elections...
Courtesy of the Associated dePressed, this is but a taste of how astray our free press has become, particularly when contrasted against their preferred party's ruler...
Blatantly obvious, or obviously blatant, bias. More of that civility that liberals like to pay lip service towards, I suppose. But, hey, at least we're learning who they fear the most.
Gun control one week; Confederate flag the next. The narratives are passed down the line from this White House to their surrogates, then regurgitated by a mainstream, liberal biased media and passed off as news. Time and time again, the Left controls the agenda. And while those narratives rage on, our imperial president fans the flames with more racialization. The media demands the SC statehouse gets rid of the confederate flag, while Obama drops the N-word during a 'WTF' podcast interview. Talk about disconnected (so classy, NOT)! While the nation attempts to come together after Charleston, the Left continues to divide. After seeing the worst of humanity in this heinous act, we see the best of humanity reflected in these families and friends; but this president, his party, the collective Left cannot allow the people to come together in faith and forgiveness, and there's a reason for that: Because they've ALWAYS divided...
TRS: Mark Levin opened his show saying that once again the nation is focused on the left’s agenda, removing the Confederate flag, when it had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in Charleston. He also rips Obama for his use of the n-word and his comments on racism being in our DNA.
On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: Instead of discussing real issues we’re dragged into the Democrat agenda again, talking gun control and the Confederate flag – neither of which would have stopped the tragedy in South Carolina. Racism isn’t in the DNA of Americans despite President Obama’s claims. The Democrat party has done more damage to race relations than any other group. Race relations were very good before Obama, and now it’s like we’re living in the 1960s all over again. What’s in the news isn’t news anymore; it’s just Democratic press releases.
Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow - all progressed and supported by the Democratic Party. They can't even consider taking their first off the $20 bill! Racism is of the Democratic mindset. So if Obama wants to talk about racism in anybody's DNA, that rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree (of his own choosing, no less).
The same people who are complaining about the Confederate flag, raised that very flag in the mid-19th century, and now they're blaming everybody else, particularly of the white persuasion. They talk as if all blacks are victims & all whites are guilty (and some truly believe that!). There's your racialization and fanning the flames, while We The People (black, white, polka-dotted) are trying to come together in faith and unity.
Chasing the Confederate flag while destroying black urban communities across the land, promoting white guilt and dividing the rest of the nation into demographic politics, riling up tensions at every turn. That's THIS PRESIDENT, that's THIS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, that's THE LEFT! They CANNOT allow national healing, because that would be their undoing.
Progressives within both political parties want a government of discretion, not one of law. And wouldn't you know that we'd end up with the worst combination: imperialism from the Left, impotence and enabling on the Right. Levin appropriately paves the way to solve one of these problems in regards to the latter quislings (this could also be applied to the former, but good luck on that lost cause of a caucus)...
TRS: Mark Levin responded to the strong-arming by Jason Chaffetz last night in enforcing the will of the Republican establishment by laying out a plan to take down Boehner from the speakership.
Breitbart: It’s time for conservatives to take out House Speaker and all of his comrades in primaries, nationally syndicated radio host, New York Times bestselling author, and conservative movement thought leader Mark Levin argues in an exclusive comment to Breitbart News.
Levin’s comments come after Boehner’s retaliation against conservatives hit a new low this weekend, with a report from Politico about how House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) — playing along with Boehner’s scheme to attack Republicans for voting their conscience—removed Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) as the chairman of a subcommittee on his full committee. Levin even compared Boehner to 20th century Communist Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and how he cleansed his government of all dissent.
“Speaker Boehner’s and Congressman Chaffetz’s removal of Meadows is the latest in a series of ideologically-driven attacks on conservatives. Boehner seems to think he’s Stalin cleaning out all opposition in the Kremlin,” Levin said. “No Republican Speaker in recent times has behaved with less integrity in his wielding of power.”
Levin said that Boehner, House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — and more — each need to be removed by Republicans across the country in primaries in 2016. He says this is because the leadership has failed to learn the proper lessons from the astronomical defeat of now former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014 in a primary against now Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), the first time in U.S. history a sitting House Majority Leader was defeated in a primary. The position of majority leader was created in the late 1800s, so that means this never happened for more than a century—and Levin is calling out GOP leadership for failing to learn from the unprecedented event.
“Obviously, the lessons of Eric Cantor’s humiliating loss have not resonated with Boehner, McCarthy, and Scalise,” Levin said. “The only solution is for Conservatives to husband their resources and target these three in the coming Republican primaries. Conservatives need to find serious candidates and raise funds nationwide to defeat them. Let them fight for their political careers as our response to their disgusting and pathetic behavior.”
Instead of using their power against Obama, the party seems to have taken aim at conservatives in a bid to coalesce and re-enforce its own embedding into the body politic like a fat blood-sucking tick. Is that what we voted them in for?
To Conservatives in these political districts of Ohio, California and Louisiana: It is time to take a stand and mount an all-out political assault against these bought-and-paid-for establishment hacks! They do not represent your interest, only their own; therefore, they must be retired and replaced. Only you, the voter of these states, have that power.
"Conservatives across the country need to raise significant resources to target and defeat Boehner, McCarthy, and Scalise in upcoming primaries or they'll continue their war on conservatives in pursuit of bigger government."
ADDENDUM: While Boehner gloats over the removal of NC Rep. Mark Meadows and purging other conservatives for daring to vote their conscience (and principle), conservatives appear to be mounting a counterattack...
Newsweek: Conservative lawmakers serving as subcommittee chairmen are finding themselves on the receiving end of retribution from House leadership for defying party leaders.
Last week, 34 Republicans broke from their party in voting against a routine procedural rule that would have advanced Trade Promotion Authority. Since then, GOP leadership has come down hard on those members, removing some from the leadership team and threatening others with losing subcommittee chairmanships.
This show of force from leadership has angered conservative lawmakers and members of the House Freedom Caucus, who are speaking out against the “culture of punishment and fear” that’s emerged during John Boehner’s tenure as speaker.
Glad they're speaking out, but it's time for action. This Speaker needs to be removed!
Last week, while all eyes were on Charleston, the bastardized remnants of the Republican Party took a Rahm Emmanuel approach in pushing through TPA passage in the House and sending it on to their equally miscreant counterparts in the Senate for a vote scheduled to take place this week.
One week after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected Obamatrade by voting against a key provision of it — Trade Adjustment Assistance — GOP establishment lawmakers resuscitated Trade Promotion Authority and rammed it through Thursday afternoon. The final talley was 218-208.
The House action is unusual. As Breitbart News reported: “To engage in the complicated procedural chicanery needed to revive the once-dead Obamatrade, bringing its Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) portion back to life, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) needed to gut a previous bill that has passed the House and Senate and then insert Obamatrade into it. It’s actually a very similar process to how Obamacare passed the House.”
Obamatrade will face more hurdles, though.
Because the Senate passed TAA and TPA together, the individual House version will now have to go back to the Senate for approval, where it may face a filibuster. It’s unclear how many senators would support TPA without TAA, a measure to aid workers who lose their jobs because of trade policy.
The Senate isn’t expected to take up TPA until next week, but Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has expressed confidence it can pass.
Obamatrade is making for unusual partnerships in Washington. Barack Obama is working with McConnell and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to pass a measure his own party largely rejects.
Last week he traveled to Capitol Hill to lobby for his trade measures, but shortly before the House vote on TAA, Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced she opposes it. More than 300 representatives ended up voting down TAA, setting the stage for Thursday’s moves to bring TPA back to life.
I'm not as convinced of the supposed hurdles. Boehner and McConnell are damned and determined to give this imperial president more authority, thus ushering in ObamaTrade. Unfortunately, conservatives aren't coalesced in opposition, and too many are selling out America in the name of 'free trade'.
with a solemn softening and a humbled heart. Now here's the WRONG way...
...with the hardening demeanor of gun-control and racialist politics, which leads one to ask: perhaps the latter cultural derisiveness plays a part in the mayhem? This was a quick departure from before and after he uttered these words, just words. But you can always count on this president to never let a crisis go to waste.
I thought I should however at least provide readers with a few stats that conflict with what Obama would have you believe about mass shootings not happening in other advanced countries (here, here and here). Took me just a few minutes to find those, so I'm certain resourceful folks out there are perfectly capable of finding more truth to quash the lies.
Lastly, I'll refer to self-described ‘Indo-Creek/African American Libertarian’ Eric July in handling the incendiary liberal responses that would 'rather divide us by blaming all white people rather than seeing how much true profound sorrow is found from all Americans, black and white, conservative and liberal.'
Don't believe me that politicians will fuel this foolishness for political game?
Obama just blamed it on gun control
Let us meditate and pray as we recall the great words of a past Democratic president...
"Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us." ~ John F. Kennedy
...along with a dose of English enlightenment...
"Faith is not a notion, but a real strong essential hunger, an attracting or magnetic desire of Christ, which as it proceeds from a seed of the divine nature in us, so it attracts and unites with its like." ~ William Law
Comfort our Christian brethren in their grief, Lord, as we mourn with them.
The victims’ families spoke out in court to the Charleston shooter and when you hear them, they represent the best of America. You see how united America is with these families and then you have President Obama trying to divide us. We need a President who speaks to America about healing, humanity, the greatness of faith and God but we didn’t get that. We got a President who decided that this would be a perfect time to gin up the gun debate. There’s evil in humanity and no law or politician will change that.
