Gov. Mary Fallin on Tuesday said the Ten Commandments monument will stay at the Capitol despite a court ruling that said it violated the state Constitution and must be removed.
Fallin said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider its 7-2 decision, which was handed down last week after a challenge by the ACLU of Oklahoma on behalf of three plaintiffs.
In addition, lawmakers have filed legislation to let people vote on whether to remove a portion of the state Constitution cited in the ruling. Article II, Section 5 of the constitution reads:
“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such,” according to the Oklahoma Constitution.
The court said the monument was obviously religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The constitution bans the state from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose, according to the opinion. (Read more from “Gov. Mary Fallin, Monument Unmoved by Supreme Court’s Ten Commandments Ruling” HERE)
If the logic of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right is pushed to the limit — and its giddy supporters show no sign of restraint, looting the culture like a horde of victorious Vikings — the federal government could soon strip orthodox churches of their tax exemptions. Then they’ll send church leaders the bill for hundreds of millions of dollars. Property taxes will be assessed on cathedrals and soup kitchens, on hospices and pregnancy shelters, on nursing homes and universities. School principals will pay business tax on the tuition scraped together by low-income families to shoestring religious schools, so they’ll have to raise it or close them. The money you give to your church will not be tax deductible — as it would have been if you gave it to Planned Parenthood. The state will treat your tithes the same as the money you lost in Vegas; perhaps you can write some of it off as an “entertainment expense.”
And I wonder what the leaders of our churches will do. I speak here as a Catholic, though I’m sure that my Protestant brethren are wrestling with their own set of anxieties. I was cheered when the Sunday after the same-sex marriage decision, the bishop here in Dallas had a statement read in all parishes, reaffirming our church’s commitment to natural, biblical marriage. But I have been less than inspired by other things that I’ve seen. On Fox News, Bill O’Reilly complained that his producers had approached bishop after bishop, seeking some spokesman to give the Church’s position. No one would do it.
There’s a palpable fear of Caesar at work here, but also something else. I am trying to figure out what that “x factor” is.
Explain for me, someone, the response of progressives’ dreamboat Chicago Archbishop Cupich to the same-sex decision: Along with a pro forma restatement of church teaching, he reasserted the need for “real, not rhetorical” respect for homosexuals and promised to “extend support to all families, no matter their circumstances, recognizing that we are all relatives, journeying through life under the careful watch of a loving God.” He made no mention of the court’s challenge to religious liberty.
What’s going on in London, where the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster, the leader of Britain’s Catholics, approved a group of “Catholic” gay activists marching in London’s gay pride parade? His spokesman explained that their presence was a form of “evangelization.” Could that well-paid church bureaucrat keep a straight face as he said that? How beaten-down, docile, or foolish does he think we Catholics are? Do Catholic civil-rights groups march arm-in-arm with the Klan as an evangelistic enterprise?
It’s alarming to recall that several prominent bishops at the last Synod on the Family proposed language that would have undermined Catholic teaching on this subject at its root, asking that the Church recognize the special gifts that gay Catholics bring by virtue of their sexual orientation. That language was mercifully struck from the final draft of the document, but those bishops were not disciplined, or even publicly corrected. Indeed, they recently held a secret meeting planning their strategy for the next Synod.
The bishops acted forthrightly against the HHS mandate, which demanded that Catholic institutions underwrite their employees’ use of contraceptives, including abortifacients. It was brave but a no-brainer, since unborn lives were involved. That factor attracted support from many Protestant churchmen, and brave owners of businesses such as Hobby Lobby. Everyone accepts the fact that Catholic bishops oppose abortion, and they would have been utterly discredited had they done anything else.
But I wonder, really wonder, what bishops will do in this case, if the Feds insist that they hire people in same-sex “marriages” to teach in Catholic schools, and then that they perform same-sex weddings in their churches — or else pay tens of millions of dollars in taxes on their property.
Few noticed the reaction when the Obama administration insisted that non-profit groups who receive federal contracts must comply with non-discrimination rules, and hire openly gay employees, including those in same-sex marriages. This order seemed to threaten lucrative partnerships with the federal government, especially the bishops’ involvement in resettling immigrants.
Our bishops condemned the order, but I have been unable to find the names of any Catholic federal contractors who lost government business rather than comply. (Perhaps they exploited the loophole in the order allowing church agencies to refuse to hire gays for specific jobs germane to the “religious identity” of the agencies.) Catholic Charities, which since 1997 had pressured the church in San Francisco to offer benefits for domestic partners, responded by announcing it was pleased with the order, and already in full compliance. Catholic Relief Services condemned the order, but a year later we learn that a vice-president of Catholic Relief Services is a gay activist who has contracted a same-sex “marriage.”
Bill O’Reilly cited the sex abuse crisis as a possible source of bishops’ reticence to speak out in defense of religious liberty. He wondered if they thought their credibility was too tainted, given that as of 2002, two-thirds of U.S. bishops had been implicated in cover-ups. I disagree; the bishops seem quite unabashed about intervening in U.S. politics when it comes to poverty programs and immigration. But many bishops’ behavior in the sex abuse crisis does give us an ominous hint about how they might act in the current crisis.
As prosecutors argued in court summation arguments and internal church documents reveal, the best explanation of bishops’ appalling failure to remove and report sex abusers is simple: worldliness. When confronted with middle-aged men who seduced vulnerable teenagers, their reaction was to worry about the church’s bottom line. If they didn’t stifle this secret, would they be subject to lawsuits? Would the church’s reputation suffer, and would donors divert their money elsewhere? What would happen to their diocese’s insurance premiums? At all costs, at the cost of countless ruined lives, of young souls twisted and alienated from Christ, these bishops acted to save the bricks and mortar. And in an irony worthy of Dante, that very choice cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
The bishops could soon face a much more ominous threat to their finances, and instead of tort lawyers they would be threatened by the full force of the U.S. federal government. Will they stand firm and risk those magnificent Gothic buildings, those vital health care centers, that network of schools that serves the urban poor? Or will they tell themselves that the really “Christian” thing to do will be to listen to the culture, to maintain their mission as best they can by tweaking their public witness, to save not souls but bricks and mortar?
It might just take a miracle to keep the Catholic hierarchy in America on track with the church’s perennial teaching on marriage. But all things are possible with God. (“If the Feds Demand Same-Sex Marriage, What Will Our Pastors Do?”, originally posted HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:54:002016-04-11 10:59:09When the Feds Demand Same-Sex Marriage, What Will Our Bishops and Pastors Do? [+video]
There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.
Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare. The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.
Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.
They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.
This is what George Orwell understood so well in his landmark novel “1984.” His dystopian state doesn’t really care about quotidian obedience; it already knows how to get that. What it demands, and will get by any means, is a belief in the Party’s rectitude and in its leader, Big Brother. If torturing the daylights out of people until they denounce even their loved ones is what it takes, so be it. That’s why the ending of the novel is so terrifying: after the two rebellious lovers of the story are broken and made to turn on each other, the wrecks left by the State are left to sit before the Leader’s face on a screen with only one emotion still alive in the husks of their bodies: they finally, truly love Big Brother.
Americans Are Getting Too Comfortable With Thought Control
I’ve gone down this road of literary and academic exposition because I fear an increasing number of my fellow Americans are, at heart, becoming totalitarians. (Read more from “The New Totalitarians Are Here” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:52:592016-04-11 10:59:09The New Totalitarians Are Here
Judicial Watch today released new Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents that include an official “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity.
The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”
The documents were produced subsequent to court orders in two Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits: Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-1956) and Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-1239).
The new IRS documents include a October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity:
On October 8, 2010, Lois Lerner, Joe Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, TEGE], Judy Kindell [top aide to Lerner], Justin Lowe [Technical Advisor to the Commissioner of Tax-Exempt and Government Entities], and Siri Buller met with the section chief and other attorneys from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and one representative from the FBI, to discuss recent attention to the political activity of exempt organizations.
(Read more from “New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges of Obama Opponents” HERE)
Once upon a time, common sense reigned supreme, even in our political system. Sure, politicians would argue over subsidies and entitlements and other fiscal issues. But before our body politic was hijacked by a cartel of special interests who worship the pagan gods of political correctness and selfish parochial desires, both progressives and conservatives had a sense of justice and fairness as it relates to illegal immigration.
On January 25, 1993, two CIA agents were shot and killed outside of the Langley headquarters by a Pakistani illegal alien. A month later, a group of Islamic terrorists, that included several illegal aliens, executed the first bombing attack on the World Trade Center. Even though these events were not prototypical of the predominant illegal immigration problems we experienced from the southern border, none other than Harry Reid wasted no time in demanding comprehensive enforcement against all illegal immigration.
Reid introduced a bill on Aug. 4, 1993, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 (S.1351), which would have ended birthright citizenship (an idea he called “insane”), clamped down on asylum seekers (very pertinent to World Trade Center bombing), expanded deportation of criminal aliens, increased penalties on re-entries and visa fraud, and excluded all legal immigrants from admission who “cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance.”
In a press release unveiling the bill, Reid noted the following:
“Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement. “Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes. “Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.”
He added this Trumpesque line:
“Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally.”
Remember, this is at a time when the illegal alien population was just 3-4 million, and the fiscal and criminal cost incurred by this country was a fraction of what it is today.
On September 20, Reid delivered a riveting speech on the Senate floor covering every talking point Jeff Sessions, Steve King, and Donald Trump have ever mentioned – and then some. [Congressional Record, page s11999] His speech was prophetic and ahead of its time, warning of the ill effects of both illegal immigration and unbridled legal immigration on our criminal justice system, education, hospitals, welfare, and culture. Reid cited an observation from Bob Dole that “wherever he travels around the country, he is confronted with concern about the direction of the policy of immigration as it relates to the United States.” And Reid added, “these are not racist people who are raising this issue.”
Later in the year, Reid added an amendment to the 1993-94 crime bill, co-sponsored by such liberal luminaries as Sens. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Alan Simpson, (R-WY), that closed all sorts of loopholes dealing with criminal aliens and mandated more cooperation between local and federal law enforcement.
Fast-forward 22 years later, and the cost and danger to our society from illegal immigration are incalculable – far beyond Reid’s worst nightmares in 1993. We have experienced an endless slew of murders, rapes, and drunk driving incidents from an infinite flow of illegal immigrants, culminating with the two murders over the weekend. These murders are the direct result of not only the political disregard for immigration enforcement, but the official and relentless dismantling of interior enforcement and cooperation between state and local law enforcement.
Instead of Democrats and Republicans coming together to immediately address this national emergency, not a single GOP leader will fight against sanctuary cities and Obama’s abolishing of Secure Communities and the 287g program. In fact, John Boehner spent Independence Day overseas promoting more amnesty and the very policies that have encouraged this calamity in the first place. Harry Reid himself was forced to have an ideological sex change operation because of the special interests that have taken over his party.
Stand back and behold just how corrosive and destructive the cult of political correctness and special interests politics can be to the very existence of a nation and its sovereignty. It would probably take a PHD in math to calculate the cost of illegal immigration to this nation – both tangibly and intangibly – since Reid sounded a frenetic alarm 22 years ago. Yet, modern-day Republicans cannot even hold the ground held by the Democrat leader on immigration just one generation ago.
Instead of wetting their pants over Donald Trump, the short-sighted and capricious political class would be wise to study Harry Reid’s speech from 1993. A full transcript of his speech can be found here. (“Harry Reid Was Donald Trump Before Trump Was Uncool”, originally posted HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:51:092016-04-11 10:59:10Harry Reid Was Donald Trump Before Trump Was Uncool [+video]
By Personal Liberty News Desk. Ahead of Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday appearance on CNN, her first national television interview of the 2016 election season, Twitter users beautifully trolled the former first lady using the hashtag #CNNHillaryQuestions. Here are eight essential questions the Twitterverse wants Clinton to answer.
1: Anything else you’d like to steal from the White House?
Do you have your eyes on any new White House artifacts/property you’d like to be taking home after your term is up? #CNNHillaryQuestions
— Keith MacDonald (@Macs_Wax) July 7, 2015
2: What difference, at this point, does it make?
#CNNHillaryQuestions At what point does something no longer matter?
— Angus E. Parvo (@angusparvo) July 6, 2015
3: How will you contain the media once they learn the ropes?
#CNNHillaryQuestions When the media learns how to go under or around ropes will you use bars?
— MarketRunner (@SWGaspar) July 6, 2015
(Read more from “Twitter Users Offer Hilarious Questions for Hillary Clinton’s First Interview” HERE)
By Eric Bradner. In Hillary Clinton’s first national interview of the 2016 race, she attacked her Republican rivals on immigration and dismissed the suggestion that the American people have a problem trusting her.
“People should and do trust me,” she told CNN’s Brianna Keilar.
She blamed the “barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right” for fueling a perception that trust is an area of vulnerability for her.
Clinton displayed little hesitation about attacking Republicans herself, saying that she is “very disappointed” in Donald Trump for his comments about immigrants and in the Republican Party for not condemning his remarks more quickly.
She then pivoted to skewering the entire GOP field for their immigration stance, saying, “They’re on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours.” (Read more from this story HERE)
Google data analysis suggests that “porn” and “suicide” searches dominate late night online inquiries, while searches for free video games and other anonymous searches flow throughout the day.
A New York Times analysis of Google’s “very sharp” data for New York state pinpointed some rather precise searches throughout the day and night.
“Unblocked games,” or those not blocked by school administrators, peaks at 8:04 a.m., and stays high throughout the day until 1:30 p.m. Searches for “weather,” “prayer” and “news” peak before 5:30 a.m., suggesting Americans wake up early across their respective time zones.
Bizarre questions and those pursuing “anxiety” and “suicide” answers are rampant throughout late night hours. Google’s released data doesn’t show the total number of searches, but rather, the search rate for a word and at what time it’s highest – meaning an unusually large amount of searches went out at that respective hour.
In the U.K., searches for “Tinder” peak at 12:30 a.m., searches for porn peak at 1:30 a.m., and almost exactly one hour later, the search term “lonely” hits its peak at 2:30 a.m. In the U.S., searches between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. are key times for humans’ most vast inquiries: “What is the meaning of consciousness? Does free will exist? Is there life on other planets? The popularity of these questions late at night may be a result, in part, of cannabis use. Search rates for ‘how to roll a joint’” reports The Times. (Read more from “Here Are the Top Late Night Google Searches” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:50:402016-04-11 10:59:10Here are the Top Late Night Google Searches and They’re Disturbing
The American Dream of a home is slipping out of reach for millions of Americans, especially African Americans, as house sales hit a 20-year low, according to a new Harvard University study of the U.S. housing market . . .
Overall, home ownership, the cornerstone of the American Dream, is down to 63 percent, a far cry from the 69 percent registered in 2004. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University’s annual “State of the Nation’s Housing” report said current home ownership percentages rival that of 1993.
Those figures, however, are much worse for minorities, especially blacks. “The homeownership rate for minorities continues to lag: It peaked at 51.3 percent in 2004, and has now fallen to 47.2 percent. Of all minority groups, African Americans have the lowest rate of homeownership, just 43.8 percent,” said the report.
The reason for the decline is the languishing economy and poor pay. Harvard said that a key factor is the “steady erosion” of incomes since the recession began. (Read more from “Harvard: Home Ownership at 20-Year Low, Here’s Who Suffers Most” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:50:302016-04-11 10:59:10Harvard Study: Home Ownership at 20-Year Low, Here’s Who Suffers Most [+video]
The tension between GOP leadership and House conservatives might have eased somewhat, now that Rep. Mark Meadows has his subcommittee gavel back. But the distrust, even anger, within the conference after last month’s crackdown on House Freedom Caucus members hasn’t quite been relieved.
Instead, leadership’s effort to subdue the 34 Republicans who defied the speaker on a June 11 trade vote seems to have left conservatives emboldened, not cowed.
Evidence of that came just before the Fourth of July recess, when HFC members made it clear that Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz needed to reinstate North Carolina’s Meadows as chairman of an Oversight subcommittee.
In a roughly two-hour meeting of the panel’s Republicans — a meeting that HFC Chairman Jim Jordan described to CQ Roll Call as “a good family discussion” — HFC members presented Chaffetz with a reality. He needed their votes to pick a new chairman — and Chaffetz was in the minority.
Oversight — not generally considered a plum committee assignment — is stacked with HFC members. Roughly half of the 25 Republicans on the committee are, like Meadows, in the Freedom Caucus; and many more were sympathetic to Meadows, who is well-liked in the conference. (Read more from “House Conservatives Emboldened, Despite Crackdown” HERE)
Photo Credit: Fox News The gun used by a Mexican illegal alien when he allegedly shot dead a 32-year-old woman at a San Francisco pier belonged to a federal agent, a source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday.
It was not immediately clear how Francisco Sanchez, 45, would have obtained the weapon. However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported sources told the paper the gun had been stolen during a car burglary in June.
Earlier Tuesday, Sanchez pled not guilty to first-degree murder in last week’s shooting of Kathryn Steinle, 32, while she was walking with her father and a family friend at Pier 14. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.
Sanchez had previously told KGO-TV Sunday in a mix of Spanish and English that he found a gun wrapped inside a shirt while he was sitting on a bench at the pier and smoking a cigarette . . .
The shooting has drawn national attention and criticism of the city’s sanctuary ordinance after federal officials revealed that Sanchez has seven felony convictions and was deported five times to his native Mexico. (Read more from “Illegal Alien Suspect in California Shooting Allegedly Used a Federal Agent’s Gun” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-08 02:50:072016-04-11 10:59:11Illegal Alien Suspect in California Shooting Allegedly Used a Federal Agent’s Gun