Obama Golfing Rather Than Attending Justice Scalia’s Funeral?

By Halimah Abdullah. President Barack Obama will not attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral Saturday, the White House confirmed.

Instead, the president will pay his respects on Friday, when Scalia’s body lies in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building. Vice President Joe Biden will attend Scalia’s funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the White House said Wednesday during a press briefing.

When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that “the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he’ll be joined with the first lady when he does that.”

When asked whether Obama’s Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia’s life and service . . .

Despite push back from Republicans who say Obama shouldn’t nominate a replacement in an election year, the White House made it clear Wednesday that the Constitution gives the president the right to select a “well qualified candidate” to the Supreme Court. (Read more from “Obama Golfing, Will Not Attend Justice Scalia’s Funeral?” HERE)

________________________________

UPDATE: Obama Holed Up in White House for Scalia’s Funeral, Would Normally Have Been Golfing

By Richard Wolf. President Obama stayed at the White House on a day he ordinarily might have played golf, leaving the limelight to a justice with whom he disagreed on just about everything. That prompted GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump to tweet, “I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque?”

…Into the breach stepped Father Paul Scalia, one of the justice’s nine children, who presided over his father’s 90-minute funeral Mass at the soaring Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. In his 16-minute homily, the younger Scalia hailed “a man loved by many, scorned by others … known for great controversy and for great compassion,” before clarifying that he meant Jesus of Nazareth.

“God blessed dad with a deep Catholic faith,” he said, and a love of country — a blessing that’s lost “when faith is banned from the public square.” That was the closest he came to a political statement in a homily intended to bring mourners together rather than fan the flames of political division.

Throughout the service, Scalia spoke more often of his father’s faith and belief in God, Jesus Christ and the Hereafter, and his hope he would be deemed worthy of it. Like the majestic church inhabited by messy construction scaffolding, he said Justice Scalia was a work in progress. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska: State of Chaos?

Our regular readers know we long for good news but are dedicated to connecting logical dots wherever they may lead.

The connections between politics, economics and energy demand that they be looked at as a whole, not separately–for they truly are all connected.

[The] avalanche of political, economic and energy news is both broad and deep.

The connection we see among these dots forms a worrisome picture.

That picture today reflects a rudderless ship of state.

Alaska’s governor is loud, dogmatic and demanding but vacillates between contrary positions, as today’s news and an unremarkable year in office demonstrate.

The legislature is struggling to put the state’s budget and fiscal crisis in order without stable navigation from the helm.

The oil and gas industry, upon which the state government and private economy depend, is trying valiantly to maintain its own stable course amid the stormy political winds and waves.

We would hate to label Alaska a “State of Chaos”. But if decision makers and citizens do not connect the dots and see their state as it is, there is little hope for correcting its dangerous course.

We hope someone or several Alaskans with extraordinary leadership skills can now emerge to diplomatically but decisively and wisely calm the winds, waves and storms of uncertainty and unnecessary dispute.

We will eagerly jump on that good news as soon as it rises and distinguishes itself.

We long to once again think of our land as the great, Last Frontier rather than as a troubled, declining place.

Events are moving rapidly, deteriorating, and time is of the essence.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dozens of Pro-Family Groups Challenge Trump in Open Letter to Answer Tough Questions

Mr. Trump:

We, the undersigned, represent millions of pro-family Americans who are dedicated to a nation where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive and life is cherished. As a national alliance with nearly 40 state-based organizations, we have invited you to participate in our Presidential Teleconference Series to share your views on the issues important to values voters. We have interviewed most of the leading candidates, but after several attempts, we have not yet been able to schedule such a call with you. Therefore, we direct the following questions to you on policy issues important to our constituents:

1. After years of describing yourself as “pro-choice in every respect” — even supporting partial-birth abortion — you now say that you are pro-life. Your explanation for this change of position – that a baby who was nearly aborted ended up being a “superstar” – is confusing, particularly since you acknowledged that if the child had been “a loser,” your pro-abortion position probably wouldn’t have changed. Please explain this utilitarian view of the sanctity of human life. Do you consider life only worth protecting if it meets certain criteria, and, if so, what are those criteria?

2. How do you square your new position on life with your statements in 2015 supporting continued taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion seller?

3. The next president is expected to nominate two to four U.S. Supreme Court justices, beginning immediately with the vacancy caused by the passing of Justice Scalia. These nominations will likely decide critical issues such as abortion. You’ve recommended your sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, for the High Court. Yet, as a federal judge, she overturned the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, writing that it “burdened a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.” How can we trust you to nominate judges who will respect the constitutional limits on judicial power and uphold the sanctity of human life?

4. You claim to support religious freedom, yet a leading gay-activist organization calls you “one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency” – particularly because of your “standout position” when it comes to legislation that forces Christian business owners – and others of faith – to either betray their conscience or lose their business. How do you reconcile these contradictory positions?

5. You have built your campaign on lifting the economic outlook of lower-income Americans, yet you built your fortune in part on gambling, which preys on those very people. How will you make America great when you’ve run businesses associated with increased crime, bankruptcies, broken marriages and suicides?

6. The first casino in the nation to add a strip club was Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, which boasts of “36,000 square feet of adult entertainment.” What would you say to young girls and women who are concerned about a president who is directly connected with the exploitation of women?

7. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, how do you justify your statements in support of a huge tax increase and government bailouts. Regarding the bank bailouts, you even stated: “I do agree with what they’re doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn’t matter, but you have to keep the banks going.” Perhaps most concerning of all is your continued admiration for single-payer, government-run healthcare systems. Please explain how this is consistent with the party of limited government?

8. One of your favorite campaign themes is that you are going to “run America” if elected. Considering our system of checks and balances, and especially in light of the last seven years of government by fiat, how will you demonstrate your respect for the U.S. Constitution and the limited power the Founding Fathers intended for the federal government in general, and the executive branch in particular?

Mr. Trump, we look forward to your response to these, and many other questions, affecting the lives of American families nationwide.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”

So said Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor on June 23, 1987, just 45 minutes after Robert Bork was nominated by President Reagan to replace the retiring Justice Lewis Powell.

Our Founders envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government in terms of influencing the political direction of the country. After all, in a democratic republic, it’s the elected representatives through the principles of federalism who must decide the critical societal questions of the time. Judges are not elected precisely because they were to have “neither force nor will” in directing our society, rather they were to interpret and apply the statutes as passed by Congress.

Even those Founders who believed the courts had the power of judicial review to strike down statutes also believed the courts were to exercise that power only on rare occasions and only when laws flagrantly violated the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution at the time it was adopted. And even in those instances, the court was never regarded as the universally binding “law of the land”; rather all three branches of government had co-equal authority in guarding the constitutional boundaries. After all, if the judiciary was to be the final arbiter of the Constitution, how could it have been said that it would be the weakest branch of government and not the most powerful?

Yet, throughout the 20th century, and crystalizing during the Warren-era, Democrats used the court system as the primary means of achieving social transformation, rewriting the Constitution, and redefining fundamental rights. When Reagan finally made a concerted effort to stop this undemocratic transformation by nominating a man who merely respected the role of the judiciary as our founders envisioned, Democrats viciously smeared his Supreme Court nominee, inventing a new term in the English language, “Borking.” Four years later, Democrats savaged Clarence Thomas, the first Republican African American Supreme Court nominee, with the worst personal attacks imaginable, almost derailing his confirmation.

Democrats had become too cowardly to work the democratic process in pursuit of their goals, so they sought to constitutionalize their political agenda through the unelected branch of government, out of the reach of the people. As such, they only nominated those who would supplant the Constitution for the Democratic Party platform and blocked any Republican nominee who would uphold the original vision of the court and the Constitution. Thus, within a few decades, the court had become the most consequential branch of government. Elections only mattered to the extent that they enabled the victor to change the orientation of the court. This is the bed the Democrats have made.

Yet, despite the Democratic politicization of the court and the confirmation process, Republicans did not return the favor. They dutifully confirmed the first Democrat appointees in years—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — with almost unanimous support. This, despite the fact that Ginsburg and Breyer were every bit as post-constitutional as Bork and Thomas were originalists.

This imbalance in approaches between the parties created a dynamic in which every Democrat-appointee was a radical liberal who promoted their agenda on the court. Whereas a number of Republican nominees — from Kennedy and Souter to Chief Justice Roberts–often side with the post-constitutionalists. Thus, even with Scalia on the court in his full glory, the Left still had a 5-4 majority to remake marriage — the building block of our civilization. And even the remaining slam dunk issues, such as gun rights, hang by a bare 5-4 constitutional thread.

Now with Scalia’s untimely death, we’ve come full circle and conservatives will no longer roll over and allow Democrats to wage one-sided judicial warfare. With Republicans in full control of the Senate, Democrats will be forced to lie in the bed they made for over half a century on the court and for three decades during the confirmation process.

If Democrats want to return the court to its original role when it wasn’t the final arbiter of social transformation, then let’s shake on it, strip the courts of jurisdiction, and confirm Obama’s nominee. As Justice Scalia always taught, when you believe strongly in a policy change, “persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

Now that Democrats have transmogrified the court into a super legislature, let the next election determine the outcome of the Supreme Court, as it does every policy-making body. (For more from the author of “Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Department Withholding Details of Bill Clinton’s North Korea Invitation

Conservative watchdog group Citizens United is calling on the State Department and the Clinton Foundation to turn over details about Bill Clinton’s invitation to a North Korea-connected event in 2012, amid Pyongyang’s latest escalation of its nuclear weapons program.

The North Korean request to Bill Clinton was included in a collection of State Department emails obtained by Citizens United through a public records request last year. The emails concern Bill Clinton’s paid foreign speaking engagements, which had to be approved by the State Department.

But the State Department has yet to release a May 2012 email attachment that contained details about the North Korea invitation, according to Citizens United. The group is calling on the State Department and the Clinton Foundation to turn over the document, in light of the Kim Jong-Un regime’s increasingly aggressive nuclear testing.

“North Korea is a rogue regime that is a threat to the security of the civilized world. Now, with its nuclear test and subsequent rocket launch, North Korea has inserted itself into the 2016 U.S. presidential race,” said Citizens United president David N. Bossie in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon.

“The Clinton Foundation and/or the State Department should immediately release the details of President Bill Clinton’s 2012 ‘North Korea invitation’ that is referenced in the attached State Department email that was obtained by Citizens United through a FOIA lawsuit over the summer of 2015.” (Read more from “State Department Withholding Details of Bill Clinton’s North Korea Invitation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Antonin Scalia Foresaw

In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia argued that under the Constitution, as correctly understood, the people could decide through their state governments to approve or not approve same-sex marriage. But the court had usurped that power and more.

“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,” said Scalia.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty,” he said, “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.”

A majority of the court has said that individuals have a right to kill unborn babies, but that the majority of a state does not have a right to prohibit two people of the same sex from “marrying.” The court is now poised to decide whether Catholic nuns — despite their First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of religion — can be forced to act against their religion in providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs.

What will be next from what Antonin Scalia rightly called the “unelected committee of nine” that now revises our Constitution? (Read more from “What Antonin Scalia Foresaw” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Decorated Marine Heckled by Black Lives Matter, Then Viciously Attacked Outside McDonald’s in D.C. [+video]

By Roz Plater. A decorated Marine veteran is recovering after a brutal attack Friday night. He says it happened at a McDonald’s on 911 E St., N.W., in Washington.

ABC7 News broke this story and has new details about a possible crucial piece of evidence. Wednesday night, reports suggest that Metropolitan Police may not release surveillance video from the incident.

30-year-old Chris Marquez was in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and received a bronze star for his heroism.

Marquez says while he was eating at a McDonald’s Friday night, a group of young people surrounded him and began yelling about “black lives matter.” Marquez says he sensed trouble and ignored them. When he left he was attacked and viciously beaten. (Read more from “Decorated Marine Heckled, Attacked by Group of Teens Outside McDonald’s in D.C.” HERE)

_________________________________

Black Lives Matter Protester Warns TheBlaze of the Coming ‘Race War’

By Josiah Ryan. A very small number of demonstrators took to the streets in front of NFL offices in New York City on Tuesday to protest Beyonce’s performance at Super Bowl 50 of her racially charged anthem “Formation,” which they deemed offensive.

In response Black Lives Matters protesters appeared with a counter-protest. Among them was Kalief Metellus, who told TheBlaze, he believed a “race war” may be on the horizon.

(Read more from “Black Lives Matter Protester Warns TheBlaze of the Coming ‘Race War'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Last Straw: Governor Brownback Endorses Rubio

Kansas Gov. Brownback endorsed Marco Rubio. No surprise here.

Just as Brownback lied to the citizens of Kansas to win his gubernatorial seat, saying he was opposed to the “unconstitutional and socialistic” Obama Care, before he entered an agreement with the feds to implement it, Rubio lied about supporting amnesty and wanting to expand immigration to win his federal Senate seat.

Rubio ran for the federal Senate on a platform of no amnesty of any kind or any magnitude for illegal immigrates. He beat up his opponent, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), over Crist’s support for amnesty. (Lynn Jenkins did the same to Jim Ryan.) Rubio even said that Crist’s position ” …’an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty…’ ” According to Rubio’s campaign rhetoric he did not support amnesty no how, no way. Heck, Rubio even supported English as the official language of the U.S.

Sadly, Rubio’s record as a state legislator foreshadowed his real immigration stance.

Nonetheless, Rubio had beguiled the “tea party” in Florida and he was their man. The “tea party” was more mad than informed and do doubt some suffered from the short term memory, partisanship and indifference to Liberty the charlatan politicians and billionaire elitists rely upon. (I have seen the same maladies in Kansas.)

As soon as Rubio arrived in Washington D.C. he staffed his office with a couple of the most pro-amnesty people in Washington (Cesar Conda) and joined up with the others in the “gang of eight” such as Lindsey Graham(R) and John McCain (R) and helped to pen “…the biggest mass immigration / amnesty bill anyone had ever seen….”

Rubio had “talking head” help from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity et.al. (Two of the same “talking heads” now supporting a rewrite to our U.S. Constitution via an Article V amendments convention, which Rubio also supports.) As the Washington Post said: “Mr. Rubio’s main public role in the debate wasn’t about amendments or specifics; it was about selling the measure to a skeptical conservative electorate.”

To Rubio (as with Brownback) it was not what “We the People” wanted, the rule of law or what was good for America it was what was politically expedient for him and staying on the right side of the GOP Establishment and their billionaire masters. That was his real objective. “Billionaire donors and their pollsters declared that the GOP must pass an amnesty and mass immigration plan… ” and Rubio was going to give it to them.

It has been said that “a leopard cannot change its spots” and so it is with a skunk and its strip.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White Students Undergo Weekly ‘Deconstructing Whiteness’ Program at College

White college students are undergoing a weekly “deconstructing whiteness” program at Northwestern University.

The “6-part workshop series for undergraduate students who self-identify as white” launched in January and runs through March, according to the university’s website. Students enrolled chose to do so – it is voluntary.

A spokesman for the prestigious private university located outside Chicago declined to give The College Fix details on the program, such as how many students enrolled and how it’s been received so far.

“It’s part of Northwestern’s Social Justice Education effort to create learning opportunities for our students,” Bob Rowley, a spokesman for the campus, told The College Fix in an email, providing a link to the social justice webpage and adding: “Beyond that, we don’t have anything more for you on it.”

According to a report in the campus newspaper, the workshops focus on “terminology used in conversations of race, the history and meaning of whiteness, white guilt and the difference between intellectualizing and feeling racism.” (Read more from “White Students Undergo Weekly ‘Deconstructing Whiteness’ Program at College” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

“Was Scalia Murdered?” Detectives Raise Serious Questions About Death, Trump Weighs In

By WND. With confirmation that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday morning with a pillow over his head and his clothes unwrinkled, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage called for an investigation on the level of the presidentially appointed probe into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

“Was [Scalia] murdered?” Savage asked his listeners.

“We need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation,” he said. “This is serious business.”

Savage said an immediate autopsy of the body is needed.

“There was no medical examiner present. There was no one who declared the death who was there. It was done by telephone from a U.S. Marshal appointed by Obama himself,” he said. (Read more from “Was Scalia Murdered?” HERE)

___________________________________

Detectives Question Lack of Autopsy in Scalia Death

By Jamie Schram and Bob Fredericks. Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”

Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.

“I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair,” Ritchie told The Post from his home in Maryland. (Read more from “Detectives Question Lack of Autopsy in Scalia Death” HERE)

___________________________________

Trump: ‘Pretty Unusual’ Scalia Was Found With ‘Pillow on His Face’

By Alex Griswold. During a Tuesday interview with talk show host Michael Savage, Donald Trump seemed to lend some credence to the conspiracy theories that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, saying it was “pretty unusual” they found a pillow on his face.

“Donald, I need to come back to the topic we’ve all been screaming about here, which is Scalia, was he murdered,” Savage said. “I know it’s pretty brutal to say that, and I’m not wanting to drag you into this, but this is going to be bigger and bigger and bigger” . . .

“They say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow,” Trump said. “I can’t tell you– I can’t give you an answer.” (Read more from “Trump: ‘Pretty Unusual’ Scalia Was Found With ‘Pillow on His Face'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.