Dissolving the Institution of Marriage

American Thinker

For years, opponents of same-sex marriage fretted that the unleashing of gay nuptials would open the door for all types of sexual decadence. Last presidential cycle, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was panned heavily for comparing gay marriage to polygamy at a New Hampshire stop on the campaign trail. After a college student questioned his vigorous opposition to same sex couples being wed, Santorum responded in turn: “If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong?” The remark was met with boos from students and condemnation from the liberal press.

Less than two years later, Santorum ran a victory lap after a federal judge struck down a ban on polygamy in Utah. The ruling didn’t enshrine the right to polygamy in the state per se; it only held that polygamous individuals can’t be discriminated against under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. They still don’t have the right to marry, but give it time.

Must Hear: Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro; Impeach Manchurian Candidate Barack Obama

Birther Report

NewzVids: In a interview with Michael Savage on The Savage Nation, Fox’s Judge Jeanine Pirro discusses why she thinks Barack Obama should be impeached even referencing the Manchurian Candidate. She also comments on the billions of rounds of ammunition purchased by DHS to which she said ‘ What’s that about’.

Obama: “My Government” Didn’t Need Congressional Approval For To Make Deal With Taliban

Weasel Zippers

He believes he is the government. If Congress does not challenge this, he will be.

Via IJR:

During an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Barack Obama claims – incredibly – that “my government” acted ‘unanimously” in its decision to trade five Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

It was a “unanimous decision” by “my government.” “I make no apologies for it.”

But surely, he meant to say “my administration,” right? Don’t bet on it.

The deal was overwhelmingly rejected in 2012 by members of Congress, Pentagon officials and the intel community. That doesn’t suggest that the American people’s government was “unanimous” about the deal.

Pic of the Day

photo via Facebook

Obama Gave Material Assistance To Our Taliban Enemy

Investors.com

National Security: Federal law prohibits any person — repeat, any person — from providing material assistance to terrorists, including human assets. But that’s what the president did in releasing five Taliban commanders.

When iconic interviewer David Frost asked former President Nixon about the legality of his actions in the Watergate affair, Nixon said “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

That’s an attitude seemingly shared by the current occupant of the Oval Office.

As former congressman and Afghanistan veteran Allen West points out, President Obama signed into law only months ago the National Defense Authorization Act, which makes it a crime to offer or provide any material support to terrorist groups. It makes no exception as to who and under which circumstances.

Holder Using Money Meant To Secure Border To Pay For Lawyers For Illegals To Avoid Deportation

Weasel Zippers

Via Top Right News:

Yes, that headline is real. You have not gone insane, although we wouldn’t be surprised if you did, given the utter lawlessness of this administration.

Texas is being overrun by illegal aliens at the highest rates in U.S. history. More than 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been caught in the first five months of this year, a 92% increase over the same time period in 2013 . Obama is also dumping thousands of those illegals into Arizona, as payback for the crackdown on illegals by Gov. Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The Obama Administration is working hand-in-hand with Central American governments to engineer this deliberate, unprecedented invasion of illegal aliens. La Raza groups are spreading the word that Obama will sign administrative amnesty. And nations like El Salvador and Honduras are urging women and children to make the grueling trek to cross the U.S. border, because Obama will never deport them, and they can receive jobs and taxpayer-funded welfare for life.

Obama has requested $2 billion — not to deport the illegals from this unprecedented invasion — but to house, clothe and feed them, and even deliver them to relatives already here illegally, so they can stay here indefinitely.

And now Eric Holder, who is supposed to be the highest law enforcement official in America, is unleashing a new lawless program to actually provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to these invading illegals — to make sure they will never be deported by an immigration judge. And Holder is grabbing $2 million of a $315 million fund that is supposed to help secure the border, not make a mockery of border security.

Keep reading…

Unlike legal residents or citizens, illegal aliens are NOT entitled to legal representation. So Holder is effectively creating a whole new money pit to prop up the right of illegals to stay in the country, after Obama enticed them to begin with with promises of amnesty.

The Bergdahl Exchange — a Wider Legal View

American Thinker

A number of plainly sensible arguments have already been raised in opposition to President Obama’s exchange of an American military prisoner for assorted Taliban terrorists. Wherever these arguments have centered on the expected creation of additional and possibly new risks to Americans, they have been compelling, even unassailable. Now, however, it should also be pointed out that there are certain vital and sometimes intersecting issues of U.S. law and international law involved in this matter. These specifically jurisprudential issues warrant immediate and informed clarification.

The Democrats Try to Repeal the First Amendment: Hear It Here

Powerline

by John Hinderaker

Friday morning, I was on the Bill Bennett show with guest host Mark Davis, talking about the Senate Democrats’ effort to pass the Udall Amendment, which would gut the First Amendment. While the Democrats’ proposal would not disturb the First Amendment’s protection for such activities as flag burning, nude dancing and marching in Nazi regalia, it would take away the constitutional right to participate in the political process by supporting or opposing candidates. Unless you own a newspaper or television network.

You can listen to my segment of the show right here:

On 6/5, 65 Things We Know About NSA Surveillance That We Didn’t Know a Year Ago

EFF

It’s been one year since the Guardian first published the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, that demonstrated that the NSA was conducting dragnet surveillance on millions of innocent people. Since then, the onslaught of disturbing revelations, from disclosures, admissions from government officials, Freedom of Information Act requests, and lawsuits, has been nonstop. On the anniversary of that first leak, here are 65 things we know about NSA spying that we did not know a year ago:

For the First Time Ever Islamic Prayer Will Be Held at Vatican This Weekend

Gateway Pundit

Was this really necessary?
For the first time on record Islamic prayers will be held at the Vatican this weekend. It is a move by Pope Francis to usher in peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Al-Arabiya reported

For the first time in history, Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran will be heard at the Vatican on Sunday, in a move by Pope Francis to usher in peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Francis issued the invitation to Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during his visit last week to Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas, Peres, and Francis will be joined by Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious leaders, a statement released by Peres’s spokesperson said, according to the Times of Israel.

Of course, Bibles are still banned in Mecca.