Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Will Be Another Roe v. Wade

As I reflect on what seems the inevitable – the Supreme Court arbitrarily making same-sex marriage the de facto law of the land – it occurs to me how similar this will be to Roe v. Wade.

Numerous state laws will be arbitrarily struck down using an absurd “interpretation” of the Constitution as a fig leaf.  This time, not as many state laws in part because lower courts have already done a lot of the dirty work of overturning Constitutional democracy.

Activists will not be appeased as tolerance of their killing (abortion)/perversion (You know what.) will not be enough for them.  They will demand support and endorsement.  A key instance of this after Roe v. Wade was the demand for federal funding of elective abortions.  Today, we can already see what is coming as the Gaystapo demands endorsement of and even participation in gay marriage or else.  “Else” meaning ruinous fines for one thing.

This time such attacks on people’s consciences will likely be more successful.  The main attack after Roe v. Wade was to force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.  But that effort was largely thwarted by the Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976.  However, several states fund elective abortions today. 

The attack this time seems to having more success as life and business is becoming more difficult for those who refuse to endorse or participate in same-sex “marriage”.  I’ve mentioned fines.  On the way are attacks on the tax exemptions for churches and charities that refuse to bow down to the god of gay.  And before you think I am being alarmist, Obama’s Solicitor General admitted that “is going to be an issue”:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I -- I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I -- I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue.

May I suggest it should be made an issue in the presidential campaign?  Hillary Clinton has already indicated that her version of freedom of religion is confined to “freedom of worship.”  She especially should be asked where her administration would stand on this issue.  (And watching her dance around this should have entertainment value as well.)

There was hope that Roe v. Wade would “settle” the question of abortion and calm divisions over it.  But it made divisions worse, much worse. It satisfied neither the feminazis or the pro-lifers.   Expect the same this time, largely because the Pink Shirt Gaystapo will not be appeased and will not allow space for those who disagree with gay marriage.  The fight for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion will only grow more heated.

Finally, there will be another similarity to be regretted.  Not one state had the backbone to defy Roe v. Wade, an arbitrary anti-Constitutional ruling that begged to be defied.  Expect the same cowardice this time around as well.

Mohammed Recognized as Prophet in Westminster Abbey

During a Gallipoli centenary service at Westminster Abbey, in the presence of The Queen no less, a Turkish prayer was said which proclaimed Mohammed as being in the succession of the prophets.  Cranmer has the text of the prayer.

Now perhaps we could write off the inclusion of the prayer in the service as interfaith politeness and inclusion, if you will.  But last I attended, Westminster Abbey was a Christian institution, a royal peculiar of God’s Holy Church.  And Christians are not to give the illusion that false religion has any honored place in the Church.  Nor are they to give any space to the deadly delusion that Christianity is an optional way to God, and Islam et al are alternative ways to God.  Yes, these are the chief reasons I oppose virtually all interfaith services.

(And if you think that’s mean, look at how Muslims treat Christian expression.)

Readers know I am no basher of Westminster Abbey.  I love the place and her Dean and have fond memories of worshipping there on numerous occasions.  But Westminster Abbey owes an explanation for this enormity.  I disagree with Cranmer on much, but I heartily agree with his conclusion:

It may not be very PC or neighbourly or conducive to interfaith relations to say it, but Mohammed was a false prophet (Jer 14:14-16; 1Jn 4:1; Acts 4:12; 2Cor 11:3f). By rejecting the crucifixion and denying the resurrection of Christ (who is not the ‘Chosen One’), Islam espouses ‘another Jesus’, ‘another spirit’ and ‘another gospel’. They are and ought to remain free to proclaim their religiosity, however false and erroneous it may be. But not, please God, in The Collegiate Church of St Peter (aka Westminster Abbey), which is a Royal Peculiar of the Supreme Governor.

Time For a National Divorce?

This is another one of those posts I’ve been reluctant to do.  It is such a difficult subject with so much baggage.  And this venturous post at least will be rambling and thinking out loud.  But, prompted by Ace’s courage, I think it is time to discuss whether the United States, so-called, should remain together.

We are a profoundly divided country.  Yes, we have had our divisions before.  But I do not think they have ever been as irreconcilable as now.  And I do include the Civil War in that. 

In the past, we have been divided mostly over how government should implement shared American values.  Now we share American values less and less.  And now there is more willingness of those in control of government not only to impose the values of one side of the country, Blue State liberals and leftists, on the rest of the country, but also to punish individuals for seeking to live out their more traditional values.  That some states are forcing business participation in gay weddings and that some polls have a plurality of “Americans” as o. k. with that is one distressing instance.  We are becoming more and more totalitarian, and about 35-45% of “Americans” are apparently fine with that.

Whatever happened to “Mind your own business”?

With the support of such, the Federal Government, in league with most Blue State governments, has become a tool to impose Leftist Blue values on the rest of us.  The Federal Government has become a tool of Blue States to put Red States under their thumb.

If we had the robust federalism of the Constitution, we perhaps could continue divided.  If California, New York, etc. wants to go to hell, who am I to stop them?  But using Washington D. C. to drag me there is another matter.  The Blues have such a totalitarian streak and such a resentment of us free Texans that they want to control us, too.  To that end, the Blue States and their D. C. Fed tools have so eviscerated the Constitution that hardly any federalism and states’ rights remain. Constitutional rights protecting individuals are endangered and under attack as well.

In short, most Americans want the Blue states and the Feds to leave them alone to lead free and peaceable lives.  But even that modest (and Constitutional) space is being taken from us.

What makes matters worse is there is no party really defending us at the Federal level.  The national Republican Party has been taken over by those who enable big quasi-totalitarian Federal government.  Oh, they talk about taking up for us at election time, but capitulate afterwards.  See Boehner, McConnell and their ilk.  Really, they secretly like big government and want to be in charge of it.

The electorate still revolts against Federal tyranny on occasion.  See the 2010 and 2014 elections.  But both major parties have thwarted the message of those elections at the federal level.  And both parties are all for importing millions of those who share bankrupt big patron statist values to further dilute the votes of real Americans.  We are in effect going back to taxation without representation.  Us rube Red flyover states are becoming the new colonies.

To which I say, “No, thanks.”

Yes, I support efforts to revive federalism and states rights, such as Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.  Yes, I think individuals and the states should defy Fed tyranny, with nullification if necessary.  Yes, I think it is possible that 2016 will be such a revolt against Fed tyranny that it might be put somewhat in its place for a decade or two.  I have not yet lost all hope for the United States.

And, yes, I know that what I am saying here will seem extreme to some (most?) readers.  But step back and consider how far the Federal Government has departed from the Constitution and its values.  That departure is what has become extreme.

However, I will be only too happy to be wrong.  Rest assured I would greatly prefer our country returning to its senses and defeating Fed tyranny, or at least rolling it back enough that I can live the rest of my life as a free Texan in peace.  Moreover, I am not yet confident national divorce is the way to go.  Further, I acknowledge it is may be so unlikely, I may be tilting at windmills.

But again, we are so profoundly divided with one side not wanting to allow the other side to be free Americans, and both sides pretty much detesting each other, that I agree it is time seriously to discuss how to proceed from here.  And it is significant that people like Ace are doing us a service by trying to begin such a discussion.

But even discussion has become problematic. As the Cruz-Reisner episode illustrates, we are hardly even allowed to talk to each other any more.

Help a Persecuted Christian Family (but Boycott GoFundMe)

Many of you are familiar with the plight of the Klein family in Oregon.  Their Sweet Cakes by Melissa business had to close their store and retreat to their home.  The business car has been vandalized and broken into twice.  And now they face a $135,000 fine.

Why? Because their Christian convictions would not allow them to participate in a Lesbian wedding by baking a cake for that.  And the Gay Rights Pink Shirts and allies, for whom the gay agenda trumps just about everything, including freedom of religion, would not tolerate the Klein’s Christian choice.

“Choice” is for those who wish to abort their babies or marry the same gender, not for those who wish to live according to their Christian convictions, don’tchaknow.

But people rose up to help out the Kleins by using GoFundMe.  But the Pink Shirts would not tolerate that either.  So they pressured GoFundMe to remove the campaign, and GoFundMe caved.

Oh, GoFundMe abused a company policy against “heinous crimes” to explain their decision to pull the fundraising campaign for the Kleins.  But their explanation is an obvious fig leaf to try to cover up that they caved to the Pink Shirts and joined the persecution of this Christian family.  Only to Pink Shirts and allies is refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding a “heinous crime.”

Therefore, I urge all readers to boycott GoFundMe.  They have caved to fascists to stop a legitimate campaign to help persecuted Christians. Christians should therefore withhold any fundraising from GoFundMe.

I do nonetheless urge helping out the Kleins and other persecuted Christians, whose numbers are increasing here and around the world.  Samaritan’s Purse is doing just that.

---

MORE:

Well, isn’t this interesting.  It turns out the owner of another Portland area baker – a competitor? – was one of those pushing GoFundMe to pull the campaign:

GoLocalPDX reported that a Portland baker, Lisa Watson, of Cupcake Jones, started her own campaign to contact GoFundMe and report the Sweet Cakes campaign as being in violation of their terms of service.

"This business has been found GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION and is being allowed to fundraise to pay their penalty," Watson said in a post on her Facebook page. "The gofundme terms of service address hate speech, bigotry, criminal activity, and sexism among other things in their campaign...The amount of money they have raised in a matter of a few hours by thousands of anonymous cowards is disgusting."

Speaking of disgusting, a brief perusal of her Facebook page reveals her to be a Pink Shirt indeed.

The Idolatry of Statism

Sometimes I feel like a lonely voice crying in the wilderness when I denounce statism, especially socialism, as idolatry.

But then I come across Timothy Fountain stating that statism is idolatry for both right and left, and I do not feel so alone.  Do go read his thoughtful piece.

And statism is an idolatrous tendency that transcends the usual categories of left and right.  A big reason our nation is in a bad way is not only the Democrat Party, but also the Republican establishment is wedded to statist big government.  Yeah, maybe they want to grow it more slowly than Democrats, but mainly they just want to run it instead of Democrats.

And that statist tendency of the Establishment Republicans who now control Congress has greatly undermined the Consent of the Governed.  How many elections have we had in my lifetime that have said “NO!” to big government?  I would say 1966, 1978, 1980, 1984, perhaps 1988, 1994, 2004, 2010, and 2014.  Yet the federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, and more and more intrusive.  The disregard both parties have shown for the 2010 and 2014 elections has been particularly marked.

How long can a government get more powerful in defiance of the consent of the governed, with even the supposed opposition party ignoring the votes of the people, without ugly consequences?

I pray that the 2016 election is such a repudiation of big government statism that the winners finally get it and bow to the Consent of the Governed by putting the federal government in its place.  For the alternatives I see would not bode well for either freedom or civil peace.

But I know too well that politicians rarely reduce their own power.  It usually has to be taken from them.  Therefore, I fear the near future of the United States and of both its major parties will not be a pleasant one.

Hillary! – Foreign Policy for Sale IV: Clinton “Charities” Misreported Foreign Donations

Nothing to see here.  Nothing at all.

Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors…

The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.

But I’m sure they were honest, well-meaning errors . . . that have nothing to do with concealing foreign influence.  So don’t even think that!  Shame on you!

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

Just minor clerical errors.  Hey, not reporting millions of dollars from foreign governments happens every day.  And we know the Clintons are honest . . . . . .  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Lawlessness Begets Lawlessness

I have been very hesitant to write this post.  I fear that what I am about to say will be twisted into supposed advocacy of violence.  So let me say right now, I pray for a peaceful, lawful defeat and casting off of the lawless tyranny, tyrannies really, that have descended on America.  And every time I read from Coverdale’s Psalm 57 during Morning Prayer – Under the shadow of thy wings shall be my refuge, until this tyranny be overpast – I am reminded so to pray.

But I fear matters will not transpire so well or so peacefully for the United States.

And so does Maetenloch at Ace of Spades.  For the past two nights, he has focused on the problem of lawless Leftists disregarding the rule of law and using raw government force to attack political opponents, and so far without consequences.

Yes, his overnight threads are . . . wide-ranging.  Focus on  “Wisconsin’s Shame” and “How Lois Lerner Evaded Charges” from two nights ago and on “Quote of the Day” and “Kurt Schlichter: Why Liberals May Regret Their New Rules” from last night.

The problem of lawless government extends far beyond it being used to attack political opponents. (That is another reason I have been hesitant to post.  It is a problem so big, it is hard to get one’s arms around it, and it is not at all easy to do so even in this humble post.) But for now, let us consider this aspect and its consequences.

And, yes, I am not naïve.  I know Obama and his ilk are not the first ones to attempt to use the power of government to suppress and attack political opponents.  But a moment in American history in which the attacks are so wide ranging, using multiple agencies, and are being conducted with such impunity – such a moment does not come to mind.

The result may be that Leftists may find their cry “No Justice. No Peace.” may be more true than they would like. As Maetenloch observed two nights ago:

We have a system of justice in this country but more and more it's clear that it no longer can provide any justice in the cases of partisan government officials using government harassment and thuggery against citizens who merely hold opposing political beliefs. . . .

So there's an assumption that if the legal system is manipulated and even blocked, then there's simply no recourse at all for those on the receiving end of this treatment and so they'll just accept it. Which is clearly what the above people [i. e. namely Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm and Judge Barbara Kluka in Wisconsin, and Lois Lerner and US Attorney Ron Machen. - Ed.] and their allies seem to believe. Well out of inertia of trust in the system this is true up to a point - but only up to a point.

But when that trust that justice will actually be delivered is finally broken, stoic acceptance of the jiggered results of a broken system can no longer be counted upon either. Instead you will see a reversion to the older, rougher justice delivery firmware that's embedded in our DNA and it will be ugly. But not necessarily unjust.

Given that people have had their lives destroyed for merely making a bad joke on social media, wearing the wrong shirt, answering a hypothetical question about catering incorrectly, and using the wrong ordering of words in a phrase, not to mention threatened with jail for the act of committing politics, I see no reason that Chisholm, Kluka, Lerner, and Machen who have done far worse should be able to walk the streets and go through life comfortably and carefree.

Don't blame me for this - I wasn't the one who deliberately subverted and broke the system of justice that we had.

Yes, this comes a bit close to advocating vigilante justice.  And vigilante justice is not to be desired - all the more reason to demand lawful justice against the likes of John Chisholm and Lois Lerner.  For a vacuum of no lawful justice from those who have the duty to execute justice invites vigilantism . . . and worse as Kurt Schlichter warns:

Which brings us to America in 2015. It’s becoming a nation where an elite that is certain of its power and its moral rightness is waging a cultural war on a despised minority. Except it’s not actually a minority – it only seems that way because it is marginalized by the coastal elitist liberals who run the mainstream media.

Today in America, we have a liberal president refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot free and smirking.

Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.

That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.

And although we are already going beyond the topic of government attacks on political opponents, that goes to the heart of the problem – lawlessness begets lawlessness.  And that especially if the lawless are those in power who abuse government power to subvert justice, the rule of law, and Constitutional rights instead of furthering and protecting them.  What I've posted so far is just a taste of the rising anger among Americans.

Schlichter notes that the revolt against these and other enormities of the Left has been peaceful so far, marked mainly by the elections of 2010 and 2014. (And I find that peacefulness remarkable and commendable.)  But, unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama has chosen to defy the Consent of the Governed as expressed in those elections and so have congressional Republicans.  They were elected to stop Obama.  Instead they have enabled him.  And the consequences of that enabling could be ugly as well and in many ways already are.  But that will have to wait for another post.

In any case, government that not only ignores political opponents, but also ignores the rule of law by using raw government power to attack political opponents, as DA John Chisholm and IRS hack Lois Lerner and, yes, Obama have done, is profoundly un-American and invites a response we do not associate with this country as well.

Please pray for the country.  We need it.

---

MORE: Glenn Reynolds has been posting frequently in this area over at Instapundit.  For example, this post about Wisconsin.

Hillary! – Foreign Policy for Sale III: Can you say “slush fund”?

The Federalist has more on foreign governments and businesses (successfully) trying to influence U. S. foreign policy through donations to the Clinton Foundation.  But I found this particularly eye-opening (Emphasis mine.):

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”

Face it.  The Clinton Foundation is a big Bill and Hillary slush fund.

Church Prison

My parish has recently discovered that our baptismal font is multiple use -  and it’s a good thing, too.

 

We were at our wits’ end in dealing with naughty and irreverent children . . . until we began using our font as our Church Prison.

Not only is the miscreant (such as the naughty boy in the photo) dealt with and properly shamed, but the other children see and fear. 

Behavior has markedly improved, thanks be to God!

Hillary! – Foreign Policy for Sale II

Ten days ago, I mentioned an episode in which it is obvious that Hillary! as Secretary of State had put up U. S. foreign policy for sale in Columbia.

Well, with Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash coming out on May 5th and already making the news, it now appears Bill and Hillary! being enriched by foreign governments and businesses with salubrious effects on U. S. foreign policy might be about to become a big issue.  

Stay tuned.

Bible-totin’ Hillary

Hillary’s campaign is pushing the image (And is there anything intentional that is not image with the Clintons?) of Hillary as a Bible-totin’ Methodist.

Well, she may carry around a King James for all I know.  But someone in the King James said, “Ye shall know them by their fruit.”  So let’s look at some of Hillary’s fruit.  (Please don’t take that metaphor too far, thank you.)

“Thou shalt not kill” is a pretty basic teaching of the Bible.  But Hillary cannot be bothered to tell where she stands on late-term abortions.  And she should tell us as she has jumped all over the place on that issue in the past.

Freedom of Religion is a basic American value of obvious concern to Christians.  But Hillary piled on Indiana and Arkansas as they sought to protect freedom of religion.  And she has parroted the Obama Administration line of being all for “freedom of worship,” an alarming turn of words contradictory to genuine freedom of religion as mentioned here in the past.  (And we since then have seen the fruit of that in Obamacare.)

In other words, her position is “You are free to keep your religion in your churches and out of the public square and even out of your own businesses.”  Some freedom.

Hillary can tote Bibles all she wants but her positions on abortion and freedom of religion, for starters, are hardly Christian . . . or American for that matter.

Billie Jean King Spat on My Mama

The headline may at first seem a joke.  It most assuredly is not.

In the early 70’s my “Mama,” an accomplished tennis player on the state level, was a linesman for professional tennis tournaments around Dallas.  She was also quite a fan of Billie Jean King.  Being somewhat precocious, I detected King was not worthy of adulation.  I liked Chris Evert instead.  Hey, Evert was very cute back then, and her accomplishments gave me an excuse to hit a two-handed backhand.  That and lacking the arm strength and coordination to hit a traditional one-handed backhand well.

Anyway, one night Mama came home from being a linesman for a Dallas match in which one of the players was Billie Jean King herself.  My mom was quiet and bewildered.  And she told me King was so mad at one of her line calls that she spat on her. My memory is not clear whether she thought the spitting was intentional or accidental.  And Mama was not angry or crying.  But she was bewildered that her heroine would do that to her.  It was not unlike a kid let down by a hero.

Now is it possible that King, who did have a temper, inadvertently sprayed on my mom while arguing the call?  Yes.  But remember that King was a heroine of my mom’s.  One would think my mom would have put a better interpretation on the incident.  But perhaps her heroine being so angry at her shook her up so much, it was hard for her to put any ameliorating spin on it.  In any case, King at the very least humiliated my mom for doing her job as best she could.

What brings this episode to mind?  Billie Jean King is co-chairing Lesbians4Hillary just launched yesterday.

If Hillary wants the support of someone like Billie Jean King, she can be my guest.  As far as I’m concerned, both have been spitting on America for a long time. 

Pope Recognizes Armenian Genocide, While Obama . . .

Sunday, Pope Francis called the torture and slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 “the first genocide of the 20^th Century” and called upon the international community to recognize it as such.

Predictably, the government of Turkey, which has a long and despicable  history of denial, had a temper tantrum and withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican.

I first became interested in this awful chapter in history and Turkey’s denial of it when I read this excellent (but disturbing) article in the Daily Mail back in 2007.  And let there be no mistake, this genocide contained a strong component of Muslim persecution of Christians.

Guess which side Obama is on in this controversy?  Oh, he told Armenians he would call this genocide a genocide when he wanted their votes.  But since then and now? Not so much.

Hillary! – Foreign Policy for Sale

There has been well-founded speculation that the Clinton Foundation is big slush fund for the Clintons.  But This. Is. Damning. (Language warning.)

Once she became Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary! had an odd change of position:

On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal as a raw deal for workers, according to IBT. The pair changed their tune after the election and publicly supported the trade agreement. As secretary of State, Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was "meeting statutory criteria related to human rights."

Now what could have possibly brought about that that change?  Surely not contributions of multiple tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation by one Frank Giustra, who has mining (oil) investments in Columbia (and whom the Clintons had previously assisted in Kazakhstan).

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the [Columbian] oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it "strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States." The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

Check out Ace who has more with lot of links.  Noah Rothman is on this, too.  But it is already clear that under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U. S. foreign policy was for sale - to the financial benefit of the Clintons and friends.

Hannah Overton Update: DA Dismisses Charges

I’ve followed the Hannah Overton case here in recent years.  In a horrific miscarriage of justice, she was convicted of capital murder in the salt poisoning death of Andrew Burd, a profoundly troubled boy with eating disorders. 

The conviction was overturned last year, but Nueces County DA Mark Skurka proceeded to push for another capital murder conviction.  Now he has conceded continuing with that is not a wise course (to put it nicely).  Late yesterday came word he has dismissed charges against her.

The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning charges could be refiled should new evidence arise.  But the practical effect is that this is finally over.  Thanks be to God!

Obama Administration Again Ignores Persecution of Christians

When ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and other Islamonazis massacre Christians because they are Christians, why cannot the Obama Regime bring itself to acknowledge it?

Just as they did when ISIS beheaded 22 Coptic Christians in Libya, Obama and his hacks are ignoring that the Garissa University attack by al-Shabaab systematically targeted Christians.

This repeated and willful omission by Obama and his regime is despicable and un-American to the core.

Also note that the Regime also goes to pains to label the Islamonazis as “violent extremists.”  Considering that Obama and his Brown Shirts oft label his opponents as “extremists” should send a chill down one’s spine.

In Obama’s world, Christians are never victims, and “extremists” are always the bad guys.  Note and prepare.

Poll: Americans want MUCH tougher immigration policies.

It appears Obama’s Democrat importation programs immigration policies not only are a violation of the rule of law, they violate the Consent of the Governed as well.

A new Rasmussen Poll has 62% of Americans saying we are “not aggressive enough” in deporting illegals, 54% thinking babies born of illegals while in the U. S. should not automatically become U. S. citizens, and 51% saying that illegals with U. S. born children should not be exempt from deportation.  Further – and I especially agree with this – “83% said that anybody should be required to prove that they are ‘legally allowed’ to be in the country before receiving local, state or federal government services.”

And remember that a big issue in the 2014 mid-term elections was immigration.  That did not go well for Democrats and Obama as I recall.

Now, before you think I am just bashing Obama’s policies again . . . I am.  BUT the Republican establishment is also out of step with the American people on this issue.  They would rather obey their donors, who can never get enough cheap labor, than respect the Consent of the Governed and listen to the conservative Republican base.

The Republican Party had better listen on this and on any number of issues (including Freedom of Religion) lest they go the way of the Whigs.