64 Legal Scholars To All Public Officeholders: Reject USSC Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent

Legal Scholars Urge Officeholders: Refuse To Accept Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent – CNS


Editor’s Note: A group of more than 60 legal scholars released a statement last week calling on all federal and state officeholders not to accept the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision – declaring a national right to same-same sex marriage – as binding precedent.

One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton.

“We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is,” said George. “We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”

Below is the text of the statement in its entirety.


We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional – and sound – methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity – one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative… power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out:

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union – the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman – will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.


We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.

We call on all federal and state officeholders:

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do.


(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only)

Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought and Professor of Politics, Saint Vincent College

John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University

George W. Dent, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Founder of American Principles Project

Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College

Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University

Mickey G. Craig, William & Berniece Grewcock Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College

Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair in US Constitutional History, Hillsdale College

Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Professor of Ethics and Politics, Washington and Lee University

Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Susan Hanssen, Associate Professor of History, University of Dallas

Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University

Daniel C. Palm, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University

Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

Stephen Casey, Casey Law Office, P.C.

James C. Phillips, J.D.

Joshua W. Schulz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, DeSales University

John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center

Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

Walter Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University

Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University

Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Stephen M. Krason, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists

Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Political Science, Calvin College

Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion and Philosophy, University of Toronto

Adam J. MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University

John Agresto, Former president of St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq

Mark T. Mitchell, Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hillsdale College

J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute

Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

David R. Upham, Associate Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Thomas D’Andrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion

Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, Amherst College; Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals Right and the American Founding

Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Jay Bergman, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Northern Illinois University

Paul A. Rahe, Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College

Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Raymond B. Marcin, Professor of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America

Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College

James A. Davids, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino

James W. (Jim) Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society

Robert F. Sasseen, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University of Dallas

Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University School of Law



*VIDEO* Ben Carson: National Press Club Luncheon (10/09/15)



Federal Appeals Court Bitchslaps Obama Regime Over Water Regulations

Sixth Circuit Blocks EPA Water Rule Nationwide – Hot Air


Several weeks ago, a federal court issued an injunction against EPA enforcement of a new rule based on the Clean Water Act, arguing that the Obama administration had exceeded its Congressional authority. The ruling only applied in the thirteen states party to the lawsuit, however, but the administration still argued that the North Dakota court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue, and that only an appellate court could hear the case. Regardless, the EPA announced shortly afterward that it would continue to enforce the new rule in all other states.

Be careful what you wish for. The Sixth Circuit handed down its own injunction against the rule today, and broadened its effect to all 50 states:

A federal court ruled Friday that President Obama’s regulation to protect small waterways from pollution cannot be enforced nationwide.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama’s most ambitious effort to keep streams and wetlands clean, saying it looks likely that the rule, dubbed “waters of the United States,” is illegal.

“We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control – based mostly on the water’s distance and connection to larger water bodies – is “at odds” with a key Supreme Court ruling.

The court called into question both the rule itself and the process by which the EPA promulgated it. The opinion notes that the EPA apparently ignored Rapanos in its zeal to seize more federal authority:

Petitioners first claim that the Rule’s treatment of tributaries, “adjacent waters,” and waters having a “significant nexus” to navigable waters is at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos, where the Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s upholding of wetlands regulation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Even assuming, for present purposes, as the parties do, that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos represents the best instruction on the permissible parameters of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act, it is far from clear that the new Rule’s distance limitations are harmonious with the instruction.

Furthermore, the court expresses concern over what appeared to be a bait-and-switch in the comments process, and that the EPA simply cannot substantiate the rule with any solid science – a point made by the North Dakota court in August, too:

Moreover, the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is facially suspect. Petitioners contend the proposed rule that was published, on which interested persons were invited to comment, did not include any proposed distance limitations in its use of terms like “adjacent waters” and significant nexus.” Consequently, petitioners contend, the Final Rule cannot be considered a “logical outgrowth” of the rule proposed, as required to satisfy the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553. See Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 174 (2007). As a further consequence of this defect, petitioners contend, the record compiled by respondents is devoid of specific scientific support for the distance limitations that were included in the Final Rule. They contend the Rule is therefore not the product of reasoned decision-making and is vulnerable to attack as impermissibly “arbitrary or capricious” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

Remember, though, that this is a temporary injunction. The issues raised by the judges in this 2-1 decision are not fully established in an evidentiary process. Even the initial ruling in August was a pretrial injunction, not a final decision on the merits. However, in both cases the courts decided that the states have a substantial likelihood of establishing these facts in the eventual trial, and that the enforcement of the rule would create at least some unnecessary harm. The Sixth Circuit’s decision doesn’t agree that it would be irreparable harm, but also doesn’t see the need to rush into enforcement of a flawed rule either:

There is no compelling showing that any of the petitioners will suffer immediate irreparable harm – in the form of interference with state sovereignty, or in unrecoverable expenditure of resources as they endeavor to comply with the new regime – if a stay is not issued pending determination of this court’s jurisdiction. But neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation’s waters will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented and enforced.

What is of greater concern to us, in balancing the harms, is the burden – potentially visited nationwide on governmental bodies, state and federal, as well as private parties – and the impact on the public in general, implicated by the Rule’s effective redrawing of jurisdictional lines over certain of the nation’s waters…

A stay allows for a more deliberate determination whether this exercise of Executive power, enabled by Congress and explicated by the Supreme Court, is proper under the dictates of federal law. A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new Rule and whether they will survive legal testing. A stay honors the policy of cooperative federalism that informs the Clean Water Act and must attend the shared responsibility for safeguarding the nation’s waters.

Still, the plaintiffs are clearly delighted with the injunction:

The National Federation of Independent Business, one of the groups that sued to stop the rule, cheered Friday’s decision.

“Small businesses everywhere this morning are breathing a sigh of relief,” Karen Harned, executive director of the group’s legal foundation, said in a statement.

“The court very properly acknowledged that the WOTUS rule has created a ‘whirlwind of confusion’ and that blocking its implementation in every state is the practicable way to resolve the deep legal question of whether it can withstand constitutional muster.”

The Hill calls this “a stinging defeat,” but it may be more of a “stinging delay” at this point. At the very least, the EPA’s power grab has been put on hold, and that’s a welcome breather at this stage of the Obama administration.



More Bad News For Leftist SEIU

SEIU Hemorrhages Members After Supreme Court Decision – Washington Free Beacon


One of Washington state’s largest unions lost thousands of dues paying members in the wake of a Supreme Court decision barring automatic enrollment of home healthcare workers in the union, according to a new report.

The Freedom Foundation, a think tank in Washington, found that thousands of the workers, many of whom were caring for family members, dropped out of the union after the state ended forced unionism last year. Federal labor filings from Service Employees International Union Local 925 revealed that more than 3,000 of the 7,000 home healthcare workers previously in the union cut ties with the local in 2015.

“Nearly half of Washington’s approximately 7,000 family child care providers have exercised their newly acknowledged rights and left SEIU 925 since the Harris decision. The percentage of providers paying dues to the union fell from 100 percent in July 2014 to 53.2 percent (3,738) in May 2015,” the report said.

SEIU Local 925 represents mostly public sector workers. Prior to the Quinn v. Harris ruling, the union was able to corral home healthcare workers who received tax breaks and Medicaid dollars from the state. The high court declared a similar arrangement in Illinois unconstitutional, leading Washington to end the practice.

“Pas [Personal Aides] are much different from public employees,” Justice Samuel Alito ruled in the 5-4 decision. “Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment.”

Local 925 charges members nearly 2 percent of their salaries for dues with a cap of $90 per month, according to federal labor filings released in March. The union collected more than $8 million and spent more than $1.2 million on political activities and lobbying in 2014. Local 925 actually saw its ranks swell overall in 2014 despite the loss of home healthcare workers, growing from 13, 835 members to 14,405 in 2014.

The union did not respond to request for comment.

Freedom Foundation labor policy expert Maxford Nelsen said that the massive withdrawals followed an education and outreach effort by the group.

“Neither SEIU 925 nor the state took action to inform family child care providers of their constitutional right to resign from the union. The Freedom Foundation obtained providers’ contact information from the state in October 2014 and, after defeating a subsequent legal challenge from SEIU 925 in court, began a wide-ranging educational campaign to inform providers of their ability to opt-out of the union,” Nelson wrote on the foundation’s website. “To date, the effort has included direct mail, email, phone calls, cable TV advertising and door-to-door canvassing.”



Your Daley Gator Feel-Good Story O’ The Day

HPD Officer Wounds Teen Suspect After Attempted Ambush In Montrose Area – KHOU


A group of suspects targeted the wrong person to ambush after one of them was shot by a Houston police officer they were following on the way home late Thursday.

According to the Houston Police Department, it started at 11:30 p.m. when the 34-year veteran officer was heading home in his personal vehicle from a second job and noticed he was being followed as he drove down Woodhead Street in the Montrose area.

The officer turned onto Indiana Street to see if the car would keep going, but it didn’t. The suspect vehicle stopped and one male got out with a gun in hand. The suspect started toward the officer, who happened to still be in uniform.

The officer got out of his car and repeatedly identified himself as a police officer and ordered the suspect to stop. The suspect ignored the command and pointed his gun at the officer.

“At that point in time, a rear passenger got out and began running toward the sergeant as he went under street light he had arm extended and was shooting pistol directly at the sergeant,” Kese Smith, with HPD, said.

The 15-year-old suspect was shot in the buttocks.

The suspect ran back to the car where three other suspects were waiting, and the car fled the scene.

About 10 minutes later, HPD got a call about a wounded male on the ground at Cushing and Webster. HPD responded and spotted the suspect vehicle that was part of the officer-involved shooting and was able to take three suspects, ages 16, 17 and 18, into custody.

The fourth suspect was taken to a local hospital in serious condition.

The HPD sergeant says he was just doing his job and glad this didn’t happen to one of his neighbors.

People in this neighborhood say he is a hero who has gone above and beyond to protect this community, and they feel his actions send a strong message to criminals to not come back.

“He is the type that would stand up and turn the tables on everything,” one concerned neighbor said.

“Hopefully this will keep a few people out that shouldn’t be here,” Mindy Billon, neighbor, said.

Neighbors say this area of Montrose has recently seen a surge break-ins and people being followed home at random.

They say the sergeant who stood up for himself has been standing up for this neighborhood for years.

“He is not just a neighborhood, he has personally taken control of the neighborhood,” a concerned neighbor said. “On many occasions when he has come home at night he has helped us by stopping car break-ins, house break-ins.”

The suspect who was shot in the buttocks is being treated at the hospital, but is expected to be OK.

The three others have been booked into jail police say they’re still not sure if these would-be-robbers wanted to rob the sergeant, steal his car or both.



*AUDIO* Ann Coulter: RINO Speaker Candidates And Illegal Aliens



Kelsey Grammer Sports Pro-Life T-Shirt In Instagram Photo – ‘Would It Bother Us More If They Used Guns?’

‘Would It Bother Us More If They Used Guns?’ Kelsey Grammer’s Pro-Life T-Shirt – CNS

Kelsey Grammer, best known for his role as psychiatrist Dr. Frasier Crane on the sitcoms “Cheers” and “Frasier,” was recently photographed wearing a pro-life t-shirt.

The shirt reads “Would it bother us more if they used guns?” The words wrap around a handgun and below that is a website address: Abort73.com. The picture was taken by Grammar’s wife Kayte and posted on her Instagram account. The message of the shirt indicates that concern over recent deaths in gun shootings should also apply to unborn babies.


Abort73 is a pro-life organization that describes its mission this way:

While Abort73 offers a broad, abortion education to people of all ages, we are the most anxious to reach students and young adults. Young people tend to be more open-minded, more willing to change their mind, and less-likely to have a personal stake in justifying abortion. Plus, more than half of all abortions are performed on women younger than 25. Changing the way America thinks about abortion begins with changing the way that American students think about abortion. If we had more in the advertising budget, we would undoubtedly find new ways to spend it, but for the time being, our existing marketing strategy has served us well. Even if we could afford a big-budget ad campaign, there’s no guarantee that anyone would sell us the ad space. Until this becomes a popular message amongst the powers that be, change must come from the bottom up.



*VIDEOS* Protesters Confront President Asshat In Roseburg, Oregon





*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: Ban Facts



Oregonians Fight Back As Obama Tries To Force Anti-Gun Agenda Down Throats Of Umpqua Victims’ Families

1,900 Sign Up To Protest Obama’s Visit To Roseburg, Oregon – Gateway Pundit

David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O’Reilly on Monday that the people of Roseburg would not welcome Barack Obama if he came to town to politicize the funerals of the Umpqua College shooting victims.

Madman Chris Harper-Mercer murdered eight students and a teacher last week in a shooting spree on campus.


David Jacques and community leaders, including Douglas County commissioners, the police chief and local sheriff, do not want Obama to come grandstand in Roseburg for political purposes.

Now, there is a Facebook protest page set up to protest Obama in Roseburg.

They rolled out their “Unwelcome Mat.”


From the Defend Roseburg-Deny Barack Obama Facebook Protest page:

The anointed one his majesty king 0bama and the White House have announced a Friday arrival in Roseburg, Oregon in the wake of Oct 1st’s horrific tragedy at UCC.

Polarizing as usual, Mr 0bama has insisted on politicizing the event as a conduit for increased executive orders on gun control via means of his pen, and his phone.

This blatant disrespect of the victims families, the community and the town of Roseburg, Mr 0bama’s administration is flying not just the 747 that is airforce one to Oregon, but a three helicopter team of Sikorsky’s that make up HMX-1, known as Marine one to travel to Roseburg at the taxpayers expense.

We need a lot of people. Please come show your support for Roseburg, not the little man who has no respect for the constitution.

Local activist Casey Runyan is organizing the protest.

UPDATE: (7:30 PM ) 1,900 people have signed up to attend rally to protest Barack Obama.



*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Slams Sierra Club Weasel Over Fake Global Warming



*VIDEO* Ben Carson: Interview With Sean Hannity



Why ‘Fear The Walking Dead’ Sucks

There is so much to dislike about this program that I barely know where to begin criticizing it. To say that I don’t care for the show is an understatement. To say that it makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs out with a KFC spork is closer to the truth, and here’s why: IT DOESN’T EXPLAIN ANYTHING!

I thought the whole point of this series was to help us understand how and why the zombie apocalypse began. If that’s not so, what IS the point? It seems to me that its parent series has the bases covered when it comes to showing us clueless people trying to survive the chaos of walker-world. Do we really need to see more of the same here? I mean, can somebody please explain to me why we are supposed to care about another random group of people who know nothing about what’s going on, and afford us no insight into the genesis of the zombie pandemic?

Oh, and did I mention that this show’s main characters are dumbasses? They are, especially the female lead named Madison, who, in the second episode, attempts to have a conversation with what looks like an undead Barack Obama as it shambles toward her, drooling and glassy-eyed. Keep in mind that, by this point in the story, she and her boyfriend, Travis, have already been attacked by a zombie – which didn’t stop trying to eat them even after they ran it over with a truck.

As for Travis, later on, he too tries to have a nice, civil chat with a zombie that he finds feasting on the intestines of a dog in his living room. Then, when another character is forced to step in and save the fool’s life, he tries to stop his hero from killing the zombie. Now that I think about it, Travis is an even bigger dumbass than Madison, and she’s got only slightly more functioning brain cells than your average walker.

By the way, none of these people seem to care what’s going on outside of Los Angeles, which is where the story takes place. Thanks to ‘The Walking Dead’, we know that zombies are also popping up on the east coast – and assumedly everywhere else on the planet – yet, nobody in this story appears to be curious at all about what’s happening anywhere else. You’d think that at least one of them would be glued to their TV or computer, trying to find out anything they can about the scope of the problem while there’s still electricity available to them, but they don’t. Instead, everyone on the show behaves as if the advances in communications technology over the course of their lives have had only a peripheral influence on them.

And why is it that these folks didn’t immediately load up on food, water and weapons once they realized that the living dead were walking the Earth? After all, they were among the first to see a walker up close, so it would be reasonable for them to try and procure as many survival items as possible before stories of reanimated, flesh-eating corpses spread throughout the city, and all the stores got overrun. Frankly, the only character on the entire show who seemed to appreciate the gravity of the situation early on was a pimple-faced high school kid named Tobias who tried unsuccessfully to impress upon dim-witted Madison just how completely screwed everyone was. Sadly, he was only a minor character, and after the second episode, he was never heard from again.

Look, if I wanted to watch a show about unappealing idiots facing imminent, societal collapse, I’d tune into C-SPAN. Maybe this program’s creators don’t know it, but there are alternatives to their zombie franchise on TV these days, and those shows actually have entertaining characters and engaging plotlines. While the likes of ‘iZombie’ and ‘Z Nation’ may not have the production value of AMC’s original gore-fest, at least they’re trying to take the theme in a new direction. What does this program do, other than kill time before we get a chance to see Rick Grimes and his crew of seasoned zombie-killers again?

Personally, I would like to have seen this teleplay begin with a focus on hospital, morgue and funeral home employees in various states across the country, since those are the kinds of places where you’d expect zombies of this particular variety to first appear. It also would have made sense to introduce a few characters from some top-secret, government facility who either started the whole mess, or at least have some idea as to what caused it. Instead we are confronted with a bunch of people whose only distinguishing, common features are that they tend to be less intelligent and likeable than just about everyone on the first series.

Last night, the inaugural season of ‘Fear The Walking Dead’ came to an ugly, putrefied end, yet we still have no new information pertaining to the origin of the zombie apocalypse. The only thing we do know for sure is that Californians have little to no common sense, and their government is run by incompetent, lying douchebags. Thanks, AMC, that really clears things up for me. What’s next on the schedule, a prequel to ‘Mork and Mindy’ where Mork meets a chick named Mandy before finally settling down with the girl of his dreams?

… schmucks.

Edward L. Daley

The Donald Is Not Going To Like This

Donald Trump Falls: Ben Carson Surges To Lead In Poll – Investor’s Business Daily


Donald Trump has boasted that he’s “leading every poll and in most cases big.” Not anymore. The latest IBD/TIPP Poll shows him in second place, seven points behind Ben Carson.

The nationwide survey found that 24% of Republicans back Carson, compared with 17% who say they support Trump.

Marco Rubio came in third with 11% and Carly Fiorina fourth at 9%. Jeb Bush, once considered a prohibitive favorite, ranked fifth with just 8% support, which was a point lower than those who say they are still undecided.

The IBD/TIPP Poll has a proven track record for accuracy, based on its performance in the past three presidential elections. In a comparison of the final results of various pollsters for the 2004 and 2008 elections, IBD/TIPP was the most accurate. And the New York Times concluded that IBD/TIPP was the most accurate among 23 polls over the three weeks leading up to the 2012 election.

The October poll, conducted from Sept. 26 to Oct. 1, included 377 registered voters who are Republican or registered independents who lean toward the Republican Party, with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

Peak Trump?

Other polls show Trump’s support slipping in recent weeks. The Real Clear Politics average of six national polls shows him falling from 30.5% in mid-September to 23.3% by the end of the month. That average does not include the IBD/TIPP findings.

“Things appear to be catching up with Trump on multiple fronts,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducts IBD’s monthly poll. “In addition to facing increasing attacks from other candidates, Trump’s boycott of Fox News may have set him back,” Mayur said, noting that the poll was being conducted during Trump’s self-imposed hiatus.

When asked on CNBC about his slipping poll numbers, Trump said that “if I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out.”

Carson’s gain comes after his controversial remarks on “Meet the Press” that he couldn’t support a Muslim for president.

Rubio’s third-place standing shows he has gained considerable ground since the second GOP debate. But Fiorina, who was widely seen as having won that debate, has been unable to capitalize on it with Republicans.

Hillary Clinton Leads Dems

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is the top pick of 42% of 344 registered Democrats or those leaning Democratic. Vice President Joe Biden is second at 22%, even though he has yet to announce whether he plans to run.

Bernie Sanders is backed by 18% of Democrats. Sanders’ strongest support is among those 18-24, of whom 48% back the self-identified socialist, while only 14% back Clinton.

Other October poll findings:

57% of those following the Hillary Clinton email scandal say she should drop out of the presidential race if the FBI determines that she sent or received classified emails on her private email server while secretary of state. Among Democrats, 75% say she should stay in.

53% of those following the refugee crisis oppose bringing 185,000 refugees fleeing the Middle East into the U.S., and 63% say Congress should first OK any plans to admit the refugees.



*VIDEOS* Ben Carson: Speech At University Of New Hampshire, Durham (09/30/15)



Carson Campaign Raises $12 Million In September

Ben Carson Just Made A Giant Announcement That’ll Terrify His Opponents And Shatter Records – Western Journalism


Ben Carson’s campaign has done what few political insiders thought was possible when the former neurosurgeon launched his candidacy last spring: become a fundraising juggernaut.

The political outsider, now running only one point behind Donald Trump in recent polling, raised over $20 million dollars in the third quarter only. To date, the campaign has raised over $31 million.

“You know, the pundits all said that we would never be able to mount a national campaign for financial reasons, but here we are approaching 600,000 donations,” Carson told the Associated Press while campaigning in New Hampshire. “The people have gotten involved, and that’s something I think they probably never anticipated.”

The fundraising haul is not being fueled by mainly major donors, but by smaller donations and volunteers stepping up to be “bundlers” for the campaign.

CBS News reports that Jacquelyn Monroe, 45, is one example. The Georgian plays piano for a living and had never given a significant amount to politicians in the past, but decided to raise $100,000 for Carson’s campaign.

“‘It’s not something that I would normally set out to do,’ Monroe [told CBS News], who added she was moved by Carson’s authenticity and Christian faith and coaxed into collecting money from friends and business associates by his ambitious campaign staff. ‘$100,000-plus is a big deal for me.’”

Carson’s campaign reported raising $12 million in September alone, and a significant portion of that came in after the candidate indicated he would not support a Muslim who did not renounce Sharia Law for president.

The campaign brought in $700,000 in the 36 hours after he made that comment less than two weeks ago, according to campaign manager Barry Bennett.

“I would guess that we’ve outraised the Republican National Committee and many of our opponents maybe combined,” the campaign manager added.

Now flush with cash, Bennett said the campaign has begun implementing plans to buy television ad space across the South for the Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, 2016.

“Sooner or later, they’ll have to realize there’s a new reality or they’ll pay the price,” Bennett said of the Republican establishment. “The outsiders are not going away.”



Email-gate Update: Top Obama Adviser Throws Hitlery Under The Bus (Video)

Valerie Jarrett Throws Hillary Under The Bus On Email Scandal – Big Government


Obama White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett threw Hillary Clinton under the bus Wednesday at the Washington Ideas Forum, where she told interviewer Andrea Mitchell that the White House gave Clinton guidance forbidding her from using private email.

“Yes, there were. Yeah, absolutely,” Jarrett said when asked if the White House sent guidance to Cabinet secretaries about not using private email. “Obviously we want to make sure that we preserve all government records, and so there was guidance given that government business should be done on government emails and that if you did use a private email that it should be turned over.”

“That’s what she’s doing, as you said as recently as a few minutes ago,” Jarrett added. “And I think she has been asked about this multiple times, including by you Andrea. And I think she said, Look to do it again I probably made a mistake and I wouldn’t do it, and she’s working hard to comply with making sure that everything is pursuant to the Federal Records Act.”



The ‘Affordable Housing’ Fraud (Thomas Sowell)

The ‘Affordable Housing’ Fraud – Thomas Sowell


Nowhere has there been so much hand-wringing over a lack of “affordable housing,” as among politicians and others in coastal California. And nobody has done more to make housing unaffordable than those same politicians and their supporters.

A recent survey showed that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco was just over $3,500. Some people are paying $1,800 a month just to rent a bunk bed in a San Francisco apartment.

It is not just in San Francisco that putting a roof over your head can take a big chunk out of your pay check. The whole Bay Area is like that. Thirty miles away, Palo Alto home prices are similarly unbelievable.

One house in Palo Alto, built more than 70 years ago, and just over one thousand square feet in size, was offered for sale at $1.5 million. And most asking prices are bid up further in such places.

Another city in the Bay Area with astronomical housing prices, San Mateo, recently held a public meeting and appointed a task force to look into the issue of “affordable housing.”

Public meetings, task forces, and political hand-wringing about a need for “affordable housing” occur all up and down the San Francisco peninsula, because this is supposed to be such a “complex” issue.

Someone once told President Ronald Reagan that a solution to some controversial issue was “complex.” President Reagan replied that the issue was in fact simple, “but it is not easy.”

Is the solution to unaffordable housing prices in parts of California simple? Yes. It is as simple as supply and demand. What gets complicated is evading the obvious, because it is politically painful.

One of the first things taught in an introductory economics course is supply and demand. When a growing population creates a growing demand for housing, and the government blocks housing from being built, the price of existing housing goes up.

This is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. Economists have understood supply and demand for centuries – and so have many other people who never studied economics.

Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But, beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed to three or four times the national average.

Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is called preserving “open space,” and “open space” has become almost a cult obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are sufficiently affluent that they don’t have to worry about housing prices.

Some others have bought the argument that there is just very little land left in coastal California, on which to build homes. But anyone who drives down Highway 280 for thirty miles or so from San Francisco to Palo Alto, will see mile after mile of vast areas of land with not a building or a house in sight.

How “complex” is it to figure out that letting people build homes in some of that vast expanse of “open space” would keep housing from becoming “unaffordable”?

Was it just a big coincidence that housing prices in coastal California began skyrocketing in the 1970s, when building bans spread like wildfire under the banner of “open space,” “saving farmland,” or whatever other slogans would impress the gullible?

When more than half the land in San Mateo County is legally off-limits to building, how surprised should we be that housing prices in the city of San Mateo are now so high that politically appointed task forces have to be formed to solve the “complex” question of how things got to be the way they are and what to do about it?

However simple the answer, it will not be easy to go against the organized, self-righteous activists for whom “open space” is a sacred cause, automatically overriding the interests of everybody else.

Was it just a coincidence that some other parts of the country saw skyrocketing housing prices when similar severe restrictions on building went into effect? Or that similar policies in other countries have had the same effect? How “complex” is that?



*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Explains Why John Boehner Resigned



*VIDEO* Your Daley Gator NFL Game O’ The Week: Indianapolis Colts Vs. Tennessee Titans (Full Game)