Ben Carson addresses criticism (from Trump) with his favorite Bible verses. Then, in response to Hillary and Benghazi, he emphasizes why both admission and consequences are necessary for elements to ensure accountability. WATCH HERE
Ryan T. Anderson /September 01, 2015In the wake, there’s an open question as to what happens to people who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court’s ruling requiring the county clerk of Rowan County, Ky., to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, has a sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, and says she cannot in good faith issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. As a result she stopped issuing marriage licenses tocouples (both same-sex and opposite-sex) after the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling in June.In this way she thought she would avoid the charge of discrimination.She also wouldn’t allowin her office to issue marriage licenses. The result: no one could get a license in Rowan County.
*“Were you aware that your husband wanted to give paid speeches to repressive regimes like North Korea?” **"Do you have any comment on these new emails that raise questions about conflict of interest involving your aide, Huma Abedin?" ***"And, finally, you’ve said there’s nothing unique about this situation. You’ve said that before. Can you name one other cabinet secretary who had their own server?” WATCH HERE
This is what happens when a reporter does his or her job. Also, it is why the left silences their ideological opposition rather than engage them in debate.
OKLAHOMA CITY -
The Nuclear Deal with Iran has topped conversations across the political landscape.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been outspoken saying this deal is “not based on trust” and “building a nuclear bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. But thanks to this deal, Iran’s four possible ways to leverage those fissile materials are blocked.”
However Republican lawmakers and even some democrats have been just as outspoken against the deal. GOP presidential candidates continue to address the deal in their campaign speeches. Most hopefuls want “anytime, anywhere” inspections in Iran.
But now the Obama Administration has the support of three dozen retired admirals and generals. In an open letter to the “Washington Post” the admirals and generals state, “there is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” and “If the deal is rejected…the Iranians could have nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is stark.”
News 9’s Justin Dougherty had a chance to ask presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) his thoughts on the letter when the senator came to Oklahoma City last week. Here is what he had to say:
Several times you have mentioned that in international crisis you would seek the advice of military personnel, now recently there are three dozen former generals and admirals would say this is our only option to keep nuclear weapons from Iran. Are you going to listen to that letter at all?
"I don't know the letter to which you are referencing. But I can tell you this Iranian Nuclear Deal is catastrophic. The single national security threat facing America is the threat of a nuclear Iran. If this deal goes through, three things will happen: 1.) The Obama Administration will be world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. Billions of dollars will flow to jihadist who will use that money to try and murder Americans. 2.) This leaves four American hostages in Iran. 3.) This deal only speeds up Iran’s abilities to get a nuclear weapon."
Congress has until September 17 to vote on the deal.READ/WATCH HERE
Unfortunately, He is the Exception; Shame on those Mainstream Media and Politicians Who Act As Useful Idiots/Apologists For This Despicable Regime (Walter Durnaty would be proud).
Rep. Ted Poe Exposes Sec. Kerry's Dangerous Delusion; Kerry says ‘I Have No Specific Knowledge of a Plan by Iran to Actually Destroy Us’
CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State John Kerry says he does not know whether the Iranian regime truly wants to destroy America, but views its policy as one “of opposition to us and of great enmity.”
When Kerry appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to defend the Iran nuclear agreement, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) asked him about Tehran’s policy in the light of the “death to America” chants common at events presided over by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hasan Rouhani.
“It is the policy of the ayatollah – if you can answer for him – that Iran wants to destroy the United States?” Poe asked Kerry. “Is that still their policy, as far as you know?”
“I don’t believe they’ve said that. I think they’ve said ‘Death to America’ in their chants, but I have not seen this specific.”
“Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead,” Poe said. “That would seem like that would be their policy. He said that. That – you don’t think that’s their policy?”
“I’m not mincing words,” he continued. “Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?”
“I think they have a policy of opposition to us and of great enmity, but I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us,” Kerry replied.
“I do know that the rhetoric is uh, is beyond objectionable,” he said. “I know that we, you know, are deeply concerned with Iran’s behavior in the region, deeply concerned with their past activities. Which is why President Obama felt –”
As Poe interrupted to ask a further question, Kerry interjected, “If they did want to destroy us, they’ve got a much better shot of doing it if they had a nuclear weapon.”
The administration contends that the negotiated agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) cuts off the various pathways Iran has to developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew faced a grilling by members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and, last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Skeptical lawmakers, Democrats among them, raised numerous concerns about elements of the deal – including the fact it provides what the State Department contends is the world’s foremost terror-sponsoring regime with more than $100 billion in frozen assets early on – and much more in the longer term as sanctions are removed.
Congress has until mid-September to review and potentially vote on the JCPOA.
President Obama has pledged to veto any resolution that rejects the agreement; its opponents would have to garner a two-thirds majority to override such a move.
On MSNBC's Hardball Thursday night, host Chris Matthews stumped DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) when he asked her what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist.
"What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" Matthews asked, leaving Wasserman Schultz at a loss for words.
"I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?" Matthews tried again. "A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders."
Wasserman Schultz again was unable to answer and instead tried to tell Matthews what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is.
"The more important question is what is the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican," she said.
"What's the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" Matthews again asked.
"You're chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist," Matthews reminded her.
"The relevant debate that we'll be having this campaign is what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican," Schultz said.
Schultz, however, was able to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
"The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists," she said.
(CNSNews.com) - White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest says he suspects somebody in the Obama Administration has seen a series of videos on Planned Parenthood’s role in harvesting the organs of babies, but the administration is basing its position that the videos are edited unfairly on the comments of Planned Parenthood and “the high ethical standard they live up to.”
During a White House press briefing Thursday Earnest was asked if anyone at the White House has watched the series of videos about Planned Parenthood.
“I suspect somebody has,” Earnest replied.“Where are you getting your information that the fact that it’s fraudulent, or the fact that they're distorted and edited unfairly?” a reporter asked.
“Based on the public comments of Planned Parenthood who has indicated that the views that are represented in the video are entirely inconsistent with that organizations policies and with the high ethical standard they live up to.”
The Center for Medical Progress has released a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood representatives discussing prices for body parts from aborted babies.
The White House said on Thursday that President Barack Obama would oppose any efforts by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.
Cotton: "Why can't we confirm or deny the content of these agreements in public? Why is this classified? It's not a sensitive U.S. government document."
Kerry:"Because we respect the process of the IAEA and we don't have their authorization to reveal what is a confidential agreement between them and another country,"
Cotton: "So the ayatollahs will know what they agreed to but not the American people?"
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
The greatness of America is not merely a slogan; the freedom experienced and stature in the world is grown out of our founding Declaration. A Declaration that was unique that it did not trade one King for another and brought about unprecedented change. This was followed by Constitution that allowed for a process for us to live out our Declaration’s precepts.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We have heard a great deal about America being the greatest country in the world; the last, best hope for freedom and the shining city on the hill. We have also heard about we are a nation of immigrants, and that is what makes us great; how America is the great melting pot.
While it is true that we are a nation of immigrants with relatively diverse backgrounds, the act of immigrating is only the entry level of the ‘immigration process’. That entry is prefaced and predicated on the immigrants' desire and willingness to assimilate i.e., become an American citizen. This concept of becoming an American is what makes us the Great Melting Pot.
As Historian and Hoover Institution Scholar Bruce Thornton describes:
“In the melting pot metaphor, inalienable human rights transcend group identity.
Of course, this process of assimilation also entailed costs and painful sacrifices. Having voted with his feet for the superiority of America, the immigrant was required to become American, to learn the language, history, political principles, and civic customs that identified an American as American. This demand was necessarily in conflict with the immigrants’ old culture and its values, and, at times, it led to the painful loss of the old ways and customs. But how immigrants negotiated the conflicts and trade-offs between their new and old identities was up to them, and they were free in civil society to celebrate and retain those cultures through fraternal organizations, ethnic festivals, language schools, and religious guilds.”
As Thornton points out, it is the desire of the immigrant to become American ‘having voted with his feet for the superiority of America.’ Yet this elemental understanding is in question when we have people who have come here illegally. Isn't there is a clear contradiction in wanting to become an American by breaking the foundational principle of the country, that is, the rule of law?
Politically, ethnic identity has been used to advance the cause of those here illegally as well as to silence the opposition by smearing them with the odious charge of racism. Ironically this use of identity politics illustrates the contradiction: if one is subscribing to become an American, then he/she is agreeing and adhering to the precept of equality under the law; yes, again: the very law he/she has broken.
Morally, advocates for amnesty have trumpeted the plight of the illegal alien population highlighting exploitation by employers, and forcing them to live in the shadows. However, the remedy for the exploitation is not a further flouting of the law, but rather, the enforcement of the law with programs like e-verify. Furthermore, the reason these folks are living the shadows is because they have broken the law; changing the law would only incentivize the industry of illegal immigration sending the signal that living in the shadows would only be a temporary condition until the law is changed by another amnesty. However, the most compelling moral case can be made by the families of those Americans who have been murdered by illegal aliens. These lives were lost due to our government not doing their sacred, Constitutional duty and there is no rejoinder that mollifies or negates that truth nor is there one that brings back victims and provides solace to their families.
Culturally, American Exceptionalism, rugged individualism and the America Dream are rooted in our founding. Yet the data on illegal immigration has yielded evidence of disproportionate use of government programs; a culture of dependency.
This disproportional use of government programs can also be seen in sectors of legal immigration; it too is in need of reform. However, if we choose to ignore the difference between legal and illegal, we undermine the foundation of our Republic, which is the rule of law. The rule of law instead of the rule of men was not an ancillary element; it was and is a foundational recognition; an imperative to America’s survival. America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and entrusted to a particular kind of populace. John Adams points out: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." How moral is it to deny our nature by abandoning the rule of law while invoking religiously based arguments of selective and contextually challenged compassion? America deserves a better discussion than these dishonest appeals and politically expedient rationalizations, which undermine the very Union they claim to be making more perfect.
Compelling debate between GOP Candidate Carly Fiorina and Jess McIntosh from Emily's List. Hosted by Chris Wallace FAIR USE NOTICE: