Moral Support: Supreme Court Victory for Freedom of Speech; Coal Industry revival an Economic Boon

Moral Support

Science Facts

Coal Industry revival an Economic Boon

Salena Zito Reports from Coal Country

Jun 19, 2017

RUSH Limbaugh:

Coal country.

Well, it was announced last week that Trump had opened up essentially a new coal mine, for all intents and purposes. It was a new kind of coal mine. It was in coal country. It was gonna create new jobs that would pay 50 to a hundred thousand dollars a year.

It was ripped to shreds by the media and the climate change crowd. “This is living in the past. Coal is filthy, it’s dirty.” And it turns out that this coal plant is not even gonna be used for energy. This coal is gonna be used in the manufacture of steel, and you’d be amazed at the number of things in your daily life that have steel in them that you can’t do without. But it’s not the kind of coal that’s gonna be used for energy.

And she found that these people think that what’s been reported about their industry and this particular mine that’s going to be opened up, they’re misinformed, they’re missing the boat on this. And they think they are just as legitimately a part of America as journalists are or anybody else is. They resent being laughed at and made fun of. They resent their industry being portrayed as something archaic and dangerous and polluting and an instrument of climate change and global warming.

She goes out and finds these people. And some of the things about this plant that she uncovered are fascinating. The coal from this mine is not going to be used for energy, as I say. Instead, it’s gonna be used for the production of steel for the next 15 years. I don’t know if you knew this or not. Coal is used to make 70% of the steel in the world today. Here’s a list of places it’s found.

It’s found in cars, bicycles. Oh, my, the health crowd loves bicycles. Bicycles are saving the planet. Bicycles are reducing our carbon footprint. Bicycles are part of the quest for good health. Steel is used to make them, meaning coal is necessary. Steel is used in many different areas of public transportation, which the climate change crowd, they also love public transportation. It’s so cool, it’s so chic. It’s like Europe, trains and buses, and it’s really neato. It’s so cool. And of course it gets you out of your filthy, ugly car, and it eliminates planet destruction, and it also puts everybody together and makes them all behave accordingly. Leftists love that.

Wind turbines. The wind turbines that are part of the wind industry, they’re all made with steel. You couldn’t make them without coal.

You think the climate change crowd knows this? Do you think they know that without coal, we wouldn’t have bicycles like we do? We wouldn’t have wind turbines. Medical devices are made with steel. Roads, bridges, appliances, even iPhones and computers all contain steel. This coal plant actually represents modernization. Not a wasteful step back into time.

Supreme Court  Victory for Freedom of Speech

Jun 19, 2017

Rockwell Freedom of Speech

RUSH: In a win for Asian-American rock band The Slants — and this has got possible ramifications, good ones, for the Washington Redskins. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot refuse to register trademarks that are considered offensive. The government cannot do that.


Betsy DeVos just gave the fight for campus free speech a powerful new ally

The Department of Education administers programs that broaden access to higher education, strengthens the capacity of colleges and universities, and coordinates a number of higher education-related activities with states, according to the department’s website.


Adam Kissel, DeVos’ pick, is a 5-year veteran of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization that focuses on free speech and due process on college campuses.



Christian News: Religious Freedom is Why Billy Graham’s Granddaughter is voting for Trump

Christian News:

Religious Freedom is Why Billy Graham’s Granddaughter is voting for Trump

A Graham explains why she’s voting for Trump

She’s the granddaughter of evangelist Billy Graham and the daughter of Franklin Graham – and she’s voting for Donald Trump.

key“Christians right now want to say they can’t vote for either candidate, [but] we can’t afford to sit out. This comes down to the Supreme Court and who’s going to protect my rights as a Christian and my religious freedoms.”


Cissie Graham Lynch says for her, it comes down to who sits on the Supreme Court – and that that’s why she says her brothers and sisters in Christ have to vote. “If there is only one reason for Christians to vote, this is it,” she writes. (Editor’s note: Well over half of 3,000 OneNewsNow readers who participated in a poll earlier this week agree, saying that vacancies on the Supreme Court will be foremost in their minds on Election Day.)

Following are excerpts from Lynch’s interview this morning on FOX News as well as a video of the program segment.

“Christians right now want to say they can’t vote for either candidate, [but] we can’t afford to sit out. This comes down to the Supreme Court and who’s going to protect my rights as a Christian and my religious freedoms.”

“This isn’t just an election for four to eight years – this is generational when it comes to the Supreme Court. Christians are being persecuted here; my faith is in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone – and Christians are being persecuted every day. We need people who are going to stand firm for our religious beliefs, not attack the faith-based institutions; and who are going to fight for the unborn.”

“I look at who Trump has surrounded himself with. He has surrounded himself with some godly men [like] Ben Carson. But he’s chosen not just the counsel of Mike Pence but as his running mate. Mike Pence doesn’t just talk about his faith, he talks about his faith in Jesus Christ – and he is not ashamed of it. And I think Trump and Pence together will fight on behalf of the Christian voice.”

anti-hillary-pac-postcard“To listen to [Hillary Clinton] in those first five minutes [of the final debate] just candidly talk about [late-term] abortion. This is murder – and we are on a national stage just talking about it, [and she’s saying] that it’s okay and defending it. To me it was so vulgar.”

Similarly, Dr. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas says “staying at home” on Election Day isn’t an option for Christians – and like Cissie Graham Lynch, he cites the future makeup of the Supreme Court as a major reason.


A Graham explains why she’s voting for Trump


Will Senate Republicans have Courage to Stop Obama from Replacing Justice Scalia?

Will Senate Republicans have Courage to Stop Obama from Replacing Justice Scalia?

Rush Limbaugh

GOPStopObamaPIXThis is what presidential elections are all about, Supreme Court justices.  This is going to add a new focus to the presidential campaign. Even though Supreme Court nominations already are an integral part, this is going to hyperfocus it.  It’s going to eliminate it even more greatly.  The reason that that’s important is because there is yet another opportunity, and there have been many of them, and this is a great opportunity for the Republican Party once again to contrast itself with the Democrats.  Who would the Democrats pick, what kind of justices, and what does it lead to, versus the justices that conservatives would pick.  So it’s gonna be a big deal.

Now, let’s go to the McConnell’s statement.  “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday signaled there would be no vote on any appointment picked by President Obama to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia — setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown in Washington that will likely result in gridlock for the remainder of the year.” McConnell is not planning on bringing to the floor for a vote any nominee Obama selects to succeed Scalia, according to a Senate GOP aide.

Now, what is another word for “gridlock” here?  Another word for “gridlock” is “government shutdown.”  The magic words, are they not?  How many times have you heard a Republican elected official, or even a member of the Republican media commentariat, wring their hands and lament that we cannot have another government shutdown. We cannot be held responsible for it.  If there’s a government shutdown, we are going to get blamed for it, and we will lose elections, that people like their government, they want their government open and operating. They want their government cutting checks. They want their government providing benefits, unemployment, welfare, you name it.

And if I’ve heard this once, I’ve heard it a gazillion times, Republicans say, “We can’t do this. We cannot do anything that will shut down the government,” which has always meant we can’t oppose Obama. We can’t stop Obama on the budget or anything else because the Democrats then start wailing about a government shutdown, and the Republicans can’t deal with it.

So, anticipating — and believe me here, folks, when I tell you, there is no compromise candidate, there is no meeting halfway.  That’s not who Obama is.  It’s not who the Democrats are.  And a Supreme Court justice is the place, if there’s one place above all where there will be no compromise, it’s the Supreme Court and a seat thereupon.  There will be no compromise.  Obama is going to find he’s got a chance to replace a textualist originalist.

Was Justice Scalia’s death suspicious? The situation certainly reeks of clintonesque odor.

Scalia found dead with ‘pillow over his head’

Justice Antonin Scalia 1936-2016

Justice Antonin Scalia 1936-2016

By dinner’s end at about 9 p.m., Poindexter said, “he seemed in good spirits.”
“He stood up and said he was tired, he had had a long week and he would see us in the morning,” he said.

Yet just hours later, after missing both breakfast and lunch, Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes. Later, media outlets reported he had suffered a heart attack.

Poindexter knocked on Scalia’s door about 8:30 the next morning. The door was locked and the judge did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned from an outing and determined Scalia was still missing.
“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,” said Poindexter.

“He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap,” he said.

“His hands were sort of almost folded on top of the sheets,” Poindexter told the New York Times. “The sheets weren’t rumpled up at all.”

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy.

As late as Sunday afternoon, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy would be performed, though officials later said Scalia’s body was being embalmed and there would be no autopsy. One report, by WFAA-TV in Dallas, said the death certificate would show the cause of the death was a heart attack.

As late as Sunday afternoon, for example, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy should have been performed. A manager at the El Paso funeral home where Scalia’s body was taken said his family made it clear that they did not want one.

Meanwhile, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara acknowledged that she pronounced Scalia dead by phone, without seeing his body. Instead, she spoke to law enforcement officials at the scene – who assured her “there were no signs of foul play” – and Scalia’s physician in Washington, who said that the 79-year-old justice suffered from a host of chronic conditions.

Culture Wars: Traditional Marriage Case Snubs Supreme Court

Supreme Court snubbed: 1 Traditional Marriage case steams on

State positioned to defy federal court mandate for ‘gay’ recognition

key“Five ‘unelected judges’  – as Chief Justice Roberts called them in his criticism of Obergefell – dealt an arrogant blow to God, the family, nature, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States and the democratic process. Simply because their opinion has been accepted as the ‘law of the land’ by the media and the left, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to close our eyes to the truth or pretend that the Constitution allows the judicial branch to legislate a new right to same-sex marriage.”~Eunie Smith and John Killian Sr.

Bob Unruh

familydefendmarriageIn what could become a precedent for court power, one state is set to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of “same-sex marriage” more than three months after “five lawyers” defied the wishes of a majority of voters in dozens of states.

The fight over marriage in Alabama had reached the boiling point before the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell opinion in June, with a federal judge demanding acknowledgement of same-sex marriage and the Alabama Supreme Court issuing a permanent injunction against the order.

But when the Supreme Court decision was announced in June, Alabama did not, like other states, suddenly declare the issue resolved. Instead, it invited submissions of arguments over the applicability of the ruling in the state.

And the decision on whether the injunction remains in effect hasn’t been released.

It’s coming to a head now because several probate judges – the only people in Alabama authorized to issue marriage licenses – are becoming concerned about their own constitutional protections and have asked the state’s high court to issue its decision.

Opponents pose a number of problems with the Obergefell decision.

judicialtyrannyTwo of the justices in the majority were asked to recuse themselves from the case because they had openly advocated for same-sex marriage, violating standards to preserve judicial impartiality.

Then there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s own opinion just two years earlier, in the Defense of Marriage Act case, in which the court said states have exclusive power over marriage.

And there are those who point out that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people.

Eunie Smith of the Eagle Forum of Alabama and John Killian Sr., former president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention contend in a newly published commentary that the judicial branch doesn’t have the constitutional power to legislate a right to same-sex marriage.

judicial-tyranny1“Five ‘unelected judges’ – as Chief Justice Roberts called them in his criticism of Obergefell – dealt an arrogant blow to God, the family, nature, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States and the democratic process,” they write. “Simply because their opinion has been accepted as the ‘law of the land’ by the media and the left, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to close our eyes to the truth or pretend that the Constitution allows the judicial branch to legislate a new right to same-sex marriage.”

“Alabamians elected justices to the Alabama Supreme Court with confidence that they would judge rightly in the fear of God, in step with the Constitution of the United States and the Alabama Constitution, and representative of the traditional values that Alabamians cherish. We anxiously await their decision,” Smith and Killian wrote.

Church, State, and Supreme Court Decision

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

keyAs our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well. [W]e must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools, like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is at the heart of our national character. ~David Barton


Part 1: History, Separation of Church and State

Book Review—Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant

By David Barton

Part 2—Effects of Supreme Court Decision on Society

justice gavelFollowing the Court’s 1962-1963 decisions to exclude basic religious teaching from students, violent crime increased 700 percent, with metal detectors and uniformed police officers becoming a normal part of the student educational experience. In fact, crime so exploded among junior high students that the federal government began separate tracking of murders, assaults, and rapes committed by students ages 10-14 (significantly, none of these categories of statistics existed before the Court’s decisions.) ~David Barton, Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant, p.15

As our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well. [W]e must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools, like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is at the heart of our national character. Perhaps across the ages we can hear the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln, and, applying them to our own circumstance, renew his pledge “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” with history as our judge, let us go forward together with a strong and active faith. ~Colorado State Board of Education, after Columbine tragedy. ~David Barton, Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant, p.16-17

Following the 1962-63 court-ordered removal of religious principles from students, teenage pregnancies immediately soared over 700 percent, with the United States recording the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world.

To help combat the escalating teen pregnancy rates, some schools began to teach abstinence; but opponents of that teaching claimed that pre-marital sexual abstinence was a “religious” teaching and that it thus violated “{separation of church and state.” They therefore filed suit in court, where judges agreed with their view and disallowed the teaching of abstinence. In an attempt to reduce the extremely high teen pregnancy rate and the massive governmental spending that it generates, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act, offering federal grant money to any group that would teach pre-marital sexual abstinence. That ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where logic seems to be reasserting itself: the Court reversed the lower court decision and held that even though abstinence was a religious teaching, it was nevertheless beneficial for students.

Following that ruling, nearly a dozen major abstinence-only curricula were placed in public schools (a number that is still increasing); furthermore, nearly two-dozen states have now passed laws mandating “abstinence only” teachings in the schools. And just as the removal of religious moral teachings had a verifiable negative impact, so, too, did their reintroduction have a verifiable positive impact. ~David Barton, Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant, p.17-19

American History Positive Change

In yet another positive change, there is now a renewed interest in teaching accurate history in schools, even when specific aspects of that history are overtly religious. Consequently, nearly a dozen state legislatures have passed laws encouraging teachers to post in classrooms the writings of the Founding Fathers and the documents from our history that have strong religious content, but which have largely disappeared from textbooks (e.g., the Mayflower Compact of 1620, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, George Washington’s “Farewell Address” of 1796, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address of 1865, etc.). these new laws prohibit content-based censorship of American history due to the religious references found in those documents.

In conclusion, historically speaking, the “separation of church and state” was never intended to become a tool to secularize the public square; to the contrary, the Founding Fathers intended that Biblical principles be part of public society and believed that the “separation” doctrine would preserve those principles in the public arena rather than prohibit them. And statistically speaking, the inclusion of Biblical principles and values in societal programs produces positive measurable results. Therefore, citizens should not be intimidated from utilizing those principles or values, not only because they were constitutionally protected and are now being slowly reaffirmed by the courts, but especially because they work! America will be morally and culturally strong only to the degree that Biblical, religious and moral principles are incorporated throughout society and its institutions, so take courage and stand up for what has been proven to be successful! ~David Barton, Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant, p.20

Part 1: History, Separation of Church and State

Dinner Talk

1. Name the phrase in the First Amendment that does not allow the federal government to interfere with our religious liberty.

2. Why do you think that violent crime and teenage pregnancies soared so much after the Supreme Court ruling?

Obamacare Warning: Forced Home Inspection vs. Liberty


By: Eric Odom

oamacarehomevisitsbadgeWhen the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the United States Senate and Barack Hussein Obama betrayed America and her constitution with the passage of the healthcare mandate, they unleashed a monster that will, in the end, crush the rights of a once great nation. You’ll find instance after instance of this within any given daily news cycle. Most discussions involve death panels, the necessity to give up private information (such as gun ownership) and national health history databases run by the IRS and other government agencies. There is a new piece, however, that doesn’t get discussed much at all.

Forced home inspections

Thanks to a South Carolina state bill that passed the house but failed in the Senate we learn of something very, very ugly coming packaged with Obamacare. As Ben Swann reports:

“Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

It gets worse. The home visits won’t be just about Obamacare eligibility. It will be about killing off private life in every way, shape or form. Take homeschooling, for example.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Once the government has complete control over the healthcare system, families will be at their mercy. And as we’ve already seen, Congress and the Supreme Court no longer serve to protect our rights. They now serve as entities that openly violate them.

South Carolina attempted to confront this with passage of a bill that would empower state authorities to arrest feds who attempt these unconstitutional home inspections. The bill did not make it past the Senate.

– See more at:

Obamacare: Stop Funds Action Big Alert

Action Big Alert: Stop Funds to Obamacare!

I have tried to edit this interview to the most essential parts, but most of it is so important I ended up leaving most of it in. Please read this and act. One thing I promise, once this monster is in cement, you will not like it. Please act now—hold our elected representatives accountable! ~C.A. Davidson

Push Back!

Interview: Senator Mike Lee Explains the Plan to Stop Funds to Obamacare

actionalert[Obamacare] is despised outside of the Washington, DC, Beltway area, and we’ve got to stop it, and I think the American people are with us.  The wind’s at our backs on this.  We’ve just gotta convince those who are here in Washington to do the right thing.

We’re encouraging people to get behind this effort, to communicate with their congressman and their senators and to say, “Please don’t do this.” People can find out who is where on this position at a website we set up for this purpose.  It’s  They can go to, where they can be directed to the identities of those senators and those representatives who are with us and those who have not yet joined our cause. ~Senator Mike Lee


From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

RushRepealObamacareRUSH:  Tell me and everybody else what you’re trying to do because there are now people saying what you want to do can’t be done because so much of the spending is locked in.  But I’ve read, no, that’s not true.  And then, second question, I remain perplexed.  I mean, you got a majority of the American people that oppose this, and I don’t see the Republican Party trying to connect with them, outside of you and a couple others.  So a lot of this doesn’t make any sense to a whole lot of people.

SENATOR LEE:  That’s right, it doesn’t make any sense to a whole lot of people outside the Washington Beltway.  You see, inside the Washington Beltway, this discussion is controversial.  Outside the Beltway, Obamacare is universally despised.  This is an issue, Rush, that is no longer just about Republican versus Democrat.  It’s no longer about liberal versus conservative.  This is about Washington, DC, versus everyone else.  This law is despised because it’s gonna make our health care unaffordable.  It’s also going to make health care unfair, because the president has said he’s gonna hold hardworking Americans to the line and punish them if they don’t comply with the law’s exacting demands, but he’s gonna give a big carve-out for Big Business.  Big Business doesn’t have to comply.  The American people shouldn’t have to put up with it. The president said he’s not ready to implement the law. We shouldn’t fund it.

RUSH:  When you say Big Business doesn’t have to comply, you’re talking about the one-year waiver on the employer mandate?

SENATOR LEE:  That’s correct.  The president’s selectively enforcing the law in a way that he doesn’t have the authority to do.

RUSH:  Isn’t that a tantamount admission that the law’s punitive and he doesn’t want it to be punitive going into an election?

SENATOR LEE:  Yes.  It’s punitive, . . . he’s throwing this bone out there so that he doesn’t get attacked as much within the business community and the lobbyist community.  Meanwhile, he’s throwing the rest of us out into this wasteland that is the world of Obamacare.

RUSH:  Even if the Republican Party does not want to be identified as a conservative party, they still are an opposition party.   … even if they believe that what you want to do can’t be done, why not make a stand?  There’s a majority of the American people waiting to be connected with.  Why this capitulation with the Democrats, Senator?

Stop Funds to Obamacare, not the whole government

SENATOR LEE:  We have a majority of the representatives in the House and a sizeable plurality of the senators who are against Obamacare, have been since day one.  In the House they voted 39, 40, 41 times to repeal it.  “You know, one of the few powers that we still guard jealously within Congress is the power of the purse.”  We should simply refuse to fund Obamacare.  We want to fund the rest of government, just not Obamacare.

RUSH:  What is being said by the establishment, by Washington, is this.  Look, 98, 99% of Obamacare is autopilot spending. It can’t be cut. It is just like any entitlement — Social Security, Medicare — we can’t stop it.

SENATOR LEE:  Well, those who are saying we can’t touch this because it’s mandatory spending are simply wrong.  They’re simply mistaken, or perhaps they’ve been misinformed.  The point is that Congress can decide to pass any kind of spending bill it wants.  The fact that you’ve got mandatory spending that’s already been authorized for Obamacare’s implementation doesn’t mean that can’t be cut.  We can run this with an amendment — in fact, an amendment has already been drafted up to make it so that we fund everything else in government but we claw back, we restrict funding for Obamacare, both mandatory and discretionary.

RUSH:  What about the argument that there’s no way you’re ever going to get 51 votes for this?

SENATOR LEE:  Okay.  So the argument that we’re never going to win so we shouldn’t even try overlooks the fact that if every Republican who claims to be against Obamacare simply said, “I’m not going to vote to fund Obamacare,” we would win.  And so that’s why we’re encouraging people to get behind this effort, to communicate with their congressman and their senators and to say, “Please don’t do this.”  And people can find out who is where on this position at a website we set up for this purpose.  It’s  They can go to, where they can be directed to the identities of those senators and those representatives who are with us and those who have not yet joined our cause.

RUSH:  They’re worried that somewhere down the line public opinion on this is gonna shift and people are gonna end up liking it.

SENATOR LEE:  I think that’s right, and I’ve got two responses to that.  First, Rush, the fact that entitlements, by their very nature, become popular among some of their beneficiaries is not a reason to let this law kick in.  It’s a reason to stop it be with because what we discover about entitlements, Rush, is that once they’re in place, they’re almost impossible to get rid of.  You got death, you got taxes, and you’ve got entitlements.  So it’s better to stop this thing before it kicks in, before it starts, you know, buying some loyalty among those who will never let it go away, than it would be to let it kick in and just hope and expect we can repeal it later.  That becomes much more difficult.

This was a law supposedly passed by, you know, a democratically elected Congress.  Well, in a sense that’s true, but we have to remember, Rush, that it’s been amended now four times.  It’s been amended four times by people who didn’t have the authority.  It’s been amended twice by the Supreme Court, as I explained in my book, Why John Roberts was Wrong About Healthcare, amended the statute two times in order to make it constitutional, even though they found it wasn’t. Two more times by the president who didn’t have the power to change it, but still did.

RUSH: This country’s in the midst  of a purposeful transformation that makes government not just the center of everybody’s life, but essential, and people do not want that to happen. They’ve always thought the Republican Party stood against that, so why not just stand up, even if you’re afraid people might end up liking it.

SENATOR LEE:   If we undertake the right policy, which is to stop Obamacare by any means possible, then we will benefit as a party, because that’s what the American people elected us to do.  By the same token, if we don’t do that, we’re in huge trouble as a party because we were put into power in the House of Representatives after the 2010 election because of Obamacare.  We were put into power to stop Obamacare.


Push Back

RUSH:  Exactly!  The 2010 midterms, and Obama is out campaigning today trying to sell Obamacare, which is already the law of the land.  Why is he doing that?  Because he doesn’t want a repeat in 2014 of what happened in 2010.  They want to win the House.  And there’s no push-back, Senator, other than you. Can you give me some other names that have joined you in this?

noSENATOR LEE:  Sure.  So in the Senate, we’ve got a number of people that have joined. I was pleased to be joined by Marco Rubio, by Ted Cruz, by Rand Paul, John Thune, Mike Enzi.  We have Chuck Grassley on there as well. Mike Crapo, Republican senator from Idaho, just joined yesterday.  He’s our latest edition.  We’ve got a total of 13.  We’ve got about 70 in the House that have signed a similar pledge.  And we’re building these numbers every day. We’re building because as people become aware of this effort they will get there.  I was just told by my staff that within the last day or so the House of Representatives has risen to the level of about a hundred.

There are a hundred members of the House of Representatives that have now joined with us, and these numbers are building every single day because the American people are speaking out.

SENATOR LEE:  Okay.  So, in the first place, I want to be very clear that what I’m calling for is not a shutdown.  I don’t want a shutdown. I don’t think we need a shutdown. We ought to be able to fund the government responsibly without a shutdown.  What I’m saying is that we ought to fund government, just not Obamacare.  We shouldn’t have to vote for all of it, including Obamacare, or have none of it.  That’s crazy.  Secondly, if we signal in advance that no matter what we’re going to fund Obamacare, that’s the best way to make that happen. And so that’s not the signal we should be sending.

Finally, if we get enough people who are on board in the house and in the Senate who have expressed concerns about Obamacare and are willing to say “I’m going to vote to fund government, but not Obamacare” you then put Harry Reid in the position, the untenable position of having to say because we didn’t get everything we wanted, even though you funded every other program in government, even the programs Republicans hate, we’re gonna shut down the government in the Democratic Party because you didn’t include funding for Obamacare.  That’s a terrible position for him to be in. I don’t think he wants to fight that fight, and, frankly, I don’t think he can win that fight.

RUSH:  Where are the Democrats on your effort?  I know publicly, if asked, they would say that your task is hopeless and it’s not serious, but where are they really?  It seems to me that if you’ve got this increasing number of signatories, essentially, if your support is growing every day, is there some legitimate worry on the Democrat side that you could pull this off?

SENATOR LEE:  Deep down yes, I think there is, and that’s one of the reasons why they’re more than happy to have fellow Republicans be at the tip of the spear and the attack against this effort. And, look, I want to make clear, I am fully aware of the fact that the Washington establishment is not happy with me about this effort.  I’m fully aware of the fact that many within the Washington establishment from my own party hate this effort.  But the fact that they’re against it simply tells me that I must be doing something right.  Meanwhile, the Democrats are thrilled that we’ve got Republicans doing their bidding on this, fighting against this effort, and you’ve got Republicans essentially saying “Yeah, no matter what, we’re gonna fund Obamacare.”  That’s a problem.  Because we’ve got to be the party that is not just the conservative party, but also the opposition party –

RUSH:  Well, that’s it.

SENATOR LEE:  — the party that’s standing for the people and the people’s rights.

suspend_federal_fundingobamacareRUSH:  That’s what nobody sees.  We don’t see an opposition party, Senator, other than random individuals like you and Senator Cruz, occasionally Senator Rubio. There’s no push-back whatsoever. Did I just hear you say that there are — I think I did — there’s some Democrats that really hope that Obamacare would be defunded, but they can’t publicly say so, but they hope it happens so that they don’t have something harming them in their reelection campaign?


We the People Don’t Want Obamacare!


SENATOR LEE:  You know, you did not hear me say that just a minute ago.  I have wondered in the past whether there might be some who would secretly be relieved if that happened, because I think there is a lot of vulnerability on the Democratic side of the aisle due to the fact that Obamacare, again, is not just controversial.  It is despised outside of the Washington, DC, Beltway area, and we’ve got to stop it, and I think the American people are with us.  The wind’s at our backs on this.  We’ve just gotta convince those who are here in Washington to do the right thing.

So… Barack Obama is Threatening to Shut the Government Down Unless ObamaCare Is Fully Funded… Tell Him to Bring it On.

Christianity, Supreme Court, and Freedom of Religion

Dinner Topics for Thursday


Religion and Public Life in America

Right now the Nones seem to have the upper hand in America. But what seems powerful is not always so. If I had to bet on Harvard or the Catholic Church, Yale or the Mennonites in Goshen, Indiana, the New York Times or yeshivas in Brooklyn, I wouldn’t hesitate. Over the long haul, religious faith has proven itself the most powerful and enduring force in human history.

There is another, deeper argument that must be made in defense of religion: It is the most secure guarantee of freedom. ~R.R. Reno

From Hillsdale College Imprimis

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College

R. R. RENO is the editor of First Things, a journal of religion in public life. He received his B.A. from Haverford College and his Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University, and taught theology and ethics at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, for 20 years. He is the author of Fighting the Noonday Devil, Sanctified Vision, and a commentary on the Book of Genesis, as well as a number of other books and essays.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 20, 2013, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Bonita Springs, Florida.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY is being redefined in America, or at least many would like it to be. Our secular establishment wants to reduce the autonomy of religious institutions and limit the influence of faith in the public square. The reason is not hard to grasp. In America, “religion” largely means Christianity, and today our secular culture views orthodox Christian churches as troublesome, retrograde, and reactionary forces. They’re seen as anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women—which is to say anti-progress as the Left defines progress. Not surprisingly, then, the Left believes society will be best served if Christians are limited in their influence on public life. And in the short run this view is likely to succeed. There will be many arguments urging Christians to keep their religion strictly religious rather than “political.” And there won’t just be arguments; there will be laws as well. We’re in the midst of climate change—one that’s getting colder and colder toward religion.

justice gavelRecent court cases and controversies suggest trends unfriendly to religion in public life. In 2005, a former teacher at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan, filed an employment lawsuit claiming discrimination based on disability. The school fired her for violating St. Paul’s teaching that Christians should not bring their disputes before secular judges. The subsequent lawsuit revolved around the question of whether a religious school could invoke a religious principle to justify firing an employee. The school said it could, drawing on a legal doctrine known as the ministerial exception, which allows religious institutions wide latitude in hiring and firing their religious leaders. It’s in the nature of legal arguments to be complex and multi-layered, but in this case the Obama administration’s lawyers made a shockingly blunt argument: Their brief claimed that there should be no ministerial exception.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument in a unanimous 9-0 vote. But it’s telling nonetheless that lawyers in the Justice Department wanted to eliminate this exception. Their argument was straightforward: Government needs to have broad powers to address the problem of discrimination—in this case disability—as well as other injustices. Conceding too much to religious institutions limits those powers. Why should the theological doctrines of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, or of any other church, trump the legal doctrines of the United States when the important principle of non-discrimination is at stake? It is an arresting question, to say the least—especially when we remember that the Left is currently pushing to add gay marriage to the list of civil rights.

Concerns about the autonomy of religious institutions are also at work in the Obama administration’s tussle with the Catholic Church and her religious allies over the mandate to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. After the initial public outcry, the administration announced a supposed compromise, which has been recently revised and re-proposed. The Obama administration allows that churches and organizations directly under the control of those churches are religious employers and can opt out of the morally controversial coverage. But religious colleges and charities are not and cannot. To them, the administration offers a so-called accommodation.

The details are complex, but a recent statement issued by Cardinal Dolan of New York identifies the key issue: Who counts as a religious employer? It’s a question closely related to the issue in the Hosanna-Tabor case, which asks who counts as a religious employee. Once again the Obama administration seeks a narrow definition, “accommodating” others in an act of lèse majesté, as it were. The Catholic Church and her allies want a broad definition that includes Catholic health care, Catholic universities, and Catholic charities. The Church knows that it cannot count on accommodations—after all, when various states such as Illinois passed laws allowing gay adoptions, they did not “accommodate” Catholic charities, but instead demanded compliance with principles of non-discrimination, forcing the Church to shut down her adoption agencies in those jurisdictions.

Cardinal Dolan’s statement went still further. For-profit companies are not religious in the way that Notre Dame University is religious. Nonetheless, the religious beliefs of those who own and run businesses in America should be accorded some protection. This idea the Obama administration flatly rejects. By their progressive way of thinking, economic life should be under the full and unlimited control of the federal government.

Religious liberty is undermined in a third and different way as well. For a long time, political theorists like John Rawls have argued that our laws must be based on so-called public reason, which is in fact an ambiguous, ill-defined concept that gives privileged status to liberalism. In 2010, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8—the ballot measure that reversed the California Supreme Court’s 2006 decision that homosexuals have a right to marry—citing the lack of a rational basis for thinking that only men and women can marry. “The evidence shows conclusively,” he wrote, “that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.” He continues by observing that many supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by their religious convictions, which—following Rawls—he presumes should not be allowed to govern public law.

This line of thinking is not unique to Judge Walker. The influence of Rawls has been extensive, leading to restrictions on the use of religious reasons or even religiously-influenced reasons in public debate. In striking down Texas sodomy laws, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that moral censure of homosexuality has “been shaped by religious beliefs.” The idea seems to be that moral views historically supported by religion—which of course means all moral views other than modern secular ones—are constitutionally suspect.

Here we come to the unifying feature of contemporary challenges to religious freedom—the desire to limit the influence of religion over public life. In the world envisioned by Obama administration lawyers, churches will have freedom as “houses of worship,” but unless they accept the secular consensus they can’t inspire their adherents to form institutions to educate and serve society in accordance with the principles of their faith. Under a legal regime influenced by the concept of public reason, religious people are free to speak—but when their voices contradict the secular consensus, they’re not allowed into our legislative chambers or courtrooms.

Thus our present clashes over religious liberty. The Constitution protects religious liberty in two ways. First, it prohibits laws establishing a religion. This prevents the dominant religion from using the political power of majority rule to privilege its own doctrines to the disadvantage of others. Second, it prohibits laws that limit the free exercise of religion. What we’re seeing today is a secular liberalism that wants to expand the prohibition of establishment to silence articulate religious voices and disenfranchise religiously motivated voters, and at the same time to narrow the scope of free exercise so that the new secular morality can reign over American society unimpeded.

Rise of the Nones
This shift in legal thinking on the Left reflects underlying religious trends. As the religious character of our society changes, so do our assumptions about religious freedom. The main change has been the rise of the Nones. In the 1950s, around three percent of Americans checked the “none” box when asked about their religious affiliation. That number has grown, especially in the last decade, to 20 percent of the population. And Nones are heavily represented in elite culture. A great deal of higher education is dominated by Nones, as are important cultural institutions, the media, and Hollywood. They are conscious of their power, and they feel the momentum of their growth.

At the same time, the number of Americans who say they go to church every week has remained strikingly constant over the last 50 years, at around 35 percent. Sociologists of religion think this self-reported number is higher than the actual one, which may be closer to 25 percent. In any event, the social reality is the same. As the Nones have emerged as a significant cohort, the committed core of religious people has not declined and in fact has become unified and increasingly battle tested. Protestants and Catholics alike know they’re up against an often hostile secular culture—and although a far smaller portion of the population, the same holds for Jews and Muslims as well.

These two trends—the rise of the Nones and the consolidation of the committed core of believers—have led to friction in public life. The Nones and religious Americans collide culturally and politically, not just theologically.

For a long time, the press has reported on the influence of religious voters, especially Evangelicals. Polling data shows that religiosity has become increasingly reliable as a predictor of political loyalties. But what’s far less commonly reported is that this goes both ways. In their recent book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and William Campbell focused on the practice of saying grace before meals as an indication of religious commitment and found a striking correlation. Seventy percent of those who never say grace before meals identify as Democrats, compared to slightly more than 20 percent who identify as Republicans. Nones are extremely ideological. Meanwhile, among those who say grace daily, 40 percent identify as Democrats and 50 percent as Republicans. Religious people are more diverse, but they trend to the political right, and the more religious they are the more likely they are to vote Republican.

Other data also suggests a growing divide between the irreligious and religious. A recent Pew study confirms that Nones are the single most ideologically committed cohort of white Americans, rivaled only by Evangelical Protestants. They overwhelmingly support abortion and gay marriage. Seventy-five percent of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and they played a decisive role in his victory in 2012. In Ohio, Obama lost the Protestant vote by three percent and the Catholic vote by eleven percent—and both numbers rise if we isolate Protestants and Catholics who say they go to church every week. But he won the Nones, who make up 12 percent of the electorate in Ohio, by an astounding 47 percent.

I think it’s fair to say that Obama ran a values campaign last fall that gambled that the Nones would cast the decisive votes. For the first time in American political history, the winning party deliberately attacked religion. Its national convention famously struck God from the platform, only to have it restored by anxious party leaders in a comical session characterized by the kind of frivolity that comes when people recognize that it doesn’t really matter. Democratic talking points included the “war on women” and other well-crafted slogans that rallied their base, the Nones, who at 24 percent of all Democrat and Democratic-leaning voters have become the single largest identifiable cohort in the liberal coalition.

This presents the deepest threat to religious liberty today. It’s not good when the most numerous and powerful constituency in the Democratic Party has no time for religion. This is all the more true when its ideology has the effect of encouraging the rest of the party to view religion—especially Christianity—as the enemy; and when law professors provide reasons why the Constitution doesn’t protect religious people.

Religious Liberty Under the Gun
From the end of the Civil War until the 1960s, the wealthiest, best educated, and most powerful Americans remained largely loyal to Christianity. That’s changed. There were warning signs. William F. Buckley, Jr. chronicled how Yale in the early ’50s could no longer support even the bland religiosity of liberal Protestantism. Today, Yale and other elite institutions can be relied upon to provide anti-Christian propaganda. Stephen Pinker and Stephen Greenblatt at Harvard publish books that show how Christianity pretty much ruins everything, as Christopher Hitchens put it so bluntly. The major presses publish book after book by scholars like Elaine Pagels at Princeton, who argues that Christianity is for the most part an invention of power hungry bishops who suppressed the genuine diversity and spiritual richness of early followers of Jesus.

One can dispute the accuracy of the books, articles, and lectures of these and other authors. This is necessary, but unlikely to be effective. Experts savaged Greenblatt’s book on Lucretius, The Swerve, but it won the National Book Award for non-fiction. That’s not an accident. Greenblatt and others at elite universities are serving an important ideological purpose by using their academic authority to discredit Christianity, whose adherents are obstacles not only to abortion and gay rights, but to medical research unrestricted by moral concerns about the use of fetal tissue, to new reproductive technologies, to doctor-assisted suicide, and in general to liquefying traditional moral limits so that they can be reconstructed according to the desires of the Nones. Books by these elite academics reassure the Nones and their fellow travelers that they are not opposed to anything good or even respectable, but rather to historic forms of oppression, ignorance, and prejudice.

I cannot overstate the importance of these ideological attacks on Christianity. Our Constitution accords us rights, and the courts cannot void these rights willy-nilly. But history shows that the Constitution is a plastic document. When our elite culture thinks something is bad for society as a whole, judges find ways to suppress it. The First Amendment offered no protection to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status because of a policy that prohibited inter-racial dating. As the Supreme Court majority in 1983 wrote in that case: “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.”

In recent years the Supreme Court has been largely solicitous of religious freedom, sensing perhaps that our cultural conflicts over religion and morality need to be kept within bounds. But the law professors are preparing the way for changes. Martha Nussbaum, who teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, has opined that the colleges and universities run by Catholic religious orders that require their presidents or other leaders to be members of the order should lose their tax exempt status, because they discriminate against women. She allows that current interpretations of the First Amendment don’t support her view, but that’s not much comfort. All Nussbaum is doing is applying the logic of the Bob Jones case to the feminist project of eradicating discrimination based on sex.

persecutingchristiansFormer Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum—who is also a current Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—has written about the coming conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty. With an admirable frankness she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Again, the Bob Jones case is in the background, as are other aspects of civil rights law designed to stamp out racial discrimination. For someone like Feldblum, when religious individuals and institutions don’t conform to the new consensus about sexual morality, their freedoms should be limited.

It is precisely the possibilities evoked by Nussbaum and Feldblum that now motivate the Obama administration’s intransigence about allowing places like Notre Dame to be classified as religious employers. In the Bob Jones case, the justices were very careful to stipulate that “churches or other purely religious institutions” remain protected by the First Amendment’s principle of free exercise. By “accommodating” rather than counting Notre Dame and other educational and charitable organizations as religious employers, secular liberalism can target them in the future, as they have done to Catholic adoption agencies that won’t place children with homosexual couples.

A recent book by University of Chicago professor of philosophy and law Brian Leiter outlines what I believe will become the theoretical consensus that does away with religious liberty in spirit if not in letter. “There is no principled reason,” he writes, “for legal or constitutional regimes to single out religion for protection.” Leiter describes religious belief as a uniquely bad combination of moral fervor and mental blindness, serving no public good that justifies special protection. More significantly—and this is Leiter’s main thesis—it is patently unfair to afford religion such protection. Why should a Catholic or a Baptist have a special right while Peter Singer, a committed utilitarian, does not? Evoking the principle of fairness, Leiter argues that everybody’s conscience should be accorded the same legal protections. Thus he proposes to replace religious liberty with a plenary “liberty of conscience.”

Leiter’s argument is libertarian. He wants to get the government out of the business of deciding whose conscience is worth protecting. This mentality seems to expand freedom, but that’s an illusion. In practice it will lead to diminished freedom, as is always the case with any thoroughgoing libertarianism.

Let me give an example. The urban high school my son attended strictly prohibits hats and headgear. It does so in order to keep gang-related symbols and regalia out of the school. However, the school recognizes a special right of religious freedom, and my son, whose mother is Jewish and who was raised as a Jew, was permitted to wear a yarmulke. Leiter’s argument prohibits this special right, but his alternative is unworkable. The gang members could claim that their deep commitments of loyalty to each other create a conscientious duty to wear gang regalia. If everybody’s conscience must be respected, then nobody’s will be, for order and safety must be preserved.

* * *

The Arabic word dhimmi means non-Muslim. Under Muslim rule, non-Muslims were allowed to survive only insofar as they accepted Muslim dominance. Our times are not those times, and the secularism of the Nones is not Islam. Nevertheless, I think many powerful forces in America would like to impose a soft but real dhimmitude. The liberal and libertarian Nones will quarrel, as do the Shi’a and Sunni, but they will, I think, largely unify against the public influence of religion.

What can be done to prevent them from succeeding?

First and most obvious—defend religious liberty in the courts. Although I have depicted deep cultural pressures that work against religious liberty, we live in a society governed by the rule of law. Precedent matters, and good lawyering can make a substantive difference.

Second—fight against the emerging legal theories that threaten to undermine religious liberty. This is a battle to be carried out in the law schools and among political theorists. For decades, legal activists on the Left have been subsidized by legal clinics and special programs run in law schools. Defenders of religious liberty need to push back.

Third—fight the cultural battle. Legal theory flexes and bends in accord with the dominant consensus. This Brian Leiter knows, which is why he does not much worry about the current state of constitutional law. He goes directly to the underlying issues, which concern the role of religion in public life.

Push Back

ShieldresizeWe must meet the challenge by showing that religion is indeed special. Religious people are the most likely Americans to be involved in civic life, and the most generous in their charitable contributions. This needs to be highlighted again and again. Moreover, we need to draw a contrast with the Nones, who tend to outsource their civic responsibilities and charitable obligations to government in the form of expanded government programs and higher taxes.

There is another, deeper argument that must be made in defense of religion: It is the most secure guarantee of freedom. America’s Founders, some of them Christian and others not, agreed as a matter of principle that the law of God trumps the law of men. This has obvious political implications: The Declaration of Independence appeals to the unalienable rights given by our Creator that cannot be overridden or taken away. In this sense, religion is especially beneficial. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both emphasized, it gives transcendent substance to the rights of man that limit government. Put somewhat differently, religion gives us a place to stand outside politics, and without it we’re vulnerable to a system in which the state defines everything, which is the essence of tyranny. This is why gay marriage, which is sold as an expansion of freedom, is in fact a profound threat to liberty.

Finally, we must not accept a mentality of dhimmitude. The church, synagogue, and mosque have a tremendous solidity born of a communion of wills fused together in obedience to God. This gives people of faith the ability to fight with white fury for what they perceive to be a divine cause, which is of course a great force for righteousness—but also a dangerous threat to social peace, as early modern Europe knew only too well.

In conclusion, I want to focus not on fury but on the remarkable capacity for communities of faith to endure. My wife’s ancestors lived for generations in the contested borderlands of Poland and Russia. As Jews they were tremendously vulnerable, and yet through their children and their children’s children they endured in spite of discrimination, violence, and attempted genocide. Where now, I ask, are the Russian and Polish aristocrats who dominated them for centuries? Where now is the Thousand Year Reich? Where now is the Soviet worker’s paradise? They have gone to dust. The Torah is still read in the synagogue.

The same holds for Christianity. The Church did not need constitutional protections in order to take root in a hostile pagan culture two thousand years ago.

Right now the Nones seem to have the upper hand in America. But what seems powerful is not always so. If I had to bet on Harvard or the Catholic Church, Yale or the Mennonites in Goshen, Indiana, the New York Times or yeshivas in Brooklyn, I wouldn’t hesitate. Over the long haul, religious faith has proven itself the most powerful and enduring force in human history.

U.S. Constitution and the Immigration Trap

Dinner Topics for Monday

Warning! Pay close attention here to the sneaky way this will make America a one-party system. Not good. Watch out! The gang of 8 immigration bill is a trap.

Well, what’ll happen, the theory is — and it’s a good one — what’ll happen is if the law is passed, then it’ll immediately be challenged, that this citizenship provision is unconstitutional.  You can’t bring these people out of shadows. You can’t grant them this. You can’t do that.  They’re citizens now, and all you need is one Obama judge, one liberal judge, and they’re not hard to find these days, and, bammo, you’ve got instant citizenship, instant voting.

From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

CALLER: This Gang of Eight bill has a built-in booby trap, and what I see is, we are developing a government-instituted subclass of Americans.

ImmigrationlawGOPEndPIXThese will be citizens that can’t vote and don’t have some federal benefits, and that’s prohibited by the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment. What I see Chucky and the liberals doing is they’re gonna say, “Yeah, we’ll buy into this. We’ll do it. But we learned our lesson in the health care debate. We’re gonna make sure there’s a severability clause in there.” So they get it, they get it instituted, and then they immediately go to Supreme Court. They argue that previous point, and they should easily win that. That’s an easy one. The Supreme Court throws out the restrictions, and all of a sudden whenever these guys are naturalized, whether it’s a year or 10 years, they’re complete citizens.

RUSH: Let me walk you through this. Hold it. You’ve gone through this lickety-split. I want to make sure people follow what your theory is. First off, you say the government — I’d say “the Democrat Party,” you think “the government” — needs a permanent underclass. That’s basically what you’re saying, right?

CALLER: Well, the bill will produce a government-sanctioned underclass.

RUSH: Right, government-sanctioned underclass of low-information, low-education, low-skill people.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: You don’t have to pay them very much. Then what you say is they’re gonna grant them — they’re gonna give them — amnesty and whatever else. But they’re not gonna grant them citizenship right off the bat, the right to vote and this kind of stuff. Then they’re gonna go sue themselves. They’re gonna go to the Supreme Court and say, “Wait, we can’t do what we just did.”

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: “What we just did is unconstitutional.” You think the Supreme Court could agree. “Yeah, what you guys did is unconstitutional. You’ve got to give ’em benefits right now. You’ve gotta let ’em vote right now. You have to let ’em have access to the welfare system right now.” That’s your theory, right?

CALLER: Exactly, and they don’t even have to wait until somebody’s actually naturalized. Just pass the bill and then go, “Ooh, we made a mistake,” and they go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, “Yeah. There are severability clauses in there. Everything else stands, but they get benefits as soon as they are naturalized.”

RUSH: I can see that. Some of it, they wouldn’t even have to go to the Supreme Court. All they would have to say is, “You know, it’s just not fair what we just did.” I mean, these people, we’ve just put ’em on the path to citizenship, and we’ve told ’em they can’t vote! How fair is that? Bad for us. Our bad. So, you know what? It really isn’t fair. So we’re gonna give ’em the right to vote tomorrow. We shoulda done that.” His point is that after they get the bill signed into law, then they’re going to go do what they really intend the bill to accomplish.

They’re not gonna wait 10 years or 13 years (whatever the legislation says) for these people to acquire all these rights, benefits, or what have you. “It’s not fair that they have to wait! It isn’t fair they don’t get AFDC. It isn’t fair they don’t get benefits. How can we do this to these people? What were we thinking? We’re horrible! So we’ve gotta correct our mistakes here. Wink, wink.” Ah, it’s an interesting theory. I do think it’s applicable to voting, because I think that’s the main reason for doing this. You have two main reasons for doing this.

You have voting (for the Democrats), and low-wage labor for everybody else. There may be a third reason, too: The Democrat Party does need a permanent underclass. They’ll take it wherever they can get it, but they need it. They need a large voting bloc made up of people that don’t know very much and don’t have too many skills, therefore don’t have a whole lot of potential, therefore have a lot of dependency. Democrats want to turn them into “entitlement staters,” if you will. Those are reliable votes every election.

All they would need for this is one or two liberal federal judges to see it this way, which they could easily find. But I tell you, folks, it’s not irrational at all to be thinking this way. I mean, there’s always something in every piece of legislation. An unintended consequence or something pops up that nobody thought of (although they actually did, they just didn’t tell you) that has to be dealt with right away. “It’s a mistake that was made in our haste,” blah, blah, blah, blah.

That’s why the focus here in talking about this is: What do people really want? I mean, why are we doing this? Simple question: Why are we granting amnesty? Why are we providing lip service to border security? Why are we doing it? I mean, what…? If you’ve got two scenarios, one scenario is that there are 11 or 12 million people here who are not legal. They have violated the law in coming. But they’re here, and they’re doing things. They’re working or whatever they’re doing. That’s Situation A. Over here, “That’s not right. We’ve gotta bring those people out of the shadows. We can’t have 11 million people here as a result of breaking the law.”


We’ve been getting along just fine since 1986.  Well, not just fine, but why are we doing this?  And you ought to hear the answers. When that question is asked, and it’s not very often that it’s asked, the answers are quite telling.  “We’re doing it to bring ’em out of the shadows, Mr. Limbaugh, that’s why, bring ’em out of the shadows.”  Okay, bring ’em out of the shadows.  They’re not in the shadows! They’re all over the place.  They’re not in the shadows.  “Well, it’s inhumane what we’re doing.”  What’s inhumane?  They’ve got health care. They can go to the emergency room, what’s inhumane?  They’re working.

It’s all about voting.  When you get right down to it, that’s all that is being done.  There are 11 million people here who can’t vote.  That’s gotta change.  However we do it, it’s gotta change.  And from the Democrat standpoint, we’ve gotta make sure they vote for us.  That’s what this is about.  “Mr. Limbaugh, I can’t believe that you are so cynical.”  Well, Mr. New Castrati, it’s not cynicism.  It’s honest, straightforward analysis.  I always ask the question why are we doing this.  Why are you doing this?  Republicans say, “Well, you know, we’re not really getting the Hispanic vote. The Hispanics hate us, and they hate us ’cause they think we hate them, so we gotta show ’em we don’t hate ’em.”

Okay, so how are we gonna do that?  “Well, we’re gonna say that we’re for a pathway to citizenship.”  That’s what they’ll say.  I don’t think they hate us to begin with, but they may have been talked into it.  There may be some genuine dislike here, but the way to fix that is not this.  But it’s all about voting, folks, both parties.  Both parties think there are votes there.  The Democrats know there are.  The Republicans, they see it happening.  “Well, my gosh, we better sign onto this, or they’re gonna really hate us, and then we’ll go for their votes later.”  It’s all about votes.  What else could it be?  Is there anything else it could really be about it?  Not to me.  If somebody could show me there’s something else where I’m wrong, I’d be more than willing to listen to it.

RUSH:  By the way, Chris Cillizza’s point, that piece that I was sharing with you about how all of these scandals are distracting everybody away from amnesty, not here.  And I just want to reiterate with all of these things that are going on, amnesty is the biggie, folks, because if amnesty is achieved, then all the rest of this is academic, and we basically have a one-party government and country for at least a generation.  By the way, Chris Cillizza, even in his story, Chris Cillizza’s point was that the IRS scandals were distracting talk radio from raising the alarm about amnesty.  He admitted that it was talk radio that stopped amnesty in 2007.

justice gavelChris Cillizza, the Washington Post.  And he said all these other scandals — Benghazi, IRS — are providing cover for amnesty, got talk radio distracted, so they know where their real problems lie.  Cillizza admits it.  But here’s the point.  The amnesty bill, as it’s written, or the pathway to citizenship bill, delays citizenship for a number of years.  That’s why you’re hearing pathway to citizenship.  Well, what’ll happen, the theory is — and it’s a good one — what’ll happen is if the law is passed, then it’ll immediately be challenged, that this citizenship provision is unconstitutional.  You can’t bring these people out of shadows. You can’t grant them this. You can’t do that.  They’re citizens now, and all you need is one Obama judge, one liberal judge, and they’re not hard to find these days, and, bammo, you’ve got instant citizenship, instant voting. 

So they know if they put this in the legislation, it’s not gonna pass.  So this is how they’re gonna get it.  Even Bob Menendez, there’s a political story today, Bob Menendez, Democrat Senator, New Jersey, admits that the problem with the bill right now in the Senate is Democrats, not Republicans.  They don’t have 60 votes for this thing because they don’t have enough Democrats for it.  But he says give us time and we’ll get 70 votes.  Well, what the time is needed for, they can’t in this bill come out and say we’re gonna grant ’em citizenship the minute Obama signs it.  Nobody, nobody will stand for that.

So the trick, or the deception, is a pathway to citizenship that delays citizenship for a number of years or whatever it is — I think it’s 12 or 13, but regardless — the minute that bill is signed, the next day it’s gonna get challenged.  Maybe even Schumer will challenge himself; who knows.  But some activist group is gonna challenge the bill as unconstitutional.  All you gotta do is go to a federal judge that agrees with the liberals, and, bammo, you got instant citizenship.  That is the caller’s theory, and it’s a good one, and it probably is the strategy.  ‘Cause they know, in Congress, House and Senate, the American people do not want this. We did this once in 1986.  The American people may want some kind of immigration reform, but blanket amnesty they don’t want.

So this is the way to get it and it has the added benefit of having it done under the courts, and when it happens in the courts, it’s over, you can’t challenge the courts.  Federal court, Supreme Court, what have you.

Action Big Alert: Abortion and Supreme Court

Sign this petition to Stop Supreme Court Abortionist Pickactionalert

President Obama and his pro-abortion pals are looking at the U.S. Supreme Court and licking their lips.

They know President Obama’s next high court pick could secure a pro-abortion Supreme Court for decades to come.

And the Abortion Lobby believes, the next radical court nominee could lead to the destruction of virtually EVERY pro-life law in the country, as well!

It’s a sickening thought, and there’s only ONE WAY to stop it.

life allianceThe National Pro-Life Alliance has made up special Supreme Court Confirmation petitions I’m counting on you to fill out and sign TODAY.

As you’ll see, these petitions insist your U.S. Senators do everything possible to DEFEAT any pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee.

I’ll give you the link shortly, but first I need to make one thing crystal clear . . .

The Abortion Lobby is NOT sitting around on their hands waiting for another Court vacancy to occur before they mobilize.

Right now, the so-called National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List are working feverishly to ensure President Obama’s next Court pick is his most outrageous nominee yet.

And they plan to ram him or her through the U.S Senate for confirmation before pro-lifers know what hit them!

So unless you and I start preparing RIGHT NOW, it could be too late.

Please take a moment and click here to sign the petition to your Senators right away asking them to oppose any pro-abortion nominee!

And after you sign, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10, $25 or more to help the National Pro Life Alliance prepare to fight back.

For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has been anything but a friend to unborn children. But without your help today, I’m afraid things could get much, much worse.

Just as you and I have seen with “ObamaCare” and the Roe v. Wade travesty itself, Supreme Court Justices aren’t above imposing the Abortion Lobby’s radical agenda on America through judicial decree.

And I’m afraid President Obama’s next Court nominee could very well give the Abortion Lobby the Supreme Court majority they need to DESTROY all pro-life laws throughout the country, including:

***  Parental intervention laws to stop abortionists from secretly preying on underage girls by ensuring that parents are legally able stop any abortion on their minor children;

***  Ultrasound Laws to prove to expectant mothers that they are carrying a precious unborn life inside them — not a meaningless “glob of flesh” as abortionists would have them believe;

***  Bans on sex selection abortions, which prohibit the killing of the unborn just because the a parent didn’t like the sex of their baby;

***  Bans on taxpayer funding for abortions to allow the Abortion Lobby to pick the pockets of every American taxpayer.

I can’t tell you what a tragedy this would be.

While our ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and to end abortion nationwide through passage of the Life at Conception Act, through laws like these and others, states are saving unborn lives.

In fact, Time Magazine ran a January 14 cover story entitled, “Why Abortion Rights Activists Have Been Losing Ever Since Roe v. Wade.”

The fact is, when popularly elected representatives decide, the outcome is overwhelmingly pro-life.

That’s why this next Supreme Court pick is so important to them, why they’re not waiting around to mobilize — and why you and I must prepare to fight back NOW!

Please click here to sign the petition to your Senators right away!

You see, there will be NO TIME to raise money, mobilize and fight back once a vacancy occurs and a nominee is selected.

President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) know the key to handing their pro-abortion allies the Supreme Court power they crave is SPEED.

So you and I MUST start fighting back now and be ready to flood the Senate with hundreds of thousands, even millions, of pro-life petitions on DAY ONE of the fight.

Today, while the Supreme Court certainly doesn’t have a pro-life majority — the most radical wing of the pro-abortion justices on the Court holds only a slim minority.

So Obama’s next pick could tip the scale!

Can you imagine the slaughter in store for the unborn from the Court should the Abortion Lobby get their way with EVERYTHING they want?

You and I will be sure to see the destruction of pro-life laws all over the country!

The good news is, the National Pro-Life Alliance has a plan to WIN, so I’ve agreed to help them. I hope you will too.

I know you and I have heard plenty of U.S. Senators saying there can be no “litmus tests” for Court nominees of the years.

Sadly, many self-described “pro-life” Senators often use the “litmus test” excuse to run scared from any fight with the Abortion Lobby over Court nominees.

In fact, during the last Supreme Court confirmation fight in 2009, NINE Republican Senators — many of whom publicly parade themselves as “pro-life” — crossed party lines to vote for Obama’s radical justice Sonia Sotomayor!

Of course, I understand the incredible power our Founders vested in the presidency.

But I believe no U.S. Senator can uphold our Constitutional liberties while ignoring our God-given right to life!

That’s why your signed Supreme Court Confirmation petition and your generous financial support for NPLA TODAY are so critical.

With your support, NPLA has a massive four-part plan designed to turn up the heat on the U.S. Senate, including:

1)   Contacting up to 12 million pro-lifers and more all over the country using mail, email and phones to alert them to this absolutely critical battle and generate petitions to their U.S. Senators;

2)   Working the talk radio lines, granting media interviews, holding press conferences and launching church tours to ensure every pro-life American is aware of the stakes in the next Supreme Court nominee fight;

3)   Running web ads on heavily trafficked websites, working the blogs, and launching a state-of-the-art Facebook campaign to reach and mobilize up to four million more supporters;

4)   And finally, if funds permit, NPLA will launch a powerful TV ad campaign in the days before each nominee’s final vote ensuring every targeted Senator knows his reelection (or even party re-nomination) could ride on his or her Supreme Court confirmation vote.

Such a massive program will be what it takes to win any Supreme Court confirmation battle.

President Obama and the Abortion Lobby have proven they’re willing to play hardball. I believe the unborn deserve our honorably doing the same.

This is NOT a fight pro-lifers like you and me can afford to ignore.

I can hardly make myself think of the horrific results you and I could see if the Abortion Lobby gets their way.

The innocent unborn who will pay the price with their lives.

So please sign your Supreme Court Confirmation petition IMMEDIATELY.

Whatever you can do will help tremendously.

This battle will be a defining one for the pro-life movement.

Please sign your petition and contribute as generously as you can TODAY.

For Life,

Martin Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance