http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/30/something-is-happening-to-european-cars-that-beck-says-should-be-a-significant-wakeup-call/

Something Is Happening to European Cars That Beck Says Should Be a ‘Significant Wakeup Call’

Glenn Beck says it should be a “significant wakeup call” that cars in Europe may no longer have FM and AM radio within several years.

“I recently got a disturbing news report from Norway that in 2017 they’re turning off the FM radio band,” Beck said in an interview with D CEO released Tuesday. “And Europe has already started—or will be starting—to no longer produce cars with AM radio. That should be a significant wakeup call to the American industry of radio, that radio as we know it is on the verge of profound change.”

Glenn Beck speaks on his radio program June 8, 2015. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Beck said that not only could AM radio be more difficult to find, but with a new generation coming of age that views decision-making differently, “we’re looking at pretty much a redo of radio and the talk format.”

“We have a dynamic radio business here. But we’re about to put the hood up, take the engine out, and try to build something entirely different from the ground up—and this is the trick—without losing the current audience or business that we’re doing,” Beck continued. “We’re going to try to pull off a miracle here. But, somebody’s going to do it.”

Beck also discussed why he believes his company has been successful since he left Fox News, saying “there is a massively underserved, misunderstood audience in America that resides in the Heartland as much as it does in the inner cities,” and that audience is driven by common sense more than they are by politics.

“They’re for families, for the bad guys going to jail—whether that’s in high finance or Washington or the burglar down the street,” Beck concluded. “In the media, that’s not even understood anymore. So I think there’s a real hunger for, ‘Just tell me the truth, without the agenda.’”

Read the complete article at D CEO.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Sent from my iPhone

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/15-reasons-marriage-equality-is-about-neither-marriage-nor-equality/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=ce1ca8f19f-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-ce1ca8f19f-83778081

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

2. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.

And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

3. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.

Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

5. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’ 

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

7. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?

The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

9. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

10. It Sets a Collision for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

11. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity 

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent 

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.

So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?

Sent from my iPhone

THE WILDFIRE BURNS

Dare to be a Daniel, for such a time as this. Do not eat from the Kings table, but prove your self and your GOD. like Esther - "For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise...from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"  (Esther 4:14)

http://www.redstate.com/2015/06/29/the-wildfire-burns/

http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/06/1-wife-is-not-enough-polygamy-now-inevitable/

RUSH LIMBAUGH: HERE'S WHAT'S NEXT FOR MARRIAGES

Rush Limbaugh

Get ready: Polygamy is the new “gay” movement – and talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh warns the June 26 legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court makes spouse collecting in America “inevitable.”

“Look, folks, you can think all you want, but there’s no legal basis to stop it now,” Limbaugh told his listeners on Monday’s show. “There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from applying the same reasoning to supporting polygamy.”

Limbaugh explained the case for same-sex marriage was “all rooted in self-esteem and dignity and not being denied things that make you happy.”

Kody Brown and his wives, Robyn, Meri, Christine and Janelle, cast of “Sister Wives” fled Utah for Las Vegas under the threat of prosecution for bigamy

The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, he said, doesn’t assume marriage is a union of only two people.

In fact, it didn’t set any boundaries at all.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

“That limit is not specifically there,” Limbaugh explained. “They’ve rewritten what marriage is now, is the point here, folks. Marriage was what it was as ordained from the ancient biblical texts.”

He then read passages from Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 16:4-6, which reaffirm the biblical definition of marriage.

“But it’s been rewritten now, and it’s been written not under any sort of constitutional purview but rather some people out there that were denied something and it’s not right,” he said. “A lot of people had something and those people didn’t and then those people want it, so we think they should have it. Their self-esteem and their dignity is tied up into it.”

And if a man comes along and declares, “I want two wives”?

“[T]he ruling in this case does not give anybody the right to tell ‘em ‘no,’ Limbaugh explained. “Marriage had a specific definition. Words mean things. And now it’s become something entirely different by virtue of the Supreme Court. You wait. There will be attempts to expand on this in ways that you can’t even conjure.”

Polygamy in America

Don’t think a move to legalize polygamy could happen in America?

WND has reported that, while spouse collecting is still illegal in the United States, polygamy is apparently thriving – and not where most Americans might expect.

The mainstream media tend to focus on polygamists who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah, Arizona, Texas and Colorado.

Polygamy made national headlines in two high-profile cases in recent years: In 2007, FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was convicted of sex crimes charges. (Jeffs is estimated to have more than 50 wives and is reportedly issuing edicts from his prison cell.) And in 2008, authorities raided a Texas FLDS compound called the YFZ Ranch, and found six men guilty of child sexual assault.

But Muslim men in America are marrying multiple wives as well.

A 2008 NPR report estimated between 50,000 and 100,000 Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families.

WND’s 2012 search of a popular Muslim “singles” dating site revealed more than 1,000 results for married Muslim men – located in the United States – who were openly seeking additional wives.

For the parameters of WND’s search, only married Muslim men who lived in the U.S. and were interested in taking another wife were selected.

The search returned more than 1,000 results – so many, the site recommending refining criteria because there were too many matches.

WND found active profiles for married Muslim men seeking additional wives in every U.S. state (and Washington, D.C.) – except Alaska.

Most of the men were in New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The trend can be seen in other countries as well. Canada’s decision to legalize homosexual marriage in 2005 became the basis for polygamists’ arguments for having multiple spouses.

In 2009, the Associated Press reported, “Canada’s decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer … as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.”

“If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?” argued Blair Suffredine, a lawyer representing a man who was charged with marrying 20 women.

In the U.S., with the expansion of the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals, now other groups are advocating for polygamy.After New York legalized homosexual marriage in 2011, Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, tweeted: “Easy to support gay marriage today bc it’s mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument. *crickets*”

In a 2011 survey conducted by The Muslim Link, 42 percent of the Muslims surveyed said “they were either in or knew others in, polygamous marriages within the local Muslim community,”

According to the report, “Thirty nine percent said they would engage in a polygamous marriage if it were legal in the United States. … [N]early 70 percent said they believe that the U.S. should legalize polygamy now that it is beginning to legalize gay marriage.”

In March 2012, a WND/Wenzel Poll, conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies, indicated there is a surprisingly high level of support for polygamous marriage developing across the U.S. A full 22 percent of the respondents said there is no legal justification for denying polygamy, based on the fact that legislation and judicial decisions have affirmed the validity of same-sex “marriage” for homosexuals. Another 18.7 percent were uncertain. Further, 18 percent of the respondents said there was no moral justification for denying polygamy, and 14.5 percent were uncertain. The scientific telephone survey had a margin of error of 3.72 percentage points. While only 6.1 percent said polygamy is a “preferred” lifestyle, another 15.9 percent said it is an “equally valid lifestyle.” Across America, that would mean tens of millions accept the idea.

Who’s to blame for same-sex “marriage”? Paul Kengor’s “Takedown” argues that extreme-left radicals are attacking America’s families in their pursuit of “fundamental transformation.”

What else is next?

Limbaugh noted that “a lot of liberalism” is “rooted in the misery and unhappiness of being in a minority.”

“[A]long with that unhappiness is a resentment of the majority, a resentment or an envy of the majority,” he said. “So the motivating mechanism here is to be what the majority is, to have what the majority has, simply because it’s not fair that some people have it and some people don’t.”

The homosexual movement reduced marriage to it “to a thing or a benefit that some people get and some people don’t.”

“And that isn’t fair, and it’s not democratic,” Limbaugh said. “[They] … think that getting what the majority has is gonna make ‘em happy, and they’re gonna find out that it doesn’t.”

All of their efforts and triumphs will never be enough, he explained, because there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of why there’s misery in the first place.

British woman Amanda Rodgers, 47, and her dog/wife ‘married’ in 2014

“[T]he unhappiness born of envy and resentment is never, ever mollified,” he explained. “That’s why all of the great philosophers have warned people, ‘Do not act on vengeance, do not act on envy, ’cause you’re not gonna like what you get. It’s not gonna give you the happiness you thought.’”

In fact, as Limbaugh noted, Chief Justice John Roberts mentioned the “inevitability” of polygamy in his dissent:

“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

And, as WND reported in April, Justice Samuel Alito asked during oral arguments why four lawyers wouldn’t be allowed to marry if people of the same sex may do so.

Limbaugh also noted that in the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia correctly predicted that the Supreme Court would soon hear a case on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Just as Scalia warned same-sex marriage was coming as a result of overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy law, Limbaugh said, Roberts is now warning that polygamy is right around the corner.

“Folks, you’ve gotta understand here: Supreme Court decisions create a lot of things. Precedents, new rules,” he said. “Now, animals? The one thing about animals is that even though a woman in the U.K. did marry her dog, animals cannot give consent, so that’s not a legitimate thing. An animal can’t consent to a marriage to its master. … I’m thinking that the line would be drawn there.”

But then Limbaugh questioned even that assumption: “Actually, who the hell knows anymore?”

What do YOU think? What’s next after same-sex marriage? Sound off in today’s WND poll

Sent from my iPhone

PUT AMERICAN FLAG WATERMARK ON YOUR FB PROFILE

http://rightwingnews.com/test/

Instructions

Enter Image URL Here: 

If you're on a desktop computer:

1. Click on your profile picture from your Facebook page.

2. Right click on the large image of your profile picture that appears.

3. Click "Copy Image URL".

If you're on a mobile device:

1. Open your Facebook profile page in your phone's browser.

2. Tap your profile picture to open it.

3. On the next screen that shows your profile picture, tap the small text below it that says "View Full Size".

4. Copy the web address of the page that loads.

Once you've gotten your profile picture URL, merely paste the URL into the box above and click "Go!". NOTE: IT MAY TAKE MULTIPLE CLICKS ON "Go!" TO WORK!

Once the image is generated, right click on the image and select "Save Image As". From a mobile device you can tap and hold the image to bring up the save option. Note that from some mobile devices you may have to take a screenshot, if you're unable to save it.

Once the image is saved to your computer, upload it to Facebook as your new profile picture.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/native-americans-say-no-to-gay-marriage

Native Americans Say “No” to Gay Marriage

In the cultural battle over “same-sex” marriage, one of the American groups overlooked in the debate is the Native American population.  Organized along ancestral tribes, these groups form a diverse, yet significant portion of the U.S. population.

Native American tribal leaders have discussed the issue of “same-sex” marriage at length over the past several years as the debate has raged in America.

Where many of them have come out on the matter is sure to make liberals howl. 

CNS News reports:

Tribal laws of the two largest Native American tribes in the United States prohibit gay marriage, as do the laws of nine other smaller tribes.

The Navajo and Cherokee Nations, the first and second largest tribes respectively, together have about 600,000 members. The nine smaller tribes that ban gay marriage have another 350,000 members. These tribes all either define marriage as between a man and a woman or explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage, according to the Associated Press (AP).

Since 2011, six of the eleven tribes revisited and upheld their preexisting legal definitions of marriage as between a man and a woman, AP researchers found.

It will not matter what the Supreme Court decides on “same-sex” marriage.  These tribes have their own sovereignty as CNS News reveals:

Due to their status as sovereign nations, these 11 tribes will not need to change their marriage laws, which govern nearly one million tribal members, even if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage later this month.

If the court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling determines that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, Native American bans on gay marriage will remain in effect because federally-recognized tribes have the right to establish their own laws and are not subject to the U.S. Constitution.

These Native American tribes have thought through this issue and their statements are clear, concise, and legally binding as CNS News explains:

For example, the Cherokee Nation Marriage and Family Protection Act of 2004 defines marriage as “a civil contract between one man and one woman” and states that “no marriage shall be contracted…between parties of the same gender.”

Title 6 of Chickasaw tribal law states that “a marriage between persons of the same gender performed in any jurisdiction shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Chickasaw Nation.” However, the law notes that it does not prohibit “members of the same sex from entering written contracts” with one another.

Many other tribes remain neutral, AP reports, neither taking steps to officially recognize gay marriage nor changing the wording of their marriage laws to include or preclude recognition of same-sex couples.

However, the legal language for some of these neutral tribes makes reference to heterosexual couples by use of such phrases as “husband and wife,” “a man and a woman,” and “unmarried male and…unmarried female.”

For example, the Northern Cheyenne Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act defines marriage as “a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential,” in which spouses “take each other as husband and wife.”

To date, such laws have not been applied to same-sex couples.

The question, at this point, is whether homosexual rights bullies will eventually set their sites on these Native American tribes as they have done to various Christian businesses around the nation.

It is doubtful such challenges could be successful.  But, that may not stop these extremist radicals from trying to foist their “gender confusion” onto Native Americans as well.

Native Americans have endured far worse in their past and survived.  They will probably overcome this threat to their way of life as well.

Sent from my iPhone

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/look-at-every-country-that-allows-gay-marriage-you-see-something-very-interesting/

Look at every country that allows gay marriage and you see something VERY interesting…

Every day or so I get a chart from Statista showing figures for various things. Like who in D.C. gets the highest speaking fees (Chelsea Clinton? really?) Today I received one about which countries in the world allow gay marriage. Take a look at this chart and see if you see what I saw.

I am wondering if homosexuality is part of “white privilege” — if there is in fact “gay privilege,” which is conferred by the privileged white leadership. Because other than Jacob Zuma, the leader of South Africa — and one genetic half of our president — none of the leaders of the countries which allow gay marriage are people of color. The grandparents of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the president of Argentina were from Spain and Germany. Even the president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has Bulgarian ancestry.

Also of note is the fact that gay marriage is allowed in majority Christian countries – you know, those same terribly intolerant Christians who won’t bake wedding cakes or pizzas.

So shall we start a pool to guess which nation will be next?

[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief]

Sent from my iPhone

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/dissenting-obergefell-justices-sound-alarm-on-religious-freedom/

Dissenting Obergefell Justices Sound Alarm On Religious Freedom

Lost in the celebration was even a slight journalistic comprehension of what the Court had done, much less a critical analysis of same. There is much to be written about the effect of this Roe V. Wade-style decision that bans any further discussion of changing marriage law voluntarily. I imagine there will be much focus on the alarms sounded by the four dissenting justices about the grave threat to self-government, rule of law and the unintended consequences of redefining the pre-governmental institution that forms the basis of society. For now, let’s look at what the justices had to say about the clash between sexual liberty and religious freedom.

Let’s remind ourselves that for years, now, the media have acted as cheerleaders for same-sex marriage. At best, they’ve ignored concerns from much of the country that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could lead to grave threats to religious freedom. At worst, they’ve disparaged critics and skeptics of marriage redefinition as the worst kind of bigots. Many journalists, including some at the Washington Post, New York Times, NPR and other major outlets, put word out that they did not believe opponents of marriage redefinition needed to be covered fairly, shunning them as beneath contempt. In recent months, the media engaged in anti-religious liberty campaigns, hunting for heretics in state-based battles of sexual liberty vs. religious freedom.

With that brief reminder, let’s look at what each justice had to say about the clash.

Kennedy: We’ll let you talk about your wrong religious views. Nothing more.

First up is Anthony Kennedy’s opinion, boldface mine. It’s remarkably brief, particularly considering the lengthy and flowery prose dedicated to other parts of his emotive opinion:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. 

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty.”

And that’s … it. That’s the entirety of Kennedy’s comment on the matter. You know how sometimes you hear something or see something and it sounds nice and then when you think about it, you start to realize that it was carefully worded to make it seem nicer than it is? Well, this doesn’t even require a re-read for your antenna to go up. I mean, it’s true that the First Amendment recognizes the right of the religious to teach. But it does ohhhhhh so much more than that! It actually guarantees freedom of religious expression, of which teaching the faith is but one small part. Or as the First Amendment puts it, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To pat the religious on the head and say, “you can kind of still teach, for now” while discovering a new constitutional right in deep conflict with those teachings is disconcerting, to put it mildly.

Roberts: This decision does not protect the religious.

The dissenters picked up on it. Let’s see what they have to say about this not-even-remotely-generous allowance King Kennedy doles out to those loser American subjects who insist on retaining their faith. First up is the author of the main dissent, John Roberts. He goes to town on the topic:

“The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing samesex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

“Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept samesex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19. 

Scalia: Rule of law and self-government have been gravely wounded. Also, Kennedy is an idiot.

Scalia didn’t write specifically about religion, but he did say this decision robbed Americans of their right to self-government and that the court beclowned itself and damaged American democracy.

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. 

“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. 

Thomas: CODE RED. I repeat, we have a religious liberty CODE RED.

In most Supreme Court cases where Scalia is writing a dissent, his dissent is the most fun to read. This case is no exception, particularly if you enjoy watching Kennedy’s argument ripped to shreds. But the other dissents expressed exactly as much alarm as Scalia, which makes them far more frightening to read. Here’s what Clarence Thomas had to say:

“The majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. 

Smooth move, Kennedy! What are you going to do for an encore? Wait, don’t answer that!

Alito: With this lawless decision, government will stamp out dissent

Alito also sounded the alarm, pointedly and with economy:

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes.”

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools. 

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds. Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. 

Kennedy’s muddled opinion included a total of one paragraph on the most contentious religious freedom issue of our time. Even that paragraph showed, as Thomas put it, a mistaken understanding of the First Amendment. Perhaps when the media complete their marches in pride parades and finish their breathless coverage of a rainbow-spackled White House and are done changing their logos to rainbow flags, they can take a few minutes to glance at these dissents, each of which express grave concerns about religious freedom and the rule of law.

Who could have anticipated that?

Sent from my iPhone