Faith-based tax exempt status in jeopardy

July 1, 2015

Churches under assault for support of traditional marriage

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26th decision to redefine marriage, the tax-exempt status of religious institutions is now in jeopardy.

Mark Oppenheimer, who writes the “Beliefs” column for the New York Times, leaves no room for doubt where his own beliefs are, as he opines, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion and non-profits.”

His Time.com article, ”Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions,” is appalling in its flagrant dismissal of faith-based institutions.

A self-described” gay-rights supporter,” Oppenheimer was “elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision.” The rest of us should prepare for what appears to be on the horizon as the two issues are mow brazenly linked.

In case you had any doubts, the assault on churches —- along with the schools, hospitals and various services they administer —- is in full bloom and comes in rapid succession to the court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

Katie Pavlich, in her Townhall column says it best: “Religious liberty is under attack in America and the next five years will serve as a battleground to protect or destroy it. If religious liberty is in fact destroyed, America will no longer hold onto one of the most important principles that makes it an exceptional nation more tolerant than the rest in the world. We are at a tipping point.” 


Gannett in the throes of solo winging

June 30, 2015

Gannett, the parent company of the Arizona Republic newspaper, is winging it as a solo entity as of Monday.

The article in industry insider Poynter reports “19,600 employees of Gannett newspapers will be working for a new company — untethered from growing and prosperous television stations and digital ventures.”

It can’t get much worse for readers of the Arizona daily, expecting news and getting, instead, rehash under the not very clever heading “Week in Review.” Everything you’ve already read is served up again as appetizing as  cold porridge. Cronkite Journalism students write in trendy colloquialisms (“we reached out,” “she went missing,” “functionality“), and mismatched tenses. Editors are either on vacation or were laid off.

Poynter points out the New Gannett begins life with two clear challenges: Revenues, dragged down by weak print advertising, were off 9 percent in the first quarter, and the second quarter does not look much better.  Results have been similar at NewsQuest, the group of regional British papers Gannett owns, which was hit by a work stoppage in recent weeks to protest cuts.

If you’re looking for movie and restaurant reviews to sweeten the relentless liberalism, radical politics, amnesty push and  “gay” agenda  olio, the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) is for you. Want unbiased news reports written in proper English? You’ll have to move on.


SCOTUS: Citizenship no longer matters when voting

June 29, 2015

In deciding to deny the petition for certiorari in the key election case Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, (background here) the United States Supreme Court has summarily decided that citizenship is of no consequence in voting in U.S. elections.

At issue was the question of whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with what has become known as the “federal form.” The form pertains to state and federal elections. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on an appeal of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court decision.


Jeb! proves he’s politically tone deaf

June 29, 2015

Besides being an establishment backed RINO, Jeb! is also tone-deaf. Sunday, fearful about his prospects of coming in ahead of the Republican pack in the campaign donation department, Team Jeb! sent out two desperate calls for money before the FEC filing deadline for this quarter, which ends midnight Tuesday.

The first email solicitation was a colossal blunder. The subject line was “¡Todos por Jeb!” or “All for Jeb!” for English speakers. The message addressed in McCainese to “Friend,” was signed by Jeb’s Mexican-born and raised wife Columba, who stresses the importance of the “deadline.”

Within short order, that email was followed by another, also sporting the “Friend” salutation from George “P” Bush, the lawyer son of Jeb! and Columba — still quaintly using a last name —  who is laying his own political groundwork having been elected as the Texas Land Commissioner. “P” writes, “I know mom reached out, but I wanted to follow-up. Dad needs your help, no two ways about it. This is the first deadline of the campaign, and Dad is going to have to disclose just how many people are supporting his campaign — everyone will be watching,” implores “P.”

He says we must do our “duty to support Dad before this critical end-of-the-month deadline.”

Then comes the threat: ”There are only two outcomes when midnight Tuesday rolls around:

  1. We’ll hit our goal and send the other campaigns a clear message of our strength. 
  2. We’ll fail and send a message to Hillary that we’re not serious: that the path to the White House will be unobstructed.

Message to ”P”: At last count there were a dozen other Republicans besides your Dad who have thrown their hats in the ring. This is not a Jeb!/Hillary face-off.

Jeb! the third Bush presidential aspirant has marginalized himself with his support of Common Core and calling the illegal invasion “an act of love.“ He actually said the issue “shouldn’t rile people up.”  As if on cue, John McCain’s doppelganger Jeff Flake agreed with Jeb!, praising him for having “the guts to say it.” 

Even establishment Republicrat Karl Rove, who has taken his losing battle of bashing conservatives on the road, conceded that Jeb Bush was not artful (sly enough) in those remarks. 

We can do better. Jeb! is a Bush too far.


SCOTUS rules in two cases affecting Arizona

June 29, 2015

Liberals on SCOTUS thwarted in abolishing death penalty, rule against AZ legislature

Arizona’s application of lethal injection holds, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling in Glossip v. Gross, an Oklahoma case brought by inmates challenging the drug protocol. Lethal injection opponents cited an execution they referred to as “botched.”

The 5-4 decision, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor a death penalty opponent, theatrically stated that the use of the drug midazolam leaves the prisoners “exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.”  Sotomayor neglected to call attention to the victims of the criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to be worthy of the death penalty.

The Arizona Legislature was dealt an unfortunate blow in the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . At issue was whether an unelected “Independent” Commission should infringe on the Arizona Legislature’s ability to draw redistricting boundaries. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision sided with the appointed commission‘s authority. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority’s position “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.”


Governmental jumble as SCOTUS Justices legislate

June 28, 2015

Speculation on opinions pointless since liberal justices vote as a bloc

Americans, as young students have been taught that the U.S. Constitution provides a separation of powers via three distinct branches of government. The Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive branch carries them out, and the Judicial branch evaluates them.

Our Founders created a Constitution with an ingenious and intricate system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent, yet coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly delineates the separation of powers —- creating a federal government with enumerated and limited powers, designed to keep government as close to the people as possible. 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

James Madison stressed the necessity to reserve all possible authority in the states and people saying, “The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

With these thoughts as background, take time today to enlighten yourself by reading Andrew C. McCarthy’s heard-hitting assessment of the past week’s U.S. Supreme Court actions. Then brace yourself for those still to come on Monday.

McCarthy’s insightful article, printed in National Review, is titled: “Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One.”

Background: Arizona Senator John McCain voted to confirm liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court. McCain and Kyl joined the group of 36 GOP senators and one Democrat in opposing Elena Kagan’s nomination to the high court. The Huffington Post has the statements each of the senators gave as their reason.


Blind rogue elephant makes deals with Obama, tramples Americans

June 27, 2015

Although former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is at his best in this exposé on the House GOP sellout on immigration bills, the information he delivers is alarming.

Breitbart’s Big Government carries Tancredo’s warning about the House immigration bills slated to be debated on the House floor sometime after the July Fourth recess. Tancredo describes them as ranging from “deficient to disastrous,” with many “deeply flawed.”

He writes, ”Speaker Boehner and his team have no intention of allowing strong immigration enforcement bills to come to a vote on the House floor. The reasons for this continued stupidity are as transparent as they are onerous. The House Republican leadership continues to misread and misunderstand public opinion and the nation’s strong desire for both secure borders and interior enforcement.”

Tancredo notes there are “10,000 potential terrorists entering the country annually.” That’s the number of border crossers entering the United States each year from countries on the official government list of state sponsors of terrorism.

He concludes, “There are two serious obstacles to passing meaningful immigration bills out of the Republican-majority US House of Representatives. One is the duplicitous marauder who lives in the White House, and the other a blind rogue elephant on Capitol Hill.

Knowledge is power. We urge you to read “Tancredo: House GOP preparing to sell out on immigration bills.”

Then, first thing Monday morning, contact your Republican members of congress and let them know you’ve had enough. More than ever, in these perilous times, we deserve secure borders and actual enforcement.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers