Barack Obama vs. The American Sense of Life, Today at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT)

Focusing on Obama’s latest atrocity, the Iran “Deal”, we’ll start by discussing his war on the American Sense of Life. Several other stories on tap as well, see Program Notes, below, for all the stories, etc., I plan to discuss

Join in live, either by phone or in the chatroom!

The show can be accessed here.

To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.

To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.

Finally, if you would like to support the show financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.

Program Notes

Key Senate Democrat Announces Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal

Senate Democrats Chose Obama and Iran Over Americans

Op-Ed: Senators Who Took Money from Iran

Philosophy: Who Needs It

Migrants Fleeing Hungary Start a Long March Toward Germany

Kim Davis Standing Ground as Gay Couples Get Licenses

Ted Cruz ‘unequivocally’ stands behind defiant court clerk

Candidates Respond to Kim Davis Case With Varying Intensity

Donald Trump Stumbles and Bristles During Foreign Policy Interview

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party HT Bosch Fawstin

Snowden, Assange and Manning statues unveiled in Berlin HT Rob Abiera

People Actually Upset That Kermit the Frog’s New ‘Girlfriend’ Is Thin HT Rob Abiera

Bosch Fawstin: PIGMAN Returns on September 23

1 Comment

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

One response to “Barack Obama vs. The American Sense of Life, Today at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT)

  1. Ed Powell

    On the Kim Davis case, I commented on the show, but I wanted to leave a more detailed comment here that I posted on a thread on Facebook.

    There are so many things involved in this case that it demands one unpack them one at a time:

    1) Marriage *licenses*, like gun licenses, were invented for racist reasons, to keep blacks and whites from intermarrying. All government licenses are invalid examples of preventative law and should be struck down on that basis alone.

    2) Marriage is a declaration that a man and a woman intend to start a family, and that any natural children produced are the responsibility of those two people. Marriage in the traditional sense is not applicable to gay couples, but I’m not saying necessarily that it should not be extended to them, just that people should recognize that this represents a change in the concept of marriage that has pretty much held constant over recorded history.

    3) Government has the responsibility for enforcing the proper laws against child neglect, and thus is required to understand which individuals are responsible for which child. Thus one can’t, as libertarians argue, “take government out of marriage”, since the government needs to be informed of who to hold responsible for child welfare. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to set criteria, based on objective facts, as to what constitutes a valid set of responsible people.

    4) The 14th Amendment was a grant of power solely to the Congress to fix the issues enumerated in the amendment. (Read the whole thing, you’ll see). It was not a grant of arbitrary plenary power to the federal courts to fix every instance of “inequality” that existed in the land. (And believe me, you won’t like the look of 14th Amendment jurisprudence when the Left is firmly in control of the court, now that “inequality” is their favorite catchword). It’s immediate purpose was to make constitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and its lasting purpose was to ensure that Congress had the power to make sure nothing like the abuses in the antebellum south were ever repeated. The fact that Congress abdicated this power to make law does not mean the power devolved on the Federal Courts. The proper role of the federal courts under the 14th amendment is to enforce the laws Congress passed in furtherance of the Amendment’s purpose, not to invent their own laws and enforce those.

    5) The Obergefell decision was utterly lawless and completely at odds with the constitution. This is true whether or not you or I or Anthony Kennedy truly and devoutly wish for the public policy change allowing for gay marriage. Gay marriage is thus NOT “a law” or “the law of the land”. It is not a law at all. It is a judicial decree, no different than the decrees of the Roman Emperors, or of Genghis Khan. It has been imposed on the people not by law, not by the constitution, not by rational argument, but by naked unconstitutional application of force by the federal courts. No matter where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, you should be revolted by this decision and the entire turn of events. The law isn’t a sporting event, in which we each root for our own sides to win by any means necessary. When it becomes such (as it has become in the last 40 odd years), then we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of arbitrary power implemented by whichever gang can wrest control of the court away from the other gang.

    6) The appropriate remedy for this particular case was to annul the Kentucky law requiring marriage licenses, replacing it with a simple written declaration that people would send in to the state declaring that they are married, and to enjoin the Kentucky government from not recognizing gay marriages that are so declared. Alternatively, the court could have empowered some other official to approve the licenses.

    7) Imprisoning elected officials without trial, no matter how egregious their behavior in office, or how wacky their individual views, is tyranny plain and simple. In this case, Davis is a wackbird, but wackiness is not a rationale for imprisoning elected officials without a trial, especially when other more rational remedies exist.

    8) This whole case is not an example of the “triumph of the rule of law” nor a case of “implementing the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ “, nor is it a case of “denying religious liberty” as Ted Cruz has mistakenly stated. It is a case of the Left taking its gloves off and showing everyone that they will brook absolutely no opposition to their control of the culture. It is the first step in the Left’s 30-year crusade to take back the Supreme Court from the Reagan-Bush appointees and use it to “fundamentally transform America”, not by reason, not by legislation, but by force, and woe be to any elected official, whether county clerk, state legislator, governor, representative, senator, or even, eventually, president, who stands in the Left’s way.

    9) Finally, while Ted Cruz is incorrect about his interpretation of this issue from a legal perspective, it is not, as some would suggest, a reason for abandoning Cruz or considering him an invalid choice to be President. While there is no religious liberty issue here, there IS a huge issue of religious liberty in the US today, as many other people are being imprisoned or bankrupted or subject to vulgar death threats because they do not approve the change in the definition of marriage. Indeed, this persecution is so pervasive, yet so totally ignored by almost all organs of the press, except to occasionally cheer on the persecutors, that I am not surprised that Cruz made this error and lumped this case in with all the others in his mind. So, cut him some slack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.