Tuesday, September 08, 2015

Carly Fiorina, on the rise


By Marc A. Thiessen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
September 7, 2015


Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina speaks during a FOX News Channel pre-debate (AP)
When Carly Fiorina was asked about Donald Trump in the first GOP debate, she had a cutting answer ready: “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race,” she said dryly. “Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. . . . Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on health care and on abortion, I would just ask, what are the principles by which he will govern?”
Trump wasn’t there to respond, because Fiorina had been relegated to the undercard debate. But her jab didn’t escape Trump’s notice. “Carly was a little nasty to me,” Trump said after the debate. “Be careful, Carly. Be careful.”
Thanks to her breakout debate performance, and subsequent rise in the polls, Fiorina has now earned a chance to tangle with Trump and the other top-tier candidates on the main stage.
A new Monmouth University poll finds that 67 percent of Republican voters say we need “a president from outside government who can bring a new approach to Washington,” while just 26 percent want “someone with government experience who knows how to get things done.” Little wonder that in Iowa, Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are tied with 23 percent of the vote each, while Fiorina is in third with 10 percent — meaning a 56 percent majority is backing candidates who have never held elective office.
“It’s a surprise apparently to many in the media that voters are tired of the professional political class, but it’s not a surprise to me,” Fiorina says in an interview. “When I launched my candidacy, I was asked over and over again, ‘Well, how can you run for the presidency? You’re not a politician.’ And I said ‘It’s my greatest asset.’ Maybe the media didn’t understand that then, but I did. People are sick of politics as usual and they’re tired of politicians.”
Fiorina is the least well known of the outsiders leading the polls — 43 percent of the GOP electorate still does not know enough about her to give an opinion of her — which means she is well positioned for a breakout performance.
“Going into [the last] debate, less than 40 percent of Republicans had ever heard my name,” she says. “So first, it was an opportunity to introduce myself. But I think second, what people saw was, ‘You know what, this lady could be president.’ ”
Fiorina has one credential the other outsiders in the race can’t match: foreign policy experience. She has a top level security clearance and served as a member and then chair of the CIA’s External Advisory Board from 2007 to 2009 — an eventful period during which the United States launched the surge in Iraq, Russia invaded Georgia and Israel launched a secret airstrike destroying Syria’s nuclear program.
Fiorina’s grasp of national security issues was on display when she and Trump were both quizzed on foreign policy by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last week. Trump could not explain the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah and had no clue what Iran’s notorious Quds Force, was — confusing it with the Kurds. Fiorina, by contrast, aced the test.
Trump likes to boast of how smart he is, but Fiorina can boast of a Stanford University degree in medieval history and philosophy. “I was so into it that I did all my research for my honors thesis in the original Greek and Latin,” she says. “I like a challenge.” After graduating, she says, she was unemployable. She found a job as a secretary — and rose to become chief executive of one of the biggest technology firms in the country.
Now she’s challenging the political status quo — and she believes she can overtake the outsiders ahead of her. She’s not intimidated by Trump’s commanding lead. “If you look at the polling data at this same time last cycle, Perry was at like 28 percent and Romney was far below him,” she says. “What I know is that having started out with the lowest name ID in the field, the more people see me, the more people hear me, the more people listen to me, the more people support me.”
Americans will have a chance to see her, hear her and listen to her next week.

Monday, September 07, 2015

The Hijrah Into Europe

“Refugees” colonize a continent.


Robert Spencer
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
September 4, 2015

migrants Lampedusa

In February migrants wait in the port of Lampedusa to board a ferry to be transferred to Porto Empedocle in Siciily
Approximately 104,460 asylum seekers arrived in Germany during the month of August, setting a new record. That makes 413,535 registered refugees and migrants coming to Germany in 2015 so far. The country expects a total of around 800,000 people to seek asylum in Germany this year. And that’s just Germany. The entire continent of Europe is being inundated with refugees at a rate unprecedented in world history. This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.” This is a hijrah.
Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.
To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants.
And now a hijrah of a much greater magnitude is upon us. Evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February, but was little noted at the time and almost immediately forgotten. The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”
The Islamic State did not have in mind just a few jihadis crossing from Libya: it also emerged last February that the jihadis planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Now the number is shooting well beyond that in Germany alone. Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries.
Eight hundred thousand Muslim refugees in one year alone. This will transform Germany, and Europe, forever, overtaxing the welfare economies of its wealthiest nations and altering the cultural landscape beyond recognition. Yet the serious public discussion that needs to be had about this crisis is shouted down by the usual nonsense: the Washington Post Wednesday published an inflammatory and irresponsible piece likening those concerned about this massive Muslim influx into Europe to 1930s Nazis ready to incinerate Jews by the millions. Hollywood star Emma Thompson accused British authorities of racism for not taking in more refugees – as if British authorities haven’t already done enough to destroy their nation.
And so it goes. If you don’t accept the brave new world that is sure to bring more jihad and more Sharia to Europe, you’re a Nazi and a racist. Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah. 
This is also Europe’s death knell.
 Tags: CrisisEuropeIslamrefugeeSyria


Greinke brings Gibson's amazing '68 season into focus

September 7, 2015
Cream of the crop
FILE PHOTO 1968 -- The Cardinals' Bob Gibson set a record with 17 strikeouts against the Detroit Tigers in opening the 1968 World Series with a 4-0 victory at Busch Stadium. Left fielder Lou Brock (background) was the Cardinals star in the seven-game series, won by Detroit, with a .464 batting average and seven stolen bases.

Sometimes it takes something amazing to make you realize what is truly amazing.
Los Angeles Dodgers righthander Zack Greinke won his start last week to improve to 15-3 with a 1.59 earned-run average. Greinke is scheduled to face the Angels Monday night in Anaheim, Calif., the first of what figures to be six more starts before the season ends. He might finish with the lowest major-league ERA since Atlanta’s Greg Maddux (1.56) in 1994, or New York Mets righthander Dwight Gooden (1.53) in 1985.
Amazing stuff. But what is most amazing about it is how it underscores a season much more amazing.
Consider this: if Greinke would pitch complete-game shutouts in his last six starts, he would finish with a 1.24 ERA. In other words, he still wouldn’t match Bob Gibson’s 1.12 in 1968.
Greinke, by the way, has one complete game and no shutouts this summer. Gibson had 28 complete games and 13 shutouts during his landmark season.
Greinke would have to close the season with 78 2/3 scoreless innings to get there. Wrap your head around that.
“A guy like Greinke who is not only having a career year, it’s almost disturbing the kind of year he’s having,” former Cardinals catcher Tim McCarver said. “And yet … and yet … and yet, he can’t catch him.
“At the time, you know it’s something special, but you don’t really realize how special it is. I mean, I’m not one to talk about, ‘My playing days were the greatest’ or anything like that, I’m really not. But that’s one thing I don’t want to see broken before I die. ”
In 1968, McCarver was 26 years old. As a hitter, it wasn’t his best season — .253 with five homers and 48 RBIs. As a catcher, it was unparalleled.
The current Cardinals staff has been terrific, authors of a collective 2.67 ERA that is the best in baseball. The 1968 Cardinals staff was substantially better, finishing with a 2.49 ERA. And the head of the snake was Gibson.
McCarver was behind the plate for most of the 1,161 batters Gibson faced that season. In his mind, the most astounding number associated with it is not 1.12. It’s nine.
“When I think of 1.12, that’s the thing that stands out most about it to me,” McCarver said. “How did he lose nine times, how did that happen? I still don’t know. He must have borrowed losses from other seasons.”
A 32-year old Gibson was at the height of his considerable powers in ‘68, a supreme athlete, a daunting figure. That said, his menacing aura is based, in large part, on perception, the product of his uncompromising tenacity.
He never led the league in the hit-by-pitch category, never finished higher than third. He is not 12 feet tall. He was listed as 6 feet 1, 189 pounds, about the same size as Pete Kozma. He is not a discourteous or ill-tempered person. On Nov. 9, Gibson will turn 80 and you might easily mistake him for a retired English teacher.
“He’s a big pussycat,” McCarver added.
But perception becomes reality. When he was No. 45, he peered toward home plate with malicious intent. He uncoiled like a viper, and couldn’t wait to get the ball back to do it again. He didn’t retire opposing hitters, he terminated them, and did so with extreme prejudice. He was larger than life.
Dusty Baker is a cherished friend of Gibson in their post-playing lives. But Baker once said of his old adversary: “The only people I ever felt intimidated by in my whole life were Bob Gibson and my Daddy.”
In each of the six games he failed to complete in ‘68, Gibson was removed for a pinch-hitter. Manager Red Schoendienst never went to the mound to get him during the entire season. And frankly, why would he? In 1968, Gibson’s ERA in the eighth and ninth innings was 0.62.
“Are you kidding me? I didn’t go out to the mound for five years,” McCarver said. “He told me once, ‘I know you prepare for the game, so get behind the plate and the first thing you think of, flash it.’
“I said, ‘You mean fingers?’ And he said, ‘Yes, and if I don’t want it, I’ll shake it off. There’s no need to come out here, there’s no need to talk about it.’ ”
Pack Robert Gibson, his name at birth, was a pack mule. That Summer of ‘68 he worked 304 2/3 innings, an average of more than 8.9 innings per start. He made 24 starts in which he allowed one or fewer runs. He struck out 268 while opposing hitters batted .184.
San Francisco’s Juan Marichal led the National League in wins (26), complete games (30) and innings-pitched (325.2). But the Cy Young and MVP awards both went to Gibson. He was more than a pitcher that year. He was an American Sniper and he didn’t miss.
“Everybody talks about how violent his delivery was and how violent his pitches were, and that’s all true,” said McCarver, who also was a primary catcher for Hall of Fame pitcher Steve Carlton. “But to have that movement and violence in his pitches and combine that with control … it just doesn’t happen.
“He could fit it in a little ball-and-a-half area, and he was there all the time. He didn’t make any mistakes.”
It wasn’t complicated. Gibson threw two pitches, fastball and slider. If you were guessing along with him, you had a high probability of being correct. You had little chance of being successful.
“While it’s correct to say Bob just threw two pitches, it was in name only because those pitches did everything,” McCarver said. “The action in the strike zone was by far the most vicious that I ever caught. So his fastball-slider served as many pitches because he didn’t have an idea about where they were going until 1968.
“There’s been many, many different combinations of how to get hitters out. But I defy anyone to say that any pitcher in the history of the game had the combination of power and control like Bob Gibson had in 1968.”
During a stretch from June 2 through July 30, Gibson worked 99 innings and allowed two runs. One of those scored on a questionable “wild pitch.” The other raced home on a bloop double just inside the foul line. When the streak started, Gibson was 4-5, when it ended he was 15-5.
He led the Cardinals to a pennant, then struck out 17 Detroit Tigers in Game 1 of the ‘68 World Series. The site of burly Willie Horton buckling on the final swerving slider is burnt into baseball’s montage.
“That’s how nasty that pitch could be,” McCarver said. “I still see Willie from time to time and all these years later, he insists it was a ball. And I tell him, ‘Oh no, it was a strike. It definitely was a strike.’ ”
When it was all done, 1.12 didn’t just boggle the mind, it changed the game. The following winter, baseball governors instituted a new rule, lowering the height of the pitching mound from 15 inches to 10 inches.
“He changed the dimensions of the playing field,” McCarver said. “I mean, Jim Brown didn’t do that. Roger Maris didn’t do that. Mark Spitz didn’t do that. He changed the game, that’s what 1.12 means.”
Bob Gibson won 22 games that season. He won nine times when the Cardinals scored two runs or less, four times when they scored one.
It remains unclear how he lost nine.

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Tolkien, Lewis, and the Great War


How two of the 20th century’s greatest Christian writers came through World War I.

By Linda Bridges — September 3, 2015


In August 4, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm’s troops poured across the border into Belgium; within hours, Great Britain had declared war on Germany — a war that would see millions of men drawn into combat and a staggering proportion of them killed, unprecedented devastation of the countries on whose soil the fighting took place, and damage to the fabric of Western civilization that has never been undone.

In A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War, historian Joseph Loconte mixes history with literary biography as he gives a brief but vivid account of the early stages of the war and then introduces his two protagonists, J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, and examines the ways their lives and work were affected by the war. His own prose is clear and often powerful, and he chooses quotations well, both from Tolkien and Lewis themselves and from others. But that matter of quotations brings up the two (small) problems I have with this book — which I might as well get out of the way now. First, while Loconte often includes a brief description of the person he is quoting (“military historian Victor Davis Hanson,” “literary critic Roger Sale”), too many times he gives just the name, leaving us wondering who this unidentified person may be. Second, when quoting from Lewis’s or Tolkien’s correspondence, he often does not tell us when or to whom the letter was written. But these are minor points compared to the sweep and penetration of this book.

Loconte starts by recounting how the great advances in technology and science over the decade and a half prior to 1914 made the war both more likely — because both sides were so confident of their military strength — and more devastating as it unfolded. These advances had led, throughout Western Europe and the United States, to “The Myth of Progress,” which, Loconte demonstrates, led in turn to the widespread idea on both sides that a war would be quick, clean, and decisive.
Public figures on both sides were also convinced that they would be engaging in a holy war. Loconte quotes an American Presbyterian minister as saying: “This conflict is indeed a crusade. The greatest in history — the holiest. It is in the profoundest and truest sense a Holy War. . . . Yes, it is Christ, the King of Righteousness, who calls us to grapple in deadly strife with this unholy and blasphemous power.”

The Kaiser, meanwhile, addressed his troops at the outbreak of war: “Remember that the German people are the chosen of God. On me, on me as German Emperor, the Spirit of God has descended. I am His weapon, His sword, and His visor.”

Young Englishmen flocked to join the war effort, many of them believing wholeheartedly that they were doing so on behalf of Western civilization as well as King and Country, and many also seeing it as a great adventure. Groups of friends enlisted together, forming “pals’ battalions,” and in that spirit went off to the Western Front. The horrors of the Battle of the Somme were intensified by the contrast with the expectations that had preceded the war, and they affect the British psyche to this day. (P. D. James has a scene in one of her novels, written and set in the 1990s, in which a lawyer, recounting the history of a family he represents, tells of a young man “killed in action on the Somme in 1916. My grandfather died in that action. The dead of that war still march through all our dreams, don’t they?”)

One of the few public figures who didn’t buy the high expectations was the 26-year-old Winston Churchill, newly elected to the House of Commons. As Loconte quotes him, “I have frequently been astonished to hear with what composure and how glibly Members, and even Ministers, talk of a European war.” Such a conflict, Churchill warned, would end “in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors.”

J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien and Lewis were also not eager for war, though their concerns were more personal. As Tolkien would write more than two decades later to his son Michael, who was then serving in World War II, “In those days chaps joined up, or were scorned publicly. It was a nasty cleft to be in for a young man with too much imagination and little physical courage.” Tolkien himself, who was 22 when the war broke out, did not join up until he had to. He was at Exeter College, Oxford, and was absorbed by the languages he was studying (including Anglo-Saxon and Gothic) and the literature embodied in them. Not until 1916 did he join the Lancashire Fusiliers; his unit was deployed to France on June 4 of that year. He later wrote: “Junior officers were being killed off, a dozen a minute. . . . Parting from my wife then . . . it was like a death.”

The Fusiliers were not immediately sent to the front, but their turn came on July 3, the third day of the Battle of the Somme. Fortunately for Tolkien (and for his millions of readers worldwide), he was one of the few who survived; in fact, he was never wounded, though he suffered exhaustion, horror, and near despair as he and his comrades slogged through the unremitting mud and watched men on either side of them being blown to bits by the powerful new artillery. Then, in late October, he contracted trench fever and was invalided out; he was never sent back to the battlefield, and two weeks later he was transported to England. But he was virtually alone among the men he had known well before the war. As he later wrote: “By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead.”

#share#Lewis was just 15 as of August 1914; an Anglo-Irishman from Belfast, he was studying at Malvern College in the English Midlands, not far from where Tolkien’s family lived. Lewis, of course, was too young to join up right away, but his journals and his letters home to his father in Belfast showed no dismay at being kept behind in England; more than once, he expressed the hope that the war might have ended before he was compelled to enlist. After a visit in July 1915 from his older brother, Warren — who was briefly on leave, having served on the Western Front since November 1914 — Lewis wrote in his diary that he “had ghastly dreams about the front and getting wounded last night.”

But the war showed no signs of ending as of November 1916, when Lewis turned 18. He duly signed up, and received officer’s training in Oxford. On November 17, 1917, he was sent to France as a member of the Somerset Light Infantry; his unit arrived at the front on November 29, his 19th birthday. Three months later he, like Tolkien, contracted trench fever. But Lewis wasn’t as lucky as his future friend: He was sent not back to England but just to Le Tréport, on the Normandy coast — safe for the time being, but he soon recovered, and in March was sent back to the front.
“March 1918, in fact, was a moment of supreme danger for the Western Allies,” Loconte writes. Russia had effectively dropped out of the Allied effort when, after the October Revolution, Russians stopped fighting the Germans and started fighting one another. On March 3, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty officially took Russia out of the war, and the Germans started transporting soldiers and weaponry to France by the trainload. The fighting was ferocious, and the Allies were losing ground; only the arrival of the American doughboys (promised by President Wilson a year earlier but sent only at the end of March 1918) saved the day. (One of Loconte’s grandfathers had immigrated to the United States from Italy just in time to be sent back to Europe to fight on the Allied side.) On April 8, Lewis wrote a short note to his father, saying: “We have had a fairly rough time, though we were not really in the thick of it. I have lost one or two of my best friends” — including Paddy Moore, whose mother Lewis would take into his home after the war.

On April 15, Lewis was struck by several pieces of shrapnel, one of which lodged too near his heart for it to be removed. This time he was evacuated to England, and, although the war would not end for another seven months, his active part in it was over.

C.S. Lewis

Lewis and Tolkien had both escaped the pre-war infatuation with the Myth of Progress — very probably because both were immersed in the sterner side of the Western tradition: the Norse myths, Homer, Beowulf. And having avoided the pre-war illusion, they did not fall into the postwar cynicism so prevalent in their generation. Loconte cites works by Siegfried Sassoon, T. S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, and others, and summarizes: “The watchword was disillusionment: a new cynicism about liberal democracy, capitalism, Christianity, and the achievements of Western civilization.”

But if Tolkien and Lewis avoided this trap, that is by no means to say that they were unaffected by the war. On the contrary, war, literal and spiritual, pervades their fiction — Lewis’s Till We Have Faces no less than The Chronicles of Narnia, and of course Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, where even in the comfortable domesticity of the Shire or the shimmering beauty of Lothlórien we cannot forget the shadow of Mordor. And both authors, as Loconte shows, drew from their own experience on the Western Front. He quotes the description of the brave mouse Reepicheep after the second Battle of Beruna: “more dead than alive, gashed with innumerable wounds, one paw crushed, and, where his tail had been, a bandaged stump” — much like,Loconte comments, the “soldier amputees” Lewis would have seen “limping from a dugout or infirmary.” And Tolkien created the Dead Marshes, which the hobbits Frodo and Sam have to cross on their quest to destroy the Ring of Power. At one point Sam tripped and fell, and his hands “sank deep into sticky ooze, so that his face was brought close to the surface of the dark mire.” He stares at it, and finally exclaims: “There are dead things, dead faces in the water.” To which the hobbits’ unsavory companion, Gollum, replies, “Dead faces! . . . The Dead Marshes, yes, yes: that is their name.” Decades later, Tolkien would comment restrainedly: “The Dead Marshes and the approaches to the Morannon owe something to Northern France after the Battle of the Somme.” The pictures on pages 238 and 239 of this book show that grim landscape.

But Tolkien’s and Lewis’s reaction to these horrors was to hold onto the possibility of goodness amidst them — goodness and greatness. “As authors,” Loconte writes, “they sought to recover the romantic and mythic traditions based on the struggle between good and evil.” And yet, he adds, “their mythic imagination only partly accounts for their influence. . . . It is their moral imagination that exerts a unique power: the proposition that every person is caught up in an epic contest between Light and Darkness. In the worlds of Tolkien and Lewis, the choices of the weak matter as much as those of the mighty. Here we are not left as orphans, for a force of Goodness stands ready to help.”

And that force of Goodness, ultimately, is God. Tolkien was raised Roman Catholic and never lost his faith; Lewis was raised Anglican, but early in his teens — before the war began — he had become an atheist. He maintained that lack of faith stoutly through his early manhood, largely, as Loconte relates, on philosophical grounds; it was Tolkien and another friend, Hugo Dyson, who finally, in September 1931, managed to show him that his intellectual objections were mistaken. Within a few days he was willing to proclaim his belief in Christ, and, as the world knows, he went on to become one of the most powerful Christian voices of the 20th century.

In his non-fiction writing, Lewis expounded an orthodox Christianity. But in Narnia, the King of Kings takes the form of the great lion Aslan, and in Tolkien’s Middle-earth He takes the form of AragornLoconte titles his last chapter “The Return of the King,” and he shows us how, in both Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, “This King comes with power and beauty, as the voice of conscience and the source of consolation.” Sam Gamgee asks, “Is everything sad going to come untrue?” And Loconte answers: “This King, who brings strength and healing in his hands, will make everything sad come untrue.”

— Linda Bridges, an editor-at-large at National Review, is a longtime member of the New York C. S. Lewis Society.

Saturday, September 05, 2015

Today's Tune: Future Islands - The Chase (Live on The Letterman Show)

Free Kim Davis


By Jack Cashill
http://www.americanthinker.com/
September 5, 2015


Kimberly Davis (Carter County Detention Center)

"I'm glad the court sent a strong message that you have to follow the law," said Timothy Love of Kentucky, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage. The strong message that U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning was to send Kim Davis to prison.  Davis, the county clerk of Kentucky’s Rowan County, boldly refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

Love’s comment raises at least two interesting questions.  One is this: when did the left develop this affection for following the law?  Regarding drugs, immigration, debt repayment, occupying stuff, shutting down stuff, and even burning down stuff, progressives have proudly and openly defied the law and encouraged others to do the same.

Classify this sudden outbreak of good citizenship as routine leftist hypocrisy.

The second and more salient question is one that Davis herself has raised: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

In a letter to his supporters, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee clarified the decision by Democrat Davis.  “The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law,” said Huckabee.  “They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as the least dangerous branch of government.  He argued that under the Constitution, judges would possess “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”  The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution further restrained the judgment of the federal judiciary.

“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,” reads the amendment in unmistakably clear prose.  The Founding Fathers obviously made no provisions in the Constitution for same-sex marriage.  In fact, they made no provisions for marriage at all.  Laws on marriage age, eligibility, blood tests, witnesses, divorce, and the like were reserved to the states.

The impasse in Rowan County developed because the United States Supreme Court dramatically exceeded its mandate.  In Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage, Judge Anthony Kennedy all but acknowledged as much.  “While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change,” he observed, “individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.”

The Constitution does more than “contemplate.”  Article 5 spells out the process for amending the Constitution with commendable precision.  Given that the full-scale legalization of same-sex marriage would do something unprecedented – namely, undermine, even criminalize, the traditional practice of the nation’s dominant religion – a constitutional amendment would have seemed the way to go.  As bad as Roe v. Wade is, it did not make anyone do anything that violated his or her faith.

As I argue in my new book, Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism, undermining faith is the driving impulse of the same-sex marriage movement.  The progressive activists pushing it have no real interest in gays and even less in marriage.  Their interest is in subverting the traditions that undergird America, none more consequential than Christianity.

In his greater wisdom, Kennedy cared not to know this.  He thought the gay marriage issue too urgent “to await further legislation, litigation, and debate.”  He worried about the “pain and humiliation” gay couples would suffer if denied a right that even President Obama opposed as recently as three years ago.

While running for president, in fact, Obama championed not only traditional marriage, but also the Constitution.  As he argued in Audacity of Hope, that august document “encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument that allows us to make better, if not perfect, choices, not only about the means to our ends but also about the ends themselves.”

As to people of faith like Kim Davis concerned about “the ends themselves,” Kennedy told them not to worry.  “The First Amendment,” Kennedy wrote, “ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

A federal judge has sent Kim Davis to prison for sticking to the principles Kennedy promised to protect.  However, since no relevant legislature has codified any sex marriage laws, no legislature has had the chance to codify any exceptions for people of faith.

So Judge Bunning did what the left and the media expected of him: he improvised by sending Davis to prison.
One would think, though, that if the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards gays from suffering the “pain and humiliation” of being denied marriage, the First Amendment should certainly protect practicing Christians, Muslims, and Jews from the pain and humiliation of being denied their very freedom.

“Further legislation, litigation, and debate” just might have sorted this all out.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/free_kim_davis.html#ixzz3krQvZOBM
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


There’s a Whole Arsenal of Smoking Guns in the Clinton E-mail Scandal


The very existence of her illicit server means she broke the rules.

By Jonah Goldberg — September 4, 2015
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Every time the State Department pulls out a new fistful of Hillary Clinton e-mails like Richard Dreyfuss yanking a license plate out of a shark’s belly in Jaws, someone declares that there’s “no smoking gun!”

I’ve written before about how shouting “There’s no smoking gun!” is a non-denial denial. Ask a cop. When a murder suspect immediately exclaims, “You have no indisputable evidence I murdered my boss!” instead of, “I didn’t do it!” it’s a good sign that the suspect thinks he covered his tracks, not that he’s innocent.

Fellas, if your wife asks if you’re having an affair, respond by saying, “You have no proof!” See if she takes that for a denial.

But here’s the thing. There is a smoking gun. In fact, there’s a whole smoking arsenal. The problem is that the standards for what counts as a smoking gun keep changing.

Nearly everything Clinton has said in her defense regarding her secret server has been a lie. Among the minor lies: her claim that she set up the server so she could use a single device. (She had two.) Her claim that the State Department was saving her e-mails to staff. (It wasn’t until 2010.) Her claim that she erased tens of thousands of e-mails because they included, among other things, her e-mail correspondence with her husband. (Bill Clinton doesn’t use e-mail.)

Hillary Clinton said she never solicited e-mail from her lugubrious political hatchet man, Sidney Blumenthal. The latest e-mails show that she was in near-constant contact with him, encouraging him to keep his various reports coming. Blumenthal was barred from getting a job at the White House, so Clinton set him up at her charity–cum–super PAC, the Clinton Foundation.

The more important lie: She said she never received or sent classified information. “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.”

Note: This was not an off-the-cuff statement. She said this while reading from notes, after consulting with her campaign team and her lawyers, in a ballyhooed press conference in March at the United Nations.

And it was a lie. When the inspectors general of the State Department and the Intelligence Community confirmed in July that she had sent classified material, Clinton “clarified” her carefully prepared lie by saying that what she meant was none of the e-mails she sent or received were marked classified at the time.

#share#This left out the fact that the whole point of the secret server was that it was hidden from the officials whose job is to designate documents as classified (and to keep it all hidden from Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional oversight). It’s like setting up an illegal still and then claiming none of the moonshine you sold was marked “illegal.”

But the deceit goes deeper. Most people can be forgiven for not understanding the difference between classified documents and classified information. A classified document is marked “Top Secret” or some such. But people who work in government understand that lots of information is classified simply by virtue of the kind of information it is.

My National Review colleague Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, has been setting his head on fire trying to get the mainstream media to take note of this fact. He points out that according to an executive order issued by President Obama, all “foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security” and is therefore presumed classified. Clinton routinely ignored this rule. That’s not just my opinion. A study by Reuters found that “Clinton and her senior staff routinely” ignored these rules.

“Here’s my personal e-mail,” Clinton told Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who then proceeded to convey numerous private conversations he had with foreign leaders.

The Washington Times reports that Clinton’s unsecured e-mails contained spy-satellite information about North Korea’s movement of its nuclear assets. This sort of information is universally recognized as top secret and is normally subjected to draconian safeguards. There is no way Clinton didn’t know this.

All of these — and many other — facts would have counted as “smoking guns” if they had been divulged immediately after Clinton’s U.N. press conference. But Clinton, with the help of her praetorian defenders in the media, keeps moving the goalposts.

Still, all of this ignores the biggest smoking gun of them all: her illicit server. It’s sitting in plain view, its smoke visible to anyone with eyes to see.

— Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. He can be reached by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC



Migrant to Mexico Defends Trump, Denounces Ramos

Humberto Fontova | Sep 04, 2015
http://townhall.com/



Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a question about his immigration proposal during a news conference in Dubuque, Iowa.

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a question about his immigration proposal during a news conference in Dubuque, Iowa. CHARLIE NEIBERGALL AP


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/article32489868.html#storylink=cpy
“I cover many issues in many countries,” (Univision’s Jorge Ramos to CNN’s Brian Stelter 8/25/2015)
“I’ve never ceased to be Mexican. I have two passports, and I vote in elections in both countries. (Univision’s Jorge Ramos, Time Magazine, 1/2/2013.)
“Then why your silence on the thousands upon thousands of Cubans that are arrested, beaten, extorted and deported by migratory officials of YOUR country, Mr Ramos?” Rafael Alejandro Hernandez, 8/28/2015)
Rafael Alejandro Hernández is a young Cuban lawyer living in Mexico who knows from firsthand experience what migrants to Mexico go through. Last week he unloaded on Jorge Ramos:
“Mr Ramos, you as Mexican citizen have no moral authority whatsoever to criticize U.S. immigration policy.”
“You claim to be a journalist not a politician. But Mr Donald Trump threw you out only because you were impertinent and completely out of line. Your behavior was shameful. In fact you weren’t even asking a question. You were making outright declarations. Some journalist!
“Every week thousands of Cubans migrants to Mexico are arrested, beaten, extorted and swindled by the Mexican gov. in collusion with the Castro tyranny!But I’ve never heard you utter a peep against the Mexican government over this, Mr Jorge Ramos! And you claim to be a proud and vocal Mexican citizen, Mr Jorge Ramos!
“Why not come to your Mexico and try telling President Pena Nieto that deporting Cubans to Castro means they’ll live in a prison. Why not practice what you preach, Mr Ramos?
“You denounce the U.S.–a country that opened its doors to you, yourself, sir–but you refuse to utter a peep against your native Mexico, that deports Cubans not because they’re delinquents–but as a matter of policy.
“I’m speaking to you as someone who was jailed for 49 days in a Mexican prison for migrants and freed only after a hunger strike where I almost died.
“Next time you attend a Trump press conference you might ask permission to speak, and wait your turn like all the others. And since you seem to like to talk without permission, Mr Ramos, come to Mexico and try that stunt!”
In fact, Mexico can be quite hospitable to political migrants. Much depends on their political orientation and –especially--the official palms they grease. Take Leon Trotsky, who found brief asylum in Mexico from January 1937 until August 20th, 1940 when a Stalinist-agent named Ramon Mercader snuck into his house and smashed an ice-ax into his skull.
And take a Cuban criminal named Fidel Castro who in 1955 linked up with an Argentine hobo named Ernesto Guevara in Mexico City. Minus this historic hook-up everything points to Ernesto (shortly known a “Che”) continuing his life of a traveling hobo, panhandling, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable poetry. Instead this thoroughly unimposing vagabond and psycho named Ernesto Guevara had the magnificent fortune of linking up with modern history's top press agent, Fidel Castro, who for going on half a century now has had the mainstream media anxiously scurrying to his every beck and call and eating out of his hand like trained pigeons.
Fidel and Raul were in Mexico putting together a guerrilla band to invade Cuba and overthrow Batista. With the financial help of his wealthy Cuban backers of the time, Castro hired a Cuban Korean war veteran named Miguel Sanchez to train this guerrilla band. None of the trainees had the slightest combat-experience so their extra-curricular curiosity on the matter did not surprise Sanchez.
But one of the trainees struck Sanchez as bit strange, especially the gleam in his eye regarding the act of killing. “How many men have you killed?” this trainee constantly asked Sanchez. “What does it feel like to kill a man?”
“Look Ernesto (he was not yet known by his moniker “Che,”)” Sanchez would reply. “It was a war. I was in combat. It wasn’t a personal thing. Most soldiers don’t make it a personal thing. You aim at an enemy uniform and pull the trigger. That’s it.”
“But did you ever come upon a wounded enemy and kill him with the coup de grace?” A wide-eyed Ernesto Guevara would continue. “What did it feel like? I want to know what it feels like.”
“It became obvious to me that the man who would shortly become known as “Che” wanted to kill for the sake of the act itself,” recalled Sanchez later from exile in Miami, “instead of-- as in the case of most others, and this includes Fidel and Raul Castro themselves—as a means to an end. That end for Castro, of course, was absolute power,” Sanchez quickly recognized. “His power lust fueled his killing, and it didn’t seem to affect him one way or the other. With Ernesto Guevara, however, it struck me as a different motivation, a different lust.”
“On Sundays in Mexico I would often dine with Guevara and his Peruvian wife, a great cook,” recalls Sanchez. “Ernesto was a voracious reader and loved poetry. I’ll never forget his favorite poem “despair” by Jose de Espronceda.
“I love a sullen-eyed gravedigger crushing skulls with his shovel!
I would love to light the flames of a holocaust which spreads devouring flames that pile up dead and roast an old man until he crackles
What pleasure! What Pleasure!”
“Ernesto Guevara would close his eyes dreamily and recite it from memory during all of my visits, even at the dinner table, recalled Sanchez.

“He went into convulsions for a while and was finally still, gloats Che Guevara in his Cuban diaries. He was lovingly describing the death agonies of a bound Cuban peasant he had just shot in the temple with his pistol. “Now his belongings were mine.” (Unwittingly here Che Guevara defines Communism in a nutshell: cowardly murder and theft.)

Another item Sanchez recalls about Ernesto Guevara was his constant belittling of his hosts: Mexicans. “These Mexicans are nothing but a rabble of illiterate Indians,” Che Guevara often snickered.