Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Have ever read an article that just infuriates you to the point where you feel compelled to express whatever was on your mind in the comments section? Well, that action might land you in legal trouble because federal authorities have issued a subpoena to, asking them for the identities of commenters on one of their posts.

Leon Wolf over at RedState provides some background on Reason's post:
By way of background, Reason has long been covering the trial, conviction, and sentencing of Silk Road website creator Ross Ulbricht. For those who are unfamiliar with this particular saga, Silk Road was a website which made it easier, inter alia, to purchase illegal drugs from other people on the Internet. Ulbricht was ultimately caught by the authorities, and convicted in a controversial trial overseen by Federal judge Katherine Forrest. The Reason post that started this insane episode covered the fact that, in spite of his admission of guilt and pleas for leniency in sentencing, Ulbricht was ultimately sentenced by Forrest to an astonishing life sentence in prison for the crime of creating a website.
That seems just a little bit corrupt. Ulbricht certainly deserves jail time, but a life sentence for creating a website? That's overreach.

This led to a series of comments on the Reason post that could be best described as... colorful:

The words made famous by former White House Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel are, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Of course he should have added in the very descriptive adjectives of “politically manufactured” right before the word crisis. And so it goes, not even one week since the shootings by a racist sociopath at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, we see the politically manufactured message being disseminated and promulgated by the liberal left progressives who seemingly own the Democrat party.

Instead of heeding the teachable moment being displayed by the people of Charleston, Emanuel Church, and even the family members of the souls who were horribly taken away – the message remains on that which seeks to divide. As we watched the services, the response, and human bridge of unity on this past Sunday, the prevailing ranting was still about race.

Let me make myself very clear: the sick, demonic individual who perpetrated the heinous attack a week ago should burn in hell. The act of evil he committed in unconscionable. But it was an individual act, recognized by the people of Charleston. To try and elevate this into some national level discussion is nothing more than political opportunism.

Obama Administration says Iran’s chants of “Death to America” are “not helpful,” but won’t have impact on nuke talks

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


Obama Administration says Iran’s chants of “Death to America” are “not helpful,” but won’t have impact on nuke talks Of course. Why should they? Just because they want to destroy us doesn’t mean that they won’t sit down and come to a mutually beneficial negotiated settlement with us, does it? Does it?
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Obama Administration says Iran’s chants of “Death to America” are “not helpful,” but won’t have impact on nuke talks on Facebook Google Plus One Button 
President Obama at Ramadan White House Gala decries “very distorted impression” of Muslims
Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs 
Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 12.23.20 PM 
Obama said this at his Iftar gala in observance of Ramadan

“Here in America, many people personally don’t know someone who is Muslim. They mostly hear about Muslims in the news, and that can obviously lead to a very distorted impression.”

Alrighty then, let us review jihad in America in the past month alone:
Devout Muslims open fire on free speech event in Garland, Texas (Washington Times)

New Jersey: Samuel Rahamin Topaz’s arrest is the fourth terror-related arrest in the tri-state area in the past week. (NBC)

Second American Muslim arrested in ISIS-linked NYC bomb plot …

Federal prosecutors charged a 21-year-old New Jersey Muslim on Thursday with attempting to help ISIS militants (CNN)

NY: The FBI...

Three Issues Soon to be Decided...Part 1 of 3
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media

And so we wait.

Three important issues will be coming to a head within the next week, two will be decided by the Supreme Court, and one basically by the pen of our traitor-in-chief. In this 3-part series I will go into depth about each possible decision, starting today with how I believe the Supreme Court will rule on the legalities...and it is all about legalities...of 'same-sex marriage'.

The nine justices have been given the daunting task of ruling in regards to marriage rights specifically if prohibiting 'same-sex marriage' violates equal-protection guarantees. And if they follow the words of law, as in “...all men are created equal...” people better get used to NOT the reinterpretation of marriage in the biblical sense but the redefinition of what constitutes a marriage in the legal sense.

And this issue of 'same-sex marriage' has divided we Conservatives into two camps as a red-line of sorts has been drawn between we 'secular' Conservatives (Conservatives who believe as per Thomas Jefferson in 'separation of church and state') who have NO problem with 'same-sex marriage' and religious Conservatives who find 'same-sex marriage' an affront to the words of God. And know that first, the left will use that division to try and hurt us come November 2016 and second, some state legislators who will assuredly be unhappy with a pro 'same-sex 'marriage' ruling will work to find other ways to discourage same-sex couples from marrying, thus dividing us even more.

And with the media generated, focused, and fueled brouhaha over wedding cakes and pizza parlors now in full operational attack mode, many religious Conservatives have lost sight of the all-important fact that the SCOTUS decision on 'same-sex marriage' is in regards to whether the 14th Amendment requires all states to perform 'same-sex marriages', the power of the states to ban 'same-sex marriages', and/or to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state in their state.

So again, it is about legalities and legalities in benefits, protections, security, and responsibilities...leaving the religious interpretation of 'marriage' as is. The biblical interpretation of marriage being between 'one man and one woman' (even the SCOTUS would NOT dare tamper with the word of God) remains intact, as well as the fact that NO clergy member will be forced to perform a 'same-sex marriage' ceremony if 'same-sex marriage' does indeed become of law of the land.

And with this being an issue that most definitely should have stayed on the state NOT federal level...what with 37 states and the District of Columbia already having marriage equality laws in in recognizing 'same-sex marriage' or 'unions' to some degree through legislative developments, ballot initiatives, or rulings from their state must be understood by all that the word 'marriage' is but a legal term granting legal status alone to couples by a state government...period...and that 'marriage' by definition is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution alone...NOT the Holy Bible (or we would be a theocracy and NOT a republic) the definitive law of our land.

And while most same-sex couples would be just as happy with the words 'domestic partnership' or 'civil union' being used to describe their relationship... even while knowing that both terms confer something of a second-class long as their commitment to each other was viewed as 'equal' under the eyes of the law...there are legally valid reasons as to why the word 'marriage' must be used in describing such unions, and it has NOTHING at all to do with infringing upon the beliefs or practices of the religious.

For example, if the term 'domestic partnership' was used to describe same-sex unions the couple would legally only be afforded the lowest legal level of relationship recognition, and the rights and responsibilities of such partnerships varies drastically from state to state, that is if a particular state even chooses to provide such rights at all. That coupled with the fact that tangible and intangible protections and benefits that only marriage can afford are usually minimal at best in a 'domestic partnership' and are NOT recognized if the couple travels outside their home state, meaning that all legal benefits afforded the same-sex couple in their home state will probably NOT be recognized by another state. So what does the couple get from these two words... basically NOTHING of legal substance at all.

Next we have the term 'civil union' being bantered around as the term that should be used instead of the word 'marriage.' While the legal protections and benefits of a 'civil union' are indeed greater and more encompassing than those of a 'domestic partnership,' these protections and benefits are only available at the state level while the all-important federal protections, such as tax and social security benefits, are missing. This translates into 'civil unions' still being a separate but unequal union falling far short of providing the same-sex couple with all the legal benefits, security, and protections afforded by the word 'marriage'.

And while some gay couples have NO problem with the words 'civil union' and the limited benefits those words afford, legally problems remain stemming from the fact that a 'civil union' recognized in one state might NOT be recognized outside the state in which it was performed making a 'civil union' still NOT equal in status to 'marriage'. Also, 'civil unions' would still negatively affect medical emergencies that might happen while traveling in the sense that one partner may NOT be allowed to make medical decisions for the other. And private employers may or may NOT offer health insurance for those in a 'civil union' meaning that those couples must take additional legal steps on their own to provide greater legal and medical protections for themselves and their children...something 'married' couples do NOT have to do. And even if the same-sex couple does take said legal steps on their own... just like they would have to do with a 'domestic partnership'...those protections will still fall far short of what's afforded by being legally married.

So that brings us back to the actual legal concept and meaning of the word 'marriage'...and by 'legal' I mean 'civil marriage' NOT 'religious marriage'. 'Civil marriage' would afford same-sex couples many but NOT all of the secular rights, benefits, security, and responsibilities of those in a 'traditional marriage', including providing some of the all-important protections for their families. And while gay and lesbian families can further protect themselves in additional ways by drawing up wills, health care proxies, and co-parent adoptions, even a 'civil marriage' is NOT legally equal in the protections that a traditionally recognized marriage would provide.

And I CANNOT say this equality is what 'same-sex marriage' is truly all is NOT about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their is NOT about forcing the clergy to perform 'marriages' that go against their religious is simply about the equality afforded to all men (and women) under the eyes of the law. And with the SCOTUS decision now fast approaching many legal experts (rightfully) predict that the high court will legalize 'same-sex marriage' their overturning the 'same-sex marriage' bans in Michigan and three other finding that the Constitution does guarantee equal treatment and protection under the law for all persons...with due-process then prohibiting all states from banning 'same-sex marriage.'

So as it stands right now, we know that the four liberal justices will vote in favor of 'same-sex marriage' and that the four conservative justices will most like vote against it leaving the ninth justice, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, to be the deciding vote. And while some say that Kennedy will use the 'federalism-based' argument about the right of states to define marriage for themselves along with his knowing that a ruling against same-sex marriage would have NO bearing in the 37 states who already have 'marriage equality' laws in place...meaning same-sex couples in those states could continue to marry and those same-sex couples already married would remain so...coupled with Kennedy's history of supporting 'legal' gay rights, the odds are more than likely that he will rule on the side of favoring 'same-sex marriage' based upon the Constitution's wording alone. And that along with the fact that the SCOTUS left in place rulings from several lower courts striking down state bans still leaves us to wait a bit longer to see how this plays out.

And so as we await the SCOTUS decision, and while I know some will NOT like it, I will say that if 'same-sex marriage' does indeed become the law of our land the world will NOT end, our country will NOT collapse, God will NOT desert us nor we Him, and the sun will still rise in the east the next morning whether the gay-bashers and haters like it or NOT. And then maybe when the dust settles...and know that it will...we can get back to the truly serious and all-important issues that face our country today.

Today, Wednesday, June 24th, on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media, from 2 to 4pm EST, Craig and Diane will discuss Obama's so-wanted gun control in the wake of the Charleston shootings, the upcoming SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage and ObamaCare, and Obama's very bad decision to allow the paying of ransom to the enemy.

Hope you can tune in:
And chat with us live at