The United States Department of Justice seized records from Associated Press phone lines over a two month period.  This includes over twenty separate lines, in multiple offices, incoming and outgoing call logs, along with the duration of the conversations.  It includes home and cell phone records.

Essentially, the White House wants to know who has been leaking information to the press – not a dastardly motive.  Yet, one can’t help but wonder whether the leak warrants such a large infringement on the media’s First Amendment rights.

And even if it is, are over twenty phone lines in five different cities, including cell phones and home phones really the narrowest manner in which to subpoena documents? 

This latest scandal from the Administration falls right in line with the consistent disregard for this nation’s collective constitutional rights.  Obama and Holder have walked all over the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and attempted to do the same with the Second.  Obamacare, led by the President and Kathleen Sibelius have consciously disregarded the First Amendment right of faith-based organizations to practice their religion without interference from the government.  Now they are at it again.

This request for information appears to be more of a fishing expedition for broad swaths of information than a narrow request into a national security matter.

Eric Holder is a disaster.  As Attorney General, he has chosen not to defend certain laws on the books.  Meanwhile, he has chosen to go forward with dangerous entanglements like Project Gun Runner.  As far as I can tell, this is simply the latest in a series of abuses of power that he is involved in.  Eric Holder needs to be dismissed from his post.  His position is a tough one that not many attorneys could handle.  But he has proven inept and incompetent in the art of upholding the Constitution, his sole purpose. 

Alberto Gonzalez was run out of town for political appointments.  His actions had the appearance of impropriety.  Holder has embraced a full out assault on the press and that should scare all of us.  NYT Editor Margaret Sullivan and Marty Baron, the Executive Editor of the Washington post have separately labeled the Administration’s action “disturbing.”  Markos Moulitsas labeled it the “first legit [scandal]” of the Administration.  Obama’s house is not in order and it seems like someone’s Constitutional rights are being infringed by every action taken by Obama.  Let’s hope this brings some semblance to the media’s biased coverage of the Administration.

See here:   http://griffinelection.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/the-gosnell-murders-create-a-mandate-for-late-term-abortion-reform/

Since we first addressed the mandate, the Live Action video has been released by Lila Rose of a Washington D.C. abortionist advocating flushing a live baby down a toilet, or dropping her into a jar of saline solution.  These people aren’t alone.    

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell has now been found guilty of murder.  Maybe he’ll get life in prison, maybe he’ll be sentenced to death.  I’m betting he won’t be sentenced to death by scissor cut to the spinal cord, as he did to so many others. 

Yet, abortionists were clear yesterday.  In their view, restricting abortions would only lead to more gory-Gosnell-type-murders.  Thus, their solution is not only to retain the status quo, but to broaden and create a less-restrictive environment in which to butcher.  NARAL President Ilyse Hogue stated that, “[a]nti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.”

So, “the pro-lifer made me do it” defense is omnipresent.  But NARAL is lying.  No one standing for life had anything to do with newborn babies trying to climb their way out of a toilet, they had nothing to do with jars on display housing the parts of baby fetuses, or blood stains on the clinic floor.  Pro-life politicians had nothing to do with cats with fleas walking the halls of this clinic, they had nothing to do with the unregulated clinic’s failure to sanitize supplies and it had nothing to do with the death of Kindergarten teacher, Jennifer Morbelli in February of 2013 at the hands of Democrat hero, LeRoy Carhart during a botched abortion. 

NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party should be made to answer for the mother that Gosnell was convicted of killing (manslaughter).  They don’t passively allow it, they actively battle for it.

This fight is a righteous fight and we must work to insure that this never happens again.  These babies are human and deserve the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of trial before death. 

The testimony showed that one aborted baby was so large at 30 weeks that Gosnell joked that he could “walk to the bus” stop.  One baby was alive outside of the womb for twenty minutes before Gosnell and his team killed her.  And Baby “E” let out a soft cry before Gosnell cut her neck. 

We have a mandate to change this.  We have to.  America will get on board for restrictions.  We have proof of what the alternative provides.

We can do better.  We have to do better.

griffinelection.com

If the GOP doesn’t pass immigration reform now, we won’t have to deal with an extra ten million democrat voters immediately, but we’ll still have to confront our huge Hispanic voter problem.  Or we can take the pain right now and work over the next one, two, or three decades to build back these burned bridges.

Republicans want border security and they are in a position to get it.  Democrats want amnesty and they are in a position to obtain it.  It actually works to the GOP’s negotiating advantage that they haven’t given away everything to the D’s upfront.  Securing the borders is a noble effort.  But oversight shouldn’t go to the White House, or the Department of Homeland Security or any other bureaucratic hack.  Oversight must be established through Congress so that there is a significant incentive to securing the border, and if there is not, Congress may act accordingly.   

If Republican Senators can hold strong and demand stronger security than the Rubio bill offers, we may have a tenable bill.  In the meantime, look for Democrats to try to sabotage the bill by introducing destructive social issues like gay partner sponsorships and Obamacare abortion coverage for all to kill the bill.

Senate Ds may not care if the bill fails, as long as they can pin it on Rs.  But Obama knows better.  Ever since his initial tax increase, his second term has been an utter failure.  He needs the bill to establish a domestic legacy in his second term.  Otherwise, this term will be known for stagflation, recession and the failure of Obamacare. 

Either way, an immigration deal needs to be made.  It would be better if Republicans did it now than later.  But we have all of the negotiating power and we should continue to act accordingly.

It is being reported that Pat Toomey’s newest baby, the gun CONTROL bill being pushed by Obama democrats, includes a provision that allows the doctors to place American citizens on a list if they are deemed to fall short of mental health requirements to obtaining a firearm.  Furthermore, there are even indications that guns can be unilaterally seized by the government prior to a due process hearing under the bill. 

There is no administrative process where the citizen may be heard.

There is no form of due process where a person is tried before their rights are extinguished. 

As Erick Erickson has commented, “[t]he proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.” 

No notice.

No trial.

No rights.

There is simply a unilateral action by an extension of the government which results in American citizens being deprived of due process seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the due process required prior to property being taken under the Fifth Amendment, the citizen’s right to possess a firearm under the Second Amendment, not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

What will be the standard for declaring someone excluded from all future gun purchases?  It will no likely be unclear.  Yet the ramifications of this bill linger.    

In Virginia, any citizen can walk into a Magistrate’s office seeking to have a friend or family member be taken to a hospital, against their will for a psychiatric evaluation.  Could this result in the loss of gun rights for this individual?  Will word spread throughout the south that obtaining help can result in a lifetime ban on firearm purchases? 

This bill is coming out too quickly and I fear that citizens will not have time to even read the bill before it hits the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. 

Where is the line for Republicans on the Second Amendment?  If the First Amendment is Constitutionally absolute, where will the line be drawn on the Second Amendment?  Will we allow the nine partisans in robes to make that call?  There are going to be massive due process issues with this bill that we likely won’t learn about until after the President has signed it.  It is a bad bill for Americans.

This week, Senate Democrats will seek to create a new and overarching federal program that allows the federal government to infringe on every American’s Constitutional right to acquire and bear arms.  Democrats plan to introduce universal background checks for all law-abiding Americans.  We shouldn’t let them.

Don’t be fooled.  Background checks alone are worthless.  These checks must co-exist with newer anti-ownership regs along with a more robust enforcement of what we already have.  If this goes through, Washington D.C. will be interfering in every commercial transaction in the country.  It is too much.  A government big enough to potentially stop any firearm transaction is powerful enough to stop most firearm transactions.

Bureaucracies only grow in power and this will be no different.  Police actions must be left to state police.  Once buracratic divisions are created to clamp down on Americans, they will only seek to increase funding, influence and power.  But most importantly, digital data is never truly erased, and background check information will be property of the state.

As many D’s have openly argued, this bill will lead to a universal gun registry where the FBI and CIA will know how many guns every American possesses, even down to the make and model of the firearm.  Tonight, anti-Second Amendment activist Piers Morgan wondered aloud why a universal gun registry would even be a problem.  This is a stepping stone to greater control of our guns.

Our Constitutional rights were given to us for a reason.  If today’s leaders believe that the Second Amendment is too broad, they should seek to amend the Amendment or repeal it entirely.  But one partisan Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally restrict gun rights.

Constitutionally, this is an obvious encumbrance that acts to infringe on a citizen’s right to bear arms.  Morally, it does nothing to get firearms out of the hands of killers.  Politically, it only excites out-of-touch elites and “low information voters.”

There is no upside for Republicans that want to allow this to come to the floor for a vote.  This should be filibustered.  Unfortunately, the Republican turncoats, namely Lindsey Graham and John McCain have vowed to vote for cloture, opening the door to these new gun laws.  But there really is no upside at all on this bill.  It won’t save lives, or keep weapons out of the hands of criminals who are already prevented from buying legally by state laws or decrease the number of weapons sold.  This is a good step for “gun-grabbers” to build upon in the future.  And thus, any Constitution-loving conservative should oppose it vehemently by denying cloture.

There are many political reasons to endorse homosexual marriage, it is trendy, fashionable and an issue that could soon lose elections for Republicans due to the massive media bias on the issue.  I don’t know how to fight it and I don’t intend on laying out a groundwork today. 

But in the horserace of politics, many Christians seem to have forgotten why we felt uncomfortable with homosexuals getting married in the first place – because it is sin.  And . . . because it isn’t good policy.

Moses spoke clearly on homosexuality.  Paul spoke clearly on homosexuality.  Jesus clearly stated that marriage is between one man and one woman.  From a Christian perspective, the morality of homosexuality isn’t really up for debate.  Which I realize is a humorous statement because everyone wants to debate that.     

But then we come to the question of policy. Too often, we on the right are painted as gay marriage opponents.  In reality, I don’t oppose gays.  With the exclusion of a couple of militant activists, I have generally found people of alternative sexual orientations to be very amicable.  But that is beside the point.  A free society must allow people to engage in relationships that you and I may disagree with.    

But the simple matter is that marriage by age-old, cross cultural definition, is for one man and one woman.  The institution of marriage wasn’t created for homosexual partners any more than a baseball glove can be worn on a foot.  It doesn’t make any sense to bend a tool for one thing to fit the needs of another when more appropriate tools are available. 

Marriage’s purpose is to stabilize a relationship for the purpose of creating a family.  The government has an interest in family.  It has an interest in ensuring that children are born and grow up to be productive members of society and that can most effectively be achieved through the institution of marriage.  That is why families get certain tax breaks and incentives, because children are an integral part to marriage.  They may not be a part of every marriage, but they are integral to the concept nonetheless.     

Now, I realize that many gay couples want the “white picket fence.”  They want to have raise a family and partake in the romanticized American dream.  But because of the inherent differences in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, they will never experience that setting.  Alternative lifestyles simply don’t present the same opportunities for a traditional family.  It just doesn’t.  The idea reminds me of a Seinfeld episode when Kramer installs a screen door and rocking chair on his indoor hallway door to his New York City apartment.  You can try to replicate a traditional feel, but at the end of the day it just isn’t the same.

Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses that define the marital relationship that homosexual couples cannot replicate, no matter how hard they try.  Those strengths and weaknesses are even more necessary for children.

Many other gay couples just want equal rights.  While we can’t condone civil unions as it is simply marriage by another name, I am of the belief that gays should receive the same death/estate tax breaks and hospital visitation rights as straight couples.  While gay couples should not quality for marriage deductions provided for in the tax code, as those deductions are meant to encourage the flourishing of a productive family, they should have all of the equal rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

In other words, we shouldn’t penalize gay couples by preventing them from visiting loved ones in the hospital or by taxing the heck out of them when they leave their estates to whomever they choose just because they aren’t married.  But it also doesn’t mean we can add additional rights to accommodate every alternative lifestyle that comes down the pike.

I say all of this to lead to this one point.  If we accept homosexual marriage as an institution, we must accept homosexual adoption.  Not only do we have to confront the reality that many monsters that would seek to harm children parade as gay men, at a higher per capita rate than heterosexual men, but we must consider the disservice we are doing to children who have no voice, and are adopted into homes where they will not receive the benefits of both a male and female presence. 

That is not to say that many of the strengths of heterosexual relationships cannot be duplicated by hard working homosexual couples who expose their children to both sexes.  However, it is to say that children should be given the opportunity to be adopted by a loving mother and father before being forced into a brand new familial institution with unknown stability factors.  It just isn’t right. 

And don’t ask me whether I would rather a less than ideal heterosexual couple adopt over model homosexual citizens.  We are talking about broad national policy, not individual cases.     

Most importantly, Christian conservatives love all people.  And we realize that we are the most sinful and require Christ’s grace above anyone.  That is why most of us have asked for his grace.  We understand that the wages of sin are death.  And because we love people, we feel the responsibility to warn people engaged in sinful lifestyles, what the consequences of those choices are.  The wages of homosexuality, or heterosexual adultery is death.  We say it because we care. 

So in regards to a Christian who says he “doesn’t care” who marries who.  Listen, I get it.  I’m in my twenties, I don’t stay up late thinking about the dangers of homosexual marriage.  But the problem is finer than that.  There are policy considerations for the effect of homosexual marriages on tomorrows society.  And from the Christian perspective, we care about saving our fellow Americans from relationships that God calls destructive. 

In regards to policy –NO gay marriage doesn’t ruin my marriage.  I never said it would.  But gay marriage on a large scale can ruin all marriage.  If you don’t like the word “ruin,” consider that it will redefine it in a way that leaves it unrecognizable to future generations.   If one NFL player alters the way he plays football, it really doesn’t have an effect on the way other players play football.  But if the NFL changes its rules so that players and teams can play outside the parameters of the game, such as running out of bounds and back in or having more than four downs, or shooting the ball through the goalposts, it eventually changes the game, making it unrecognizable .  This is the inherent danger involved with playing with marriage.  You can’t change it so dramatically without ruining it.  That is why we oppose sweeping policy changes.

Voters may or may not be bothered by a sitting Governor who is unfaithful to his wife while at the same time posing as a family values candidate.  Politicians have been known to cheat on their spouses and the American electorate has been known to forgive them.  However, Sanford’s infidelity is a different situation altogether.  Governor Sanford, lied to his staff and state legislators, not to mention his family when he fled the country to visit his lover.  Had there been a state of emergency, Sanford would have been nowhere to be found.  It is unthinkable that the Republican party can accept this as responsible leadership. 

Now, Sanford wants to return to Congress.  Erick Erickson has endorsed him.  He may be the most conservative candidate available.  But where does this leave the conservative movement in South Carolina if we need admitted liars and cheats to carry our banner?  Is Sanford really an heir apparent to Jim DeMint’s conservative legacy in South Carolina?  The entire thing stinks so bad that I can smell it all the way up here in Virginia.  This is dangerous.  Voters may hand the GOP what it deserves in November by electing Colbert’s sister to the House.  I wouldn’t take the chance on voting for Mark Sanford for office.

We are now ruled by politicians.  I would prefer to think that America is governed by statesmen, but this week the opposite has been proven true.  First, the former secretary of state checked her polls and saw that it was a good time to endorse homosexuals entering into a marriage as national policy.  Then it was a drove of R and D Senators coming out in support of homosexual marriage.  The President pulled this stunt last year.  These pols were all candidates that had campaigned against homosexual “marriage” during the campaigns.  When they were asking for your vote AND your money, they held one belief, now they hold another. 

The pertinent question is whether they were lying then or if they are lying now? 

SCOTUS has now taken up the Federal Constitutionality of state Constitutions defining marriage.  They will also be addressing DOMA which prevents one state from imposing its marriage values on other states. 

Obviously, marriage is not in the Constitution and thus should not be addressed by the High Court, although DOMA is within its discretion as it concerns the full faith and credit clause.

The correct holding, whether it be based on standing or some other technicality is for the Supreme Court to allow states to continue to define marriage for themselves and allow the Tenth Amendment to protect those definitions against the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Less than a fifth of states have legislated in favor of creating a new subset of marriage in favor of a homosexual lifestyle, and the majority of those were court ordered.  The reality is that the majority of Americans still don’t accept homosexual relationships as eligible for marriage.  (Don’t throw polls at me that fail to take into account questions that allow people to answer without being made to feel like bigots)  While that seems to be                 quickly changing, it would be nice to have leaders that were honest about their belief system.  I have been appalled by the race to backtrack by so many in the United States Senate.

I realize this is an old refrain but we need leaders and the Tea Party guys seem to be the only ones providing it.  Rand Paul is talking about legalizing marijuana, that can’t carry a political benefit in the GOP.  That is the kind of honesty that I find refreshing.  You’ve got some D’s out there, that while they scare me, are showing leadership like Sherrod Brown on banking and red state D’s on guns.  Some of these views may be political suicide, but at least we are getting a good feel for where they’re at. 

What I don’t appreciate is wishy-washy, poll tested positions.  That is exactly what you are seeing from a lot of these cultural turncoats.  It make you wonder what other viewpoints they are hiding.

What will fund the government is the CR.  A vote for the CR is a vote to keep the government running on its current trajectory for a shorter period of time than a budget vote could.  Also, the CR continues to fund the Affordable Health program going forward.  So in essence, although Republicans control an entire House of the legislature, they are too weak and timid to use the power of the purse to defund a program that will lead to bankruptcy.

No Congressmen or Senator can tell us he is fighting 100% against Obamacare while voting to implement it.  Paul Ryan’s budget is in the middle of this as he continues to mislead voters.  He continues to state that his budget defunds Obamacare while failing to mention that it is as relevant as his Young Guns book.  Ryan can only talk down to us for so long.  We need leadership.  This is an unpopular program and Republicans have the numbers to block its implementation indefinitely as it defunds Medicare.  This is a winning issue, if Ryan ever wants to move out of a district in Wisconsin, he may want to demonstrate some leadership – on his pet issues.  We aren’t going to get it from Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy.  We need leaders who are willing to defund Obamacare in earnest, before its too late.

Adrienne Moton, an employee of Gosnell’s, admitted to snipping the necks of “a good ten fetuses.”  Ten.  The prosecution alleges that Gosnell made it his practice to send untrained employees in to administer sedatives and pain killers to pregnant women.  At least one woman died from such malfeasance.  Apparently, once pro-choice Tom Ridge (Republican) became Governor of Pennsylvania, the Department of Health ceased doing inspections of the facility.  This continued for 17 years. 

Democrats have fought tighter restrictions on clinics down here in Virginia as well.  Democrats want to regulate everything you do, unless it’s this.  It is interesting to note how far a late-term abortion clinic can sink when unregulated.  All 50 states have a responsibility to crack down on all clinics to prevent unsanitary and unethical practices.