Same-sex marriage. Where are we on this issue?

(Following is a brief account of the Supreme Court findings on the same-sex marriage case [Obergefell v. Hodges] held recently. In the following account, the term “syllabus” refers to a Court summary of the issue, mostly from the point of view of the majority decision.)

The syllabus of this decision reports that the voters for the majority are KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., who all joined in filing the majority opinion. The dissenters were ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. The final vote of the Court was 5 votes for the majority, 4 dissenting.

The syllabus reported that “Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges)

It is necessary in understanding the history of this same-sex marriage controversy to know that the Court invalidated DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in 2013, saying that it impermissibly disparaged same-sex couples from expressing their commitment to one another. Since then, there have been many Appeals Court cases affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry. (E. Manring)

“The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges)

“Finally, the First Amendment 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.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges)

“Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges)

“The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges) It must be noted, however, that all the previous changes to the marriage union presupposed that the marrying partners were of opposite sex. (E. Manring)

“Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, long ago, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. In Zablocki v. Redhail the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. To be sure, these cases all presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners; never before has the Court proclaimed that same-sex marriage was legal.” (Syllabus Obergefell v. Hodges)

“The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This principle should give conservatives some pause for thought. Belief on the conservative side of this debate is usually on the side of protecting personal freedoms—this point should be particularly acceptable to the Libertarian faction within America’s conservative movement.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

“A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion) This reason for same-sex marriage is in direct conflict with studies that show children raised in homosexual homes demonstrate unfavorable outcomes in the areas of dependence on public assistance, employment as young adults, mental health, sexual identity and practice, sexual health and safety, and the children’s own adult families. (Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin) (Kennedy also uses Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children and Brief for Gary J. Gates for justifying the raising of children in same-sex marriages; but the briefs only deal with the fact that children in same-sex marriages suffer from being stigmatized because they are in those homes. These studies do not address the ultimate outcome of children in same-sex unions. The Regnerus study looked at the outcomes of those children and found that the outcomes were unfavorable.)

Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order. Therefore, Justice Kennedy says that Americans should be married. He cites Alexis de Tocqueville’s comments that marriage is the cornerstone of American society. He neglects to mention that de Tocqueville was not considering same-sex marriages. (E. Manring)

The Court considers that the state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage as burdens on the liberty of same-sex couples and it sees these laws as abridgements on central precepts of equality. To support this view of the Court, the Court has invoked the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution. (E. Manring)

Finally, the First Amendment 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. Even at that, however, this decision of the Supreme Court does not address the grievances of florists and bakers who object to being drawn into cooperation with same-sex marriages to which they are morally opposed. (E. Manring)

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations. The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, ‘The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.’ There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” (From the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy. Of note, here, is the fact that Justice Kennedy did not quote the biblical admonitions against homosexuality, nor the biblical statements affirming that marriage is a covenant between the two different sexes. I suppose he thought that reference was insignificant. Justice Kennedy apparently thought that the authority of Confucius and Cicero were more important than the words of Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul.)

“That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents (i.e., the conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage) say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

“The petitioners acknowledge this history (of heterosexual marriage) but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ (those who want to institute same-sex marriage) claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

“New insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

“The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion) Note, here, the progressive possibilities inherent in this majority decision. It seems that unending changes are foreseen as society sees the need in years to come. (E. Manring)

For the Court’s purposes to define the Fourteenth Amendments scope, in interpretation concerning the interests, values, and liberties of citizens, especially in its view of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Amendment, the Court has said that “history and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” In other words, it seems to me that the Court has determined that new liberties may come up on an indefinite progression, as the culture desires. If this concept of open-ended non-limit to the principle of freedom is allowed to stand, the Constitution will continue to be vulnerable to all sorts of revisionist mischief. Almost any kind of behavioral change may be introduced into the document and considered to be acceptable as a new whim of concurrent social belief. This idea of open boundary on the idea of freedom nullifies the whole idea of permanence in our system of law. (E. Manring)

“The respondents have not shown a foundation for the conclusion that allowing same-sex marriage will cause the harmful outcomes they describe.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion) (See my statement below about the lack of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency that is characteristic of same-sex marriages. E.Manring)

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” (Kennedy’s majority opinion)

Dissenting Opinions

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. (The Federalist No. 78, p. 465)

“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.’ As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things (what the framers of the Declaration of Independence called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”) to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship. For since the reproductive instinct is by nature’s gift the common possession of all living creatures, the first bond of union is that between husband and wife; the next, that between parents and children; then we find one home, with everything in common.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without. As one prominent scholar put it, ‘Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.’” (J. Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 2002). (John Roberts, dissenting)

“The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife. There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Even when state laws did not specify this definition expressly, no one doubted what they meant. The meaning of ‘marriage’ went without saying.” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as ‘the legal union of a man and woman for life,’ which served the purposes of ‘preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.’” (John Roberts, dissenting)

“This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Early cases on the subject referred to marriage as ‘the union for life of one man and one woman,’ Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 (1885), which forms ‘the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,’ Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888). We later described marriage as ‘fundamental to our very existence and survival,’ an understanding that necessarily implies a procreative component. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); see Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). More recent cases have directly connected the right to marry with the ‘right to procreate.’ Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386 (1978). (John Roberts, dissenting)

This whole issue of same-sex marriage is the great “bait and switch” of our time. The homosexual agenda baits the society with the claim that they want equal rights and privileges with the rest of society—they want to be recognized as just another part of free American society. Gullible Americans bite the bait—in the interest of fairness and “justice for all,” they grant the privilege of being called “married” to the gay community.  Then…the homosexuals switch to their real agenda, i.e., the destruction of marriage as mankind has known it for millennia. And how will same-sex marriage do that? (E.Manring)

Same-sex marriage has been around long enough for everyone to know and understand its characteristics: Same-sex marriage couples have a horrendously high divorce rate and those marriages are not often monogamous; there are lots of outside sex activity going on in those “marriages.” These facts have been well documented in the experience of the Netherlands. Their “marriages” do not have the qualities necessary for constructive and functional marriages. They lack the characteristics we have come to value in heterosexual marriages, i.e., exclusivity, monogamy, and permanence. (E. Manring)

When same-sex couples get “married,” they bring all the infidelity of their culture with them and transfer those qualities to our classic understanding of what a real marriage is. They do this in the hope of changing our classic and health-producing understanding of marriage. I am very fearful that that is exactly what will happen with a bunch of same-sex couples claiming the legal description of “married.” (E. Manring)

Those who will not cooperate in same-sex weddings are not homophobic, hate-filled people, or bigots. They are simply people who are obeying the precepts handed to them by God. (E. Manring)

“Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.” (Alito, dissenting)

“Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.” (Alito dissenting)

Just because something bears the aspect of the inevitable one should not, therefore, go along willingly with it. Philip K. Dick

 

 

 

 

Democrats Wrong in Opposing Trade Agreement

David Brooks has written an op-ed in the New York Times on 16 June 2015 about the bad judgment Democrats are exercising in voting to impair the President’s ability to coordinate international trade around the Pacific rim. He makes several cogent arguments:

1.  A trade agreement will raise the standard of living of the world’s poor. The economic effect on Mexico, for instance, was much improved by NAFTA; and that was done without much effect on the U.S. economy. The improved situation among Mexican workers has lessened their desire to immigrate to the United States illegally. I would add to Mr. Brooks’ comments that a rising standard of living among the poor of the Pacific Rim countries would allow them to buy more United States imports, and that would, therefore, translate into more income for us.

2.  The trade deal will not hurt the American economy. Eighty-three percent of the nation’s leading economists believe that a trade deal with the Pacific Rim will help our economy. The global poor will benefit the most, but most people in rich countries will benefit, too. Since World War II, reductions in U.S. tariffs have contributed 7.3% to American incomes.

3.  A trade deal will not stifle future innovation. Although some American jobs have been lost by past trade deals, most manufacturing job losses have been caused by technological improvements. Those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The best way forward is to increase the number of high-quality jobs in the service sector. The Pacific trade deal would help. The treaty is not mostly about reducing tariffs on goods. That work has mostly been done. It’s about establishing rules for a postindustrial global economy, rules having to do with intellectual property, investment, antitrust and environmental protection. Service-sector industries like these are where America is strongest, where the opportunities for innovation are the most exciting and where wages are already 20 percent higher than in manufacturing.

4.  The trade deal will not imperil world peace. The Pacific region will either be organized by American rules or Chinese rules. By voting against the trade deal, Democrats went a long way toward guaranteeing that Chinese rules will dominate.

Rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt economies from the U.S. to Japan to Vietnam. It will send yet another signal that America can no longer be counted on as the world’s leading nation.

The best defense of free trade I have read is a book by William Easterly, The White Man’s Burden. Check it out.

 

 

Comments on my Last Blog Post

On 2 June 2015, I posted a blog advocating a change in the U.S. Constitution mediated by a rapidly growing organization in our country called the “Convention of States.” I did that because I sincerely believe that our Constitution is in grave danger of being usurped by politicians using it falsely to promote their own local and temporal felt needs and the political direction of the Progressive left. My readers can review my views in that blog post by going to http://manringen.blogspot.com (control+click).

It has been drawn to my attention that advocating a change in the Constitution, might be subject to abuse by such a convention; and the Convention might be drawn into a morass of contention by self-interested politicians. Nevertheless, I think that we, the people, should attempt such a change. The reason I think so is that the Constitution has been so manhandled by our leaders, especially in the administration, that it is necessary to modernize and update the features of the Constitution in order to keep it from being entirely ruined by Progressive legislators and executive administrators.

Critics of the Convention of States idea say that the only thing we need is for the leaders of this nation to begin to obey the Constitution in its specific features, its words, and its intention. Very well, I agree with that, of course; but…the problem is that legislators will continue to change the Constitution to their momentary liking. They will continue to “find things” in the Constitution that certainly are not there in the intent or the wording of the document. A perfect example of this is the right to abortion that they found in the Constitution in Roe v. Wade back in 1973. In that case, it was obvious that the word, “abortion,” does not exist in the document; and it is a certainty that the writers of the Constitution would never have used the Constitution to justify such a thing! However, the supreme court justified the law under the broad umbrella of privacy. Almost anything can be justified by claiming a right to privacy.

In proposing changes to our Constitution, it should be noted that the crafters of our Constitution made ample arrangements for modifications to the document in Article V of the Constitution. This article was used to ratify the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. We are in such a situation now that we need stronger clarification of our rights as citizens as were the people of the late 18^th century.

In reference to changing the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson had this to say, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”  

We Need a Change in our Constitution!

Those of you who read my blog posts know very well that I am distressed at the situation of our country. I am distressed because I see it taking unwise courses in education, foreign affairs, domestic policies, fiscal decisions, etc., etc.

I have been loath to advocate and participate in activities that aim to change the nature of our Constitutional Republic—in other words, I am naturally a conservative; and I want to adhere to systems that have worked well in the past, while continuing to stand for modification of new and potentially constructive change in the society.

Lately, however, I have concluded that our nation needs a more active change in polity and policy in order to maintain the gains we have realized over the years since our Constitution was written in 1787. I fully endorse the principles of our Constitution and the free market economy it has garnered. I admire the freedoms and liberties we have all enjoyed; especially, I have appreciated the freedom to worship the way we see fit. However,…things have gone from bad to worse for us as a culture. The entire world can see the weakness of our system in the bad foreign policy and the fiscal incontinence we have fostered.

For this reason, Nancy and I are endorsing the policies of an organization called the “Convention of States,” an organization attempting to change our Constitution in such a way as to correct the many fallacies that have imbued our way of life. The Convention is a rapidly developing movement in America that is gaining a surprisingly large following. Its aims are as follows:

1)  Balanced budget amendment

2)  A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (The original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states.)

3)  A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (The original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation.)

4)  A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States

5)  A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)

6)  Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

7)  Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

8)  Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

I do hope that my readers will not think that I have joined the ranks of the radicals of our nation in advocating such changes; but I am becoming desperate when I see so many travesties of basic freedoms and cultural norms all around us. I would ask that each of you who reads this post might take the time to read the web page of the Convention of States just to see the common sense of the changes the Convention advocates.

Middle Eastern Diplomacy? Where is it?

Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, has been offering a reassuring view of the Iranian nuclear deal in the face of some Arab skepticism. “If you can diplomatically and peacefully resolve the nuclear issue in a way that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters last week, “we believe that will lead to a much more stable region.” Mr. Rhodes also contends that with a deal “there will be no need to see [a] regional arms race.” Does anyone believe this??

Bret Stephens, an editorialist on the Wall Street Journal staff, has written in an op-ed on 4-18-15 that evidence against the truth of this kind of naïve belief are the obvious facts of what has happened since President Obama presented his “Framework” for a nuclear peace deal with the Islamic State of Iran on 2 April 2015. The facts are as follows:

April 2: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif immediately accuses the U.S. of “spin” and contradicts Mr. Obama’s key claims regarding the terms of the deal.

April 12: A Swedish think tank reports that Saudi Arabia registered the biggest increase in defense spending in the world.

April 13: Moscow says it will deliver the S-300 air-defense system to Tehran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei later boasts that the U.S. “can’t do a damn thing” militarily against Iran.

April 14: Iran announces agreements with Russia and China to build additional nuclear reactors.

April 17: Iran dispatches an armed convoy of ships, believed to be destined to resupply pro-Iranian Houthi rebels in Yemen in contravention of a U.N. arms embargo. The convoy turns back after the U.S. deploys an aircraft carrier to the region to shadow the ships.

April 20: Jason Rezaian, the American-born Washington Post reporter imprisoned in Iran since July, is charged with espionage, “collaborating with hostile governments” and “propaganda against the establishment.”

April 20: The British government informs the U.N. panel monitoring sanctions on Iran that it “is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network” associated with two Iranian companies that are under international sanctions.

April 22: Saudi Arabia resumes airstrikes in Yemen despite administration pressure to maintain a cease fire.

April 28: Iran seizes the 837-foot long Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands flagged cargo ship with 34 sailors aboard, as it transits the Strait of Hormuz along an internationally recognized route. The ship is released a week later after Maersk pays a fine of $163,000.

April 29: Former Saudi Intelligence Minister Turki al Faisal tells a conference in Seoul that the kingdom will match Iran’s nuclear capabilities with its own. “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too.” The prince also accuses Mr. Obama of going “behind the backs of the traditional allies to strike the deal.”

May 8: Reuters reports that inspectors have discovered traces of sarin gas at an undeclared military research site near Damascus. The report puts paid to administration boasts that its diplomacy effectively solved the Syrian chemical crisis.

May 11: Saudi Arabia’s King Salman withdraws from the Arab summit meeting with Mr. Obama. The king of Bahrain follows suit, preferring instead to attend a horse show with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth.

May 13: Reuters reports “the Czech Republic blocked an attempted purchase by Iran this year of a large shipment of sensitive technology usable for nuclear enrichment after false documentation raised suspicions.”

May 14: Iranian patrol boats fire upon a Singapore-flagged oil tanker with machine guns as it transits the Strait of Hormuz. The ship makes it safely to Dubai.

May 17: Citing senior U.S. officials, the Sunday Times reports that “Saudi Arabia has taken the ‘strategic decision’ to acquire ‘off-the-shelf’ atomic weapons from Pakistan.”

Also on May 17, Islamic State fighters in Iraq seize the city of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. This is after Mr. Obama crowed in February that “our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose.” Now the Iraqi government will turn to Shiite paramilitaries under Iranian control to try to retake the city, further turning the Baghdad government into an Iranian satrap.

Could any rational person, President Obama or his Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, ever believe, with this kind of hard evidence that the United States is dealing with a nation of good will and benign intentions??

 

 

 

Conflicted Interest of Hillary Clinton!

Have you ever wondered how Hillary Clinton could accept donations from foreign governments for her Clinton Foundation while she was the Secretary of State? Did you know that kind of donation is specifically forbidden by the U.S. Constitution?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

While Bill Clinton was president, his own Office of Legal Counsel once explained in an opinion letter, “those who hold offices under the United States must give the government their unclouded judgment and their uncompromised loyalty. .  .  . That judgment might be biased, and that loyalty divided, if they received financial benefits from a foreign government.” http://tws.io/1bQ38Z2

Dr. Larry Joseph Sabato, Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, and director of its Center for Politics has commented: “Do you think this might suggest a conflict of interest?  This is not a SUGGESTION of a conflict of interest—this IS a conflict of interest.” http://bit.ly/1F7OqqE

What Is the State of Religion in America?

On 4-26-15, two related papers appeared in the Wall Street Journal addressing this question. The first, “Why the Future of Religion Is Bleak,” by Daniel Dennett of Tufts University, http://on.wsj.com/1Gx3fB2 and, “The Future of Religion Is Ascendant,” by Emilie M. Townes of Vanderbilt University, http://on.wsj.com/1DCuPL9.

In the first case, i.e., that religion is becoming more insignificant in the lives of people, especially in North America and Europe, Dennett points out that one of the largest group of people in the world are the “nones,” i.e., those who claim to have not religion, at all. One out of six Americans is a “none.” The growth of the “nones” seems underway, as the number of people in this group is becoming larger.

As Dennett sees it, the only thing that will reverse this trend is the onset of some global disaster, such as a global plague, a world war fought over oil or water, the collapse of the internet (and thereby almost all of electronic communication), or some catastrophe that causes widespread misery and fear—the soil in which religion historically thrives.

Professor Dennett believes that religion only thrives in societies where ignorance is the main characteristic and that the more people are educated, the more they will reject religion.

In the second article referenced above, Professor Townes points out that human populations have invariably been characterized by religious beliefs. She observes that as world population increases, so too, will religious belief. However, she writes that we, in the West must not measure the growth of religion by what we see in North America and Western Europe. She mentions that by 2050, 38% of the world’s Christians will live in sub-Sahara Africa—up from 24% in 2010. The world population of Muslims will nearly equal the population number of Christians. Thus, by 2050, the Muslim population will nearly equal the number of Christians.

It is a widely recognized fact that organized religion is on the decline in the West; but that must not be confused with the idea that religion (faith) is going away. People are turning away from organized churches; but they still claim to be “spiritual” people. This is evidenced by the rise of small group worship, the booming market for religious/spiritual books, blogs, music, and paraphernalia.

The social power of religion has diminished as it increasingly shares the public imagination with the natural sciences, economics, political science, and rampant individualism; but that does not mean that people do not seek meaning in their lives from religious viewpoints.

What will endure is the human need to find meaning in our lives, to have something beyond ourselves that calls us to some form of higher moral values. For many, the fulfillment of this need is, and will continue to be, the practice of religion and/or spirituality.

We members of the human race need to recognize that the three apostles of atheism are still health, wealth, and power. Life has much more meaning that these. The Christian faith is the only one that can answer the ultimate questions of true-life meaning.