People These Guys Believe They Know What’s Best For You. Both Are Damn Traitors.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) on Monday evening became the first sitting GOP member of the House of Representatives to publicly call for the removal of House Speaker Paul Ryan now, rather than on Ryan’s planned schedule post-election, during an interview onBreitbart News Tonight on SiriusXM.
During a discussion with host and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour about Ryan’s failures on immigration with a looming pro-amnesty discharge petition hanging in the balance, Gosar hammered the entire current leadership team.
“Part of the problem is I think the whole leadership team is toxic,” Gosar said. “And that’s part of the problem. How did we choose this? These are the same group of people that conveyed the jurisdiction of the omnibus. These are the same group of leaders that haven’t honored a promise.”
Gosar pointed to the founding chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), as a solid replacement of Ryan when the time comes. Mansour had asked him about a call from Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney—a Freedom Caucus House member before he joined President Donald Trump’s administration—for Ryan to be removed now to force House Democrats to demonstrate in a floor Speakership vote their true allegiance to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
“There’s a movement of people that are backing Jim Jordan from the Freedom Caucus,” Gosar said. “He would be a great person to get back to having leadership for change and well-statute reform. That’s how you look at this: it’s got to be somebody that is going to bring back good process which brings back good policy which builds good politics. This is problematic.”
News broke this weekend that a group of grassroots conservatives—well more than a hundred of them—are calling to draft Jordan for the speakership.
He further elaborated on his support for Jordan for Speaker.
“I think Jim Jordan is a great person. I think the move is afoot to draft Jim Jordan,” Gosar said. “I think if the votes were already had I think the replacement would have already been there. I think the further this goes down the road—I think this was the latest warning call in regards to that process, on the farm bill. I think it’s time. I think it would energize our base. It would get somebody who would actually get back the jurisdiction and the clout to Congress and the House as equal footings with the Senate and stop taking this crap allowing the Senate to back us into corners and mitigate with ourselves instead of being a fair and equal component like the Senate. This would be the perfect scenario—otherwise we’re going to have the same kind of problems over and over again.”
When Mansour asked again if Gosar was specifically saying call the vote for Speaker now and elect Jordan before the election in November, he replied: “Absolutely.”
“It allows us to pony up but it also allows us to get things done,” Gosar said. “Because we haven’t seen it done.”
Gosar listed a number of things Ryan promised but has not delivered as speaker.
This all comes amid a fraught political time for the House GOP leadership. Ryan, who announced he is not seeking re-election thereby ceding his authority as Speaker by taking a lame duck approach to the midterm elections, is widely viewed as not doing enough to stop an effort by pro-amnesty open borders Republicans to use a discharge petition to force the issue of amnesty onto the floor of the House of Representatives.
“Once again, the damage is done because if you’re a member of the moderates why would you sign onto that when you know you can have the discharge petition come forward if this Goodlatte bill doesn’t come forward? So they’ve played this whole hand out publicly which is totally bananas,” Gosar said.
Meanwhile, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy—the presumed heir apparent as Speaker—has a major uphill battle ahead of him to convince members like Gosar and other conservatives to vote for him if and when he does have a speakership vote on the floor. While McCarthy is indeed personally close with President Trump, he was thwarted by these same conservatives in his last bid for speakership back in 2015 which cleared the way for Ryan’s ascendancy to third place in the line of the presidential succession. McCarthy could very well win them over in the end, but he has an enormous amount of work to do—and palling around with Ryan, when Ryan is not stopping this discharge petition, does not help his case.
Waiting in the wings is House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, also viewed as a potential contender for the speakership should McCarthy not succeed. Scalise would face many of the same hurdles as McCarthy faces.
It remains to be seen how this all will go down but one thing is certain at this stage: Ryan is in serious trouble, and is very likely to not survive to his desired expiration date at the beginning of next year at the end of this Congress.
Everyone From Obama’s Administration Should Be In Jail.
President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to demand an official investigation of former President Barack Obama’s administration on Sunday for infiltrating or surveilling his presidential campaign for political reasons.
“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump wrote on Twitter on Sunday afternoon.
Trump frequently blames investigations of his campaign on Obama, suggesting that politically motivated investigators were unfairly targeting his campaign.
He spent most of Sunday morning sharing his thoughts on Twitter about the ongoing Russia investigation, suggesting that the ongoing “witch hunt” was out of control. “Things are really getting ridiculous,” Trump wrote, noting that so far there was no collusion found by special investigators.
He criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team as “13 Angry and heavily conflicted Democrats” who were part of the Obama administration.
“STOP!” he wrote. “They have found no collusion with Russia, No obstruction.”
Trump again redirected the continuing investigation towards failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Tony Podesta, the DNC, and politically biased FBI officials.
“Republicans and real Americans should start getting tough on this Scam,” he wrote.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!
Last week, reports indicated Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor and longtime aide to some of Washington’s most powerful figures, was outed as an FBI informant planted inside Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The New York Post writes:
Halper made his first overture when he met with Page at a British symposium. The two remained in regular contact for more than a year, meeting at Halper’s Virginia farm and in Washington, DC, as well as exchanging emails.
The professor met with Trump campaign co-chair Sam Clovis in late August, offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, The Washington Post reported Friday, without naming the academic.
…
Days later, Halper contacted Papadopoulos by e-mail. The professor offered the young and inexperienced campaign aide $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to write a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.
Here are a few fast facts about Halper’s history in politics.
Got His Start in Nixon/Ford Years
The Stanford and Oxford-educated Halper started his career in government in 1971 as a member of President Richard Nixon’s Domestic Policy Council. The foreign policy expert served as the Office of Management and Budget’s Assistant Director of Management and Evaluation Division between 1973-1974. Halper then served as an assistant to all three of President Gerald Ford’s Chief of Staffs — Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney — until 1977.
Accused of Leading a Spy Ring Inside Jimmy Carter’s Presidential Campaign
The Reagan-Bush presidential campaign hired Halper to serve as Director of Policy Coordination in 1980 and would later be embroiled in the Debategate affair, a scandal in which CIA operatives were accused of leaking the Carter campaign’s foreign policy positions to the Republican ticket.
Four decades ago, Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering.
Halper also worked as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs during President Ronald Reagan’s first term.
Had a Stint as a Bank Executive
In 1984, Halper was chairman of three financial institutions — National Bank of Northern Virginia, Palmer National Bank, and George Washington National Bank. White House official Oliver North wired loaned funds from the Palmer National Bank to a Swiss bank account, which were later used to aid the contras.
Believed Hillary Clinton Would Be a Better Steward for U.S.-UK Relations
In March 2016, Halper told Russia’s Sputnik News that he believed then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would prove to be a steadier hand in preserving the “special relationship” enjoyed by the United States and Britain.
“I believe Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union. Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced and predictable. US-UK relations will remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time,” Halper said.
Hell Yes There Were Signs. He Wore A Trench Coat Every Day Damit?
Texas shooting: Suspect Dimitrios Pagourtzis charged as 10 are killed and explosive devices found at high school – as it happened
Ten people were killed after a gunman believed to be a student opened fire at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas, in the latest spasm of gun violence in a country still shaken by the massacre at a Florida high school in February.
Authorities quickly named 17-year-old student Dimitrios Pagourtzis as their suspect. Later in the day he was charged with capital murder – for which he did not enter a plea – and was denied bond. He was being held in solitary confinement.
Scenes of grief and horror streamed out of the small community less than an hour’s drive from Houston. Stunned and weeping teenagers tried to piece together the mayhem they had experienced. Schools were set to be closed for the start of the following week, with the FBI saying Santa Fe High School and the surrounding area would remain a closed crime scene “for some time”.
Hello and welcome to our coverage of the situation at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas.
A number of fatalities have been reported by multiple outlets, but not yet confirmed by officials. The local sheriff has said it is a ‘multiple casualty’ incident.
Local media is saying there are up to 8 fatalities – though these are not official reports and have not been confirmed
Unlike the better known Santa Fe in New Mexico, the Texas city where the shooting has taken place has a population of just 12,222, according to census data
Reports say the shooter is in the custody of local police
Shannon Watts
✔@shannonrwatts
Don’t bother tweeting me that it’s too soon to talk about the need for stronger gun laws. It’s always too soon in America. For kids shot at Santa Fe High School today, it’s too late.
We are assisting @SantaFeISD with a multiple-casualty incident at Santa Fe High School. This is no longer an active shooting situation and the injured are being treated. #hounews
Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, just weighed in on today’s shooting in Texas.
“This has been my fear since February 14th, that another mass casualty shooting would happen before we did anything,” he tweeted. “Now, we have 8 more children dead and our leadership in Washington has done nothing. We do not need thoughts and prayers, we need action and we need it now.”
An eye witness describes what she saw
Michael Gravesande
✔@OldBlackHack
UPDATE Eyewitness account: “I shouldn’t be going through this” – One of the students at Santa Fe High School describes the scene of the shooting at her school this morning
Local media reporting suspected shooter may have used shotgun.
Donald Trump speaking live about the “absolutely horrific” incident. “We are with you and we will be with you forever…Everyone must work together at every level of government to keep our children safe.”
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez saying there could be 8-10 dead
At a brief press conference, he said two people are being questioned – one suspect, one person of interest. Both are believed to be students at the school, Mr Gonzalez said. The suspect has been arrested, but it is not clear whether the person of interest is speaking to police on their own accord or not.
Reports suggest the high school, located about 30 miles south of Houston, was due to have graduation ceremony tomorrow
From the Houston Chronicle, The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston has received three patients, the hospital reported on social media. Two are adults and one is under 18.
Clear Lake Regional Medical Center in Webster received seven injured students, a spokeswoman for that facility said. Previous reports that an injured officer was taken there are wrong, she said. Two other injured students were taken to Mainland Medical Center in Texas City, she said.
Authorities said the assailant appeared to have obtained his weapons – a shotgun and a revolver – from his father, who possessed them legally. Explosive devices were found both at the school and off campus, Mr Gonzalez said.
Court documents said the suspect admitted to authorities having carried out the shooting “with the intent of killing people” and said he spared the lives of students he liked so that “he could have his story told“.
Writings in the suspect’s journals that indicated he wanted to take his own life, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said.
“We also know information already that the shooter has information contained in journals on his computer and his cell phone that he said that not only did he want to commit the shooting, but he wanted to commit suicide after the shooting,” he said.
“As you probably know, he gave himself up and admitted at the time he didn’t have the courage to commit the suicide, that he wanted to take his own life earlier,” Abbott added.
Some fellow students described him as quiet. He also played on the school’s American football team.
Donald Trump issues statement after Santa Fe High School shooting
President Donald Trump called the shooting heartbreaking and said that federal and local authorities were coordinating in the wake of the gun attack.
“My administration is determined to do everything in our power to protect our students, secure our schools and to keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves and to others,” Mr Trump said at the White House.
READ MORE
‘Multiple fatalities’ reported after shooting at Texas high school
As the day unfolded, Democratic elected officials said the latest shooting again proved the need for tougher gun laws. They were joined by teenage survivors of the Florida shooting who have turned into vocal fun control advocates.
While Mr Abbott said he intended to convene a series of public meetings to find “solutions” that would prevent more shootings, he did not elaborate on details.
USA Today Demonizes AR-15 After Reporting Santa Fe Gunman Used Revolver, Shotgun
AP
USA Today demonized the AR-15 on Friday after reporting that the Santa Fe High School gunman used a revolver and a shotgun in his attack.
The paper referenced Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) statement that the Santa Fe High School attacker used “a shotgun and .38 caliber revolver, both of which he got from his father.”
The article added, “The guns may have slowed down the gunman’s deadly rampage because they have a slower firing rate than firearms used in other recent mass shootings, such as the AR-15.”
USA Today continued, “High-powered rifles such as the AR-15 can be fired more than twice as fast as most handguns. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds, allowing a shooter to continue firing uninterrupted for longer, making the weapon more lethal than other firearms.”
A few clarifications are in order: 1. A semi-automatic handgun can be fired as fast as a semi-automatic rifle. There is no magic quality about an AR-15 that makes it easier or quicker to fire than a semi-automatic pistol. 2. The Santa Fe gunman used a revolver, which is not semi-automatic, to begin with. However, granting that it was a double-action, it, too, can be fired as quickly as an AR-15. 3. A shotgun, which the Santa Fe gunman also used, is far superior to an AR-15 in close quarters. USA Today belatedly alluded to this by adding, “Clearly the use of any gun can be deadly, especially a shotgun at close range.”
Later in the article, USA Today reported, “Many of the deadliest mass shootings in recent years involved high-powered rifles, notably AR-15 styled rifles. But far fewer have featured shotguns or a revolver as the primary killing weapon.”
On April 3, 2018, Breitbart News listed 25 of our nation’s most prominent mass public attacks, and AR-15s were used eight times. The predominate weapon was a handgun, used 17 times. Shotguns were used in four of the incidents. The Santa Fe attack raises the use of handguns to 18 and shotguns to five, while AR-15s remain as the weapon of choice on eight occasions.
Why Did Bob Mueller Not Investigate Any Of These SOB’s.
Leakers to the New York Times confirmed in a story published on Wednesday that the FBI had run a spy operation on the Trump campaign that involved government informants, secret subpoenas, and possible wiretaps.
The story comes ahead of the release of the pending Department of Justice inspector general report on the FBI’s actions during the 2016 election, and likely is an attempt by the leakers to paint the FBI’s efforts in the most flattering light possible.
But the story revealed that the FBI – which is supposed to be an apolitical agency – was spying on the Trump campaign through phone records and with “at least one” human asset.
“The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos,” the Times reported, citing “current and former officials.”
The revelation of “at least one government informant” appears to confirm a Washington Post story last week in which leakers revealed that the FBI had a “top secret intelligence source” — a U.S. citizen who likely lived overseas — who had spied on members of the Trump campaign for the FBI.
The Post‘s report came out as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was fighting the Justice Department for access to information on the source.
According to the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel, the source meant “the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.”
“This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting,” she wrote in a piece last Thursday.
The Times‘ story also seems to conflict with what the FBI has previously maintained — that the investigation into the Trump campaign began with information that Papadopoulos had told an Australian diplomat he knew that Russians had stolen emails that would be embarrassing for Clinton.
Leakers told the Times that “within hours” of opening the investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, the FBI dispatched two agents to London to interview the Australian diplomat who had talked to Papadopoulos, meaning that the investigation had officially opened even before they interviewed him.
In fact, it was not until two days after the investigation began that the agents summarized their interview — which apparently “broke with diplomatic protocol” — and sent the summary back to Washington.
The Times‘ story glosses over this discrepancy by saying the agents’ report “helped provide the foundation” for the case – instead of sparked the case – as has been claimed.
Those facts appear to confirm that the FBI had opened the investigation on the Trump campaign based on other information — perhaps the “top secret intelligence source.”
Strassel also questioned in her piece when the investigation really began, and why. She wrote:
“…when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.”
The Times’ story is also vague as to when exactly FBI agents began looking into the Trump campaign, saying that it was “days” after their investigation on Hillary Clinton’s email server ended. Comey had announced he would not seek charges against Clinton on July 5, 2016, and the FBI officially launched their investigation on July 31, 2016.
According to the Times‘ story, the investigation seems to have been sparked by suspicions over some campaign members’ pre-existing connections with Russia before they joined the campaign.
Flynn, a retired three-star general, was once paid $45,000 by Russian outlet Russia Today for a 2015 speaking engagement; Paul Manafort — a veteran Republican strategist — had lobbied for pro-Russian interests in Ukraine long before he joined the Trump campaign; Carter Page had previously worked in Moscow and Russian spies had tried to recruit him. In Papadopoulos’s case, he “seemed to know” Russia had “political dirt” on Clinton.
The FBI also found Trump’s behavior suspicious, although he was not under investigation. FBI officials were also alarmed by reports that wrongly suggested that Trump’s campaign had tried to change the GOP’s stance on Ukraine in a way favorable to Russia.
The Times’ story also confirms the FBI used the salacious Steele dossier in addition to “F.B.I. information” to obtain a wiretap on Page. Democrats have tried to downplay the FBI’s reliance on the document.
The story reveals the FBI — instead of alerting the Trump campaign that it might be a target of Russian influence operations — went to lengths to hide the investigation.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates claimed in an interview with the Times that they did not want word of the investigation to leak and to impact the election.
“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” she said. (Instead, they secretly spied on the Trump campaign as mentioned above, via phone records, secret subpoenas, and at least one informant.)
The story downplays the actions of FBI agent Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the Clinton email and Trump campaign investigations.
The story claims that the FBI did not reveal eagerness to investigate Trump, citing one of Strzok’s text messages to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
The Times quoted Strzok as texting Page with, “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections.” In reality, he had texted Page “OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS.”
The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who has reported on the FBI’s investigation in depth, called the Times’ report “an attempted whitewash” of FBI behavior.
The story reveals that the code name for the investigation on the Trump campaign was “Crossfire Hurricane,” based on a Rolling Stones song.
Nowhere in the story, however, is there evidence of any collusion during the campaign. The story states that Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was about to be cleared in November 2016, until he took actions after the election that the FBI wanted to examine.
The story also states: “The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?”
“A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts,” it states.
The story also shows former CIA Director John Brennan taking an active role in pushing the investigation along.
By mid-August, Brennan shared intelligence with Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the election. It states he also briefed top lawmakers that summer about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow supported the Trump campaign.
Other reports have said Brennan briefed then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who then urged then-FBI Director James Comey to investigate the Trump campaign in an August 27, 2016 letter that could be shared with media — even though there was already an open FBI investigation.
A separate report on Wednesday published by the American Spectator’s George Neumayr said that leaked news stories in the British press showed that Brennan’s spying on Trump began around April 2016.
“As it became urgently clear to Brennan that Trump was going to face off against Hillary, Brennan turned to ‘intelligence partners’ in Europe for dirt on Trump. But they didn’t have any, save some pretty skimpy material on ‘contacts’ between Trump campaign officials and Russians,” he writes. He continues:
From April 2016 to July 2016, according to leaked stories in the British press, he assembled a multi-agency taskforce that served as the beginnings of a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. During these months, he was ‘personally briefing’ Obama on ‘Russian interference’ — Brennan’s euphemism for spying on the Trump campaign — and was practically camped out at the White House. So in all likelihood Obama knew about and had given his blessing to Brennan’s dirt-digging.
The Times‘ story seems to corroborate that taskforce. According to the Times, “intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate” the Russian government attack on the election, which involved the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team.
“The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently,” three officials told the Times.
Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta Is Right On Gay Marriage.
Almost three years after the Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that invented a new right of gay marriage in the United States Constitution, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta sat down Friday for an interview with CNN’s Christiana Amanpour and fielded questions about gay rights.
Amanpour framed the questions in the wider context of gay relationships, where there are clear differences between the two countries. But Kenyatta’s answers should fall four-square on the question of homosexual marriage in the United States.
“This is not an issue, as you would want to put it, of human rights. This is an issue of society,” Kenyatta said. “Our own base, as a culture, as a people. Irregardless of which community you come from. This is not acceptable. This is not agreeable …
“This is an issue, that the people of Kenya themselves, who have bestowed upon themselves a constitution, right? After several years (Kenyans) have clearly stated that this is not a subject they are willing to engage in.”
Of course, gay marriage wasn’t a subject Americans were willing to engage in either.
And perceptive Americans might have noticed their country also has a Constitution — one that’s a lot older than Kenya’s — and that for centuries no one assumed the Constitution framed by some of the most brilliant men God ever created guaranteed the right of two homosexuals to marry.
But in June 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy and four liberals on the Supreme Court decided, suddenly, that right was there after all.
In the short time that has passed since that emotionally rich but logically bereft ruling, the results have been chaotic for liberties that are actually enshrined in the nation’s founding document.
The freedom of religion, for instance — as practiced by a Christian baker in Coloradowho declined to bake a cake for a gay couple’s “marriage” — hinges on yet another Supreme Court case due to be decided this term.
It’s important to make it clear that Kenyatta’s views about gay rights are considerably different from those in the United States — where views were much more tolerant even before the Obergefell decision.
In Kenya, according to Nairobi-based The Star, “Section 165 of the Kenyan Constitution outlaws same-sex marriages and stipulates a five-year jail sentence for any sexual practices between same-sex partners.”
There were still similar laws on the books in the U.S. regarding sodomy and the like until the high court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. But it’s safe to say that acceptance, if grudging, of gay relationships themselves was the American standard.
But from an American viewpoint, Kenyatta’s words are definitely applicable to the debate over gay marriages.
When the issue was placed on popular ballots, traditional marriage proponents won an overwhelming majority of the contests. In 2004 alone, 11 states passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, according to a CNN timeline of the issue.
In 2006, voters in another seven states more did the same.
In 2008, the most liberal Democratic state in the country — California — passed Proposition 8, to amend the state’s constitution to ban same sex marriage (Arizona and Florida approved similar bans the same year). The popular will is clear.
Gay marriage activists like to point out they have won numerous court cases on the issue, but the point is, in a democracy the law is what society, through the electorate, says it is — not a group of well-organized activists, and certainly not a handful of appointed judges.
For the vast majority of Americans — and certainly all true conservatives — individual rights are paramount. And what happens in a home between adults is nobody’s business but theirs.
But when the Supreme Court — led by Justice Anthony Kennedy — issued the Obergefell decision, it changed the course of the conversation, and too many Christian businesses — from a giant like Chick-fil-A to a small-town Michigan farmer — have felt the impact.
A “liberal” statement on gay rights in general is clearly what Amanpour was pushing for in her interview with Kenyatta.
His answers, when applied to gay marriage, could be a lesson for the United States, and especially the Supreme Court.
