Megyn Kelly’s A Distraction: Here’s The Real Donald Trump Story From The Debates…

Still distracted by the picture above? My point exactly. Don’t worry, so am I; but that doesn’t change the issue at hand. There was a lot of blood in the water over the weekend; and like a shark feeding frenzy, everyone circled around it, hoping more blood would be spilled.

Meanwhile, while everyone was talking blood, sexism, Megyn Kelly, and hurled insults, there was a Trump soundbite no one seemed to be talking about. At the GOP debate last week, Donald Trump kinda sorta defended socialized medicine in Canada. Because that’s such a resounding success.

Watch the clip:

Last I checked, socialized medicine was frowned upon by the Republican party; and the last presidential candidate who supported it got an butt-whooping in 2012, delivering another four spectacular years of Obama. You da man, Romney!

Should Donald Trump attack reporters for asking questions he doesn’t like? Mmm, probably not. Should Megyn Kelly have asked that first sexism question at the debate following the fake, Democrat-created War on Women meme? Mmm, probably not. Was it a good thing that Megyn Kelly kind of hid behind a sexism shield when she also answers, with no qualms, plenty of sexist questions from Howard Stern? Not to mention, lest we forget, this picture. Mmm…you get the idea.

But all of this is a giant red herring. Donald Trump, whether you love him for his policies, his insults, his business record, his golf courses, or if you just love everything about him, the man still said socialized medicine was a good idea.

But let’s all focus on the blood comment. That’s totally, like, super important.

Dummies. All around.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

US Supreme Court Has Legalized Religious Discrimination Since 1947

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black erroneously used extra-constitutional language from one personal letter Thomas Jefferson wrote (among volumes) to redefine the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Black argued in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the government could not “pass laws that aid one religion … (or) aid all religions.” He gave no explanation as to why the government should oppose a policy that positively affects its citizens.

As a result, the language, to “be separate” from religion, evolved into, “not being entangled with” religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court added to the First Amendment a three-part condition, known as the Lemon Test, to determine future Establishment Clause rulings. The Lemon Test conditions ask if the subject in question:

  1. Has a secular purpose;
  2. Has the “primary effect” of either “advancing or inhibiting” religion; or
  3. Entails an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.

Oddly, a court that cannot define “religion” ruled on religion using non-law for its reasoning, then argued churches (and all things religious) must be separate from society. By the Court’s reasoning, if the government cannot “advance” religion, religion should be uninvolved in every area where the government is involved. And, also for no clear reason, the government can support “secular” causes.

The Lemon Test, in effect, asserts that all laws must have a secular purpose, thereby systematically institutionalizing discrimination against all non-secular views. It also presupposes that religious purposes automatically exclude secular ones, as if they are mutually exclusive from one another, when they are not.

To suggest that the church and state should not be entangled when they already are evidences substandard jurisprudence.

Churches are already and continue to be subject to state laws and borders as well as federal laws and regulations. If what is “religious” is not already entangled by government laws, why would there be a need for a Constitutional Amendment which emphasizes religion as a preeminent freedom?

The government, by its bureaucratic nature, is already entangled in every aspect of society—in order to affect public policy and laws. The very fact that the government is already entangled in every area of life is what prompted the Founders to devise a Constitution to protect citizens from its encroachment. Nine of the first ten amendments to the Constitution specify what the government “shall not” do.

Worse still, the Supreme Court unsuccessfully attempted to define “aid” and “entanglement.” Michael W. McConnell identified the Court’s duplicity in a 1997 American Bar Association Journal article. The Court has held:


As such, the Court continued to cause further confusion. Religion was clearly not separate from public life; the Court continued to rule on cases regarding conscientious objection, contraception, marriage, education, parenting, and even taxation, which it redefined as “penalties.”

Recognizing the litany of problems associated with the Court’s error, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, and the Court modified the Lemon requirements in 1997. Three new criteria were to be applied when ruling on the issue of “separation.” The Court should consider whether the statute:

  1. Results in governmental indoctrination;
  2. Defines its recipients by reference to religion; or
  3. Creates an excessive entanglement with religion.

Despite these changes, at issue remains what secularists and non-religious advocates prescribe to allow—due to their self-proclaimed generosity—limited freedoms of religious expression, belief, conscience, and worship. Religion, they argue, should be “tolerated” to a certain extent in civil society; but politically, religion does not matter, and socially, religion is irrelevant and has no real public consequence.

Yet the vast majority of religions do have public consequences—both constructive and destructive.

What resulted from Court rulings since 1947 was the legally institutionalized religion of secularism and legally institutionalized discrimination based solely on religion—violating the First Amendment’s “Shall Not.”

Five years after Black’s ruling, Justice William O. Douglas warned that America was in danger of “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” A decade after Douglas’ warning, Justice Potter Stewart said the Court was moving toward “the establishment of a religion of secularism.” Fifty-five years later, their concerns proved correct.

This column was first published by

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What Trump Just Said He’d Do About Planned Parenthood Hits GOP Elite Right Where It Hurts

In the turbulent wake of the Senate’s failure late Monday to advance a GOP proposal to defund Planned Parenthood, both sides of the contentious issue are gearing up to continue the fight when Congress returns from its August recess.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has weighed in with his solution to the problem of how to strip the abortion provider of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

The government’s support for Planned Parenthood has come under renewed fire on Capitol Hill after the release of four undercover videos showing officials of the organization describing how they’d arrange for aborted baby body parts to be provided to medical researchers for a fee.

Trump’s approach to defunding Planned Parenthood involves doing something drastic that the Republican establishment in Washington and elsewhere is intent on avoiding — shutting down the federal government. The government could largely grind to a halt on October 1 if Congress does not pass a bill that keeps the federal goliath funded; GOP leaders and pundits believe that would hurt the party’s image because voters would blame the Republicans once again for the shutdown.

The candidate who currently dominates the GOP field of presidential hopefuls didn’t hesitate to tell radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday that he’d turn out the lights in Washington in order to stop the flow of taxpayer money to the nation’s biggest abortion provider. In the interview, Trump also criticized Republican lawmakers for failing to seize the opportunity to kill Obamacare when they had the chance.

h/t: Business Insider

Do you think Donald Trump’s approach to defunding Planned Parenthood is the right one? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What’s Happening In 2015 America Meets Sam Adams’ Criteria For Armed Rebellion

Samuel Adams, one of the fathers of the American Revolution, specified four criteria (conditions) for citizens to determine when armed rebellion is justified to respond to a tyrannical and illegitimate government.

Adams and others of a special committee wrote to the governor of Massachusetts, expressing their disapproval of the Shays Riots. Adams specified four criteria for the justification of armed rebellion, which were printed in a circular letter and reproduced by the Massachusetts Gazette on September 12, 1786.

All four criteria are easily met today, in 2015 America:

1. When laws are no longer made by a legislature elected by the people 

Today, no Senator or Congressman writes the laws they claim to sponsor or vote for or against. Bills are written by lobbyists and staff members of companies, and sometimes legislators’s staff. However, the majority of laws enacted are through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats of federal and state agencies.

2. When our form of government exists without our consent

For every law Congress enacts, 56 rules and regulations are enacted by unelected federal and state agency bureaucrats. In fact, in 2013, 65 bills were signed into law; but federal agencies enacted 3,659 rules and regulationsUnelected regulatory bureaucrats and/or lobbyists write America’s laws, without citizens’ consent and most often against the will of the people.

3. Taxation without representation

Obamacare is one obvious example. Congress, against the will of the people, imposed a tax by mandating that individuals must purchase from a selection of government-classified health insurance policies. Congress intentionally substituted a mandate by imposing a penalty for anyone who fails to comply. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court denied due process to Americans.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is another obvious example. Its numerous scandals evidence egregious abuse of power committed by unelected bureaucrats. Unelected bureaucrats have been targeting and discriminating against citizens by selectively enforcing regulations Congress did not create.

In response to the IRS’ abuse of power, an outraged public submitted a record-setting number of comments expressing their opposition to IRS rules. A Center for Competitive Politics study found that 94 percent of public comments opposed some aspects of proposed IRS rules; 87 percent opposed them outright; and of all participants, opponents outnumbered supporters by a 2:1 margin. Yet, their opposition has not prevented unelected bureaucrats from enforcing laws Congress did not create.

4. When authority is no longer derived from ourselves

The 2014 $1.1 trillion quid pro quo omnibus spending bill is an obvious example. (It was not a budget; Congress has not submitted or passed a budget since 2009). The Washington Post calculated that each legislator who voted for the bill received approximately $322,000 from the finance/insurance/real estate industries PACs and employees of firms in those industries. It writes: “On average, members of Congress who voted yes received $322,000 from those industries. Those who voted no? $162,000. Here’s the split by party. House Speaker John Boehner received the most money for ensuring the bill passed.

One provision of the bill written by Citigroup, ZeroHedge reported, could cost taxpayers nearly “$303 trillion in gross notional derivatives as a result of ‘siloing’ swaps, and their associated risks, in FDIC-insured operating companies.” Taxpayers would again (as they were in 2008) be responsible for bailing out financial institutions for losses they incur from these contracts.

Its editors write:


The laws that Congress does pass are written by industry professionals to benefit those industries, not the people they represent in theory only. American citizens, according to Samuel Adams, are justified in rebelling against what the Founders considered an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and tyrannical government ruled by evil men.

Abraham Lincoln warned Americans that they were responsible for losing their freedom. He stated: “America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

The question remains: will Americans heed his warning before it’s too late?

This column was first published by

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

After Getting Creamed By Cruz, McConnell Just Did Something That Will Stun Conservatives

Only a few days after repeatedly being called an untrustworthy liar during a floor speech by Sen. Ted Cruz, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has done something that Cruz and other conservatives will likely consider a positive move. The Kentucky Republican has pledged to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare and to do it in such a way that only a simple majority of 51 senators would be needed to turn thumbs down on the unpopular law.

CNS News reports that Sens. McConnell and Mike Lee of Utah, a Cruz ally, have issued a joint statement in which the majority leader promises to use the budget reconciliation process to cut funding to President Obama’s health care takeover law. Sen. Lee apparently came to the agreement with McConnell and other GOP lawmakers in the upper chamber after the Utah Republican dropped his effort to repeal Obamacare by attaching an amendment to the highway funding bill, considered a must-pass piece of legislation.

The article on CNS News quotes Mitch McConnell from the joint statement:

“Earlier this year, Senate Republicans passed a balanced budget, and with it the necessary procedural tools – via the budget reconciliation process – to bring an end to the nightmare of Obamacare,” McConnell said in the joint statement with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).

“Americans have faced skyrocketing health care costs, rampant fraud and more government between them and their doctors. And Republicans are united in working to repeal the broken promises of Obamacare and allow our country to start over fresh with real health reform that Americans deserve,” he added.

While CNS News characterizes the McConnell pledge to conduct a simple-majority vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act as a win for Sen. Lee and his conservative colleagues, curiously The Hill takes a different view of this development in the Senate. The opening paragraph of The Hill’s coverage casts Lee’s maneuver in a negative light.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has officially conceded defeat in his effort to force a Senate vote on repealing ObamaCare, which ended Monday night after a tense face-off with leadership.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that Senate Republicans will stand firm and united behind the latest attempt to kill the president’s signature legislative achievement — there’s no certainty that they’ll tally the 51 votes necessary to defund under the reconciliation procedure — but it would seem that the 114th Congress could be closer than ever to sending a kill-the-law bill to President Obama, who is certain to veto it.

With Congress members only days from leaving Washington for their extended summer break, there’s no timetable set for a vote on the budget reconciliation bill that McConnell has vowed to present. There’s also no indication that what Mitch McConnell just pledged to do as an attempt to repeal Obamacare and satisfy frustrated GOP voters was in response to the very public and very passionate assault on his integrity by presidential contender Ted Cruz.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth