Watch: Hillary Revealed 1 Shocking Way Obama Could Play Major Role In Her Administration

There’s been a lot of speculation as to what President Obama will do after he vacates the White House. Rumor has it Obama is secretly campaigning to become the United Nations attorney general, a position which, potentially, could give Obama more power than he had as president.

A Washington Times editorial speculated on those rumors. “Mr. Obama is said to think he can resolve the warfare between Shiites and Sunnis, between Persians and Arabs, Turks and Kurds, Copts and Salafists, and get the states of the United Nations to acclaim him as the messiah once envisioned for himself in Washington,” the editorial stated. “Hope and change didn’t work there, but maybe it would at the U.N., where standards and expectations are lower.”

Now, there’s another job prospect for Obama once he leaves office. The title could read, “Justice of the Supreme Court, Barack H. Obama,” if Hillary Clinton has her way.

While campaigning in Iowa this week, Clinton was asked, if elected president, would she consider appointing Obama to the Supreme Court. Clinton responded favorably to the suggestion.

“Wow, what a great idea,” Clinton said. “Nobody has ever suggested that to me, wow, I love that. He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that’s a great idea.”

She also pointed out the next president will likely appoint as many as three new justices to the court, and added she believes the court as a whole, “is heading in the wrong direction.”

The suggestion of Obama on the Supreme Court resounded loudly on Twitter with a number of differing opinions.

Another Twitter user thought the idea would be self-serving for Clinton.

At any rate, the seeds of hope and change have been planted in Clinton’s mind. No word yet if Obama would even consider the idea.

h/t: Washington Times

BREAKING: Supreme Court Just Dropped A Bombshell On Obama That’ll Have Massive Impact

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review the case regarding President Obama’s so-called “executive amnesty.”

As reported by Western Journalism, the Obama administration announced in the late fall of 2014 it was expanding beyond its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to include the illegal alien parents of children born in the United States. The new program is called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

The administration stated it was exercising prosecutorial discretion by choosing to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. Since then, 26 states have sued the federal government, citing the abuse of executive authority.

A federal judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction last year against the Obama administration going forward with its plan, finding its was likely unconstitutional, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld.

The Obama administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which will probably hear the oral arguments in April, with a decision following by June.

Prior to the administration’s decision to roll out the DAPA program, the president said on numerous occasions he lacked the power to act unilaterally to change the nation’s immigration laws. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said during a speech in 2013. “My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

The issue of illegal immigration has been one of the key issues in the Republican primary battle ever since Donald Trump entered the race with a proposal to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and deport all illegal immigrants.

Churches Sue Over California’s Imperious Decree

 

It was a shockingly gross violation of the First Amendment when California’s Department of Managed Health Care ordered churches to pay for abortions requested by their employees.

Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a civil liberties lawsuit on behalf of three Southern California churches, but the mandate is not just unconstitutional. It flies in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings striking down regulations requiring abortion coverage that conflict with religious faith. It also violates federal rules prohibiting states receiving federal funds from requiring abortion coverage in a benefits package, whether or not faith is an issue.

Of course it should be no shock in our time to discover government is the most lawless constituency in the land. My prayer is this lawsuit does more than just succeed; may it set state government flat on its back with heads rolling over the wasted public funds spent defending it.

Taking matters in reverse order, the suit should succeed because of the very lawlessness of government at all levels, though it may fail for that reason. ADF filed a complaint with the feds when state bureaucrats ruled in August, 2014. Although the mandate is a clear violation of federal rules, the national bureaucrats sided with their state-based cousins, and ADF then sued.

Attorneys called the state action nothing short of strong-arming and one pastor represented in the suit vowed he would go to jail before he would pay for abortions.

The first issue is simplicity itself: Government under the 14th Amendment is required to follow its own rules. Yet this doctrine is nothing more than a piece of paper until hundreds of thousands of professing Christians – and otherwise freedom-loving Americans – show the courage of Pastor Jack Hibbs. Our constitution is not paper under glass in Philadelphia; it is literally “we the people.”

The second issue is as simple. Are we a nation of laws, or of men in power with big guns behind them?

Officials at all levels and all political persuasions love to tout the U..S Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of law in our land. The Court – beginning with the Hobby Lobby case – has repeatedly ruled in Obamacare litigation that government cannot force people to violate their faith to provide abortion coverage to employees.

Yet California’s Department of Managed Health Care issued its edict in the full knowledge it was violating the law as interpreted by their beloved SCOTUS. The bureaucrats know their resources are orders of magnitude above those of their victims. They can do as they please for as long as it takes to navigate the full-court press of the court system. It is time they were pressed down like olives pressed for their oil.

Most potent is the constitutional issue itself. The First Amendment is clear that government may not encroach on freedom to hold, teach and practice religious faith subject – except in extraordinary cases – to nothing but the dictates of the conscience of the practitioner. Courts have held that where a compelling public purpose presents faith may be restricted.

For example, polygamy, child abuse, and snake handling are fair game for government even if the religious exemption is claimed; healthy families, safety for children, and public health are compelling in their urgency. Since no one is preventing anyone from obtaining an abortion – churches are simply refusing to pay for them – there is no legitimate government interest at stake.

We have state policy clashing with faith tenet. State and federal Constitutions say faith trumps government – and the state bureaucrats know this if they passed high school classes in American government. This suit should succeed in reversing the ruling and pinning back bureaucratic ears.

Our rights are not granted by Constitution; they are gifted by God and recognized in Constitution as sourcing a higher power. These issues seem political, and politics is either beneath the spirit realm or more pragmatic, depending on whom we question. But this higher power presents Himself as a person passionately concerned and involved with people where they live and work.

This person says He came that we might have abundant life – right here – and feeds our physical hunger for bread and wine – at picnics and weddings – as readily as He feeds our hearts with precepts and concepts. He calls us to honor those in authority at the same time He sometimes calls us to sue and defy them. He calls us to forget what our comfort zone used to look like.

He says this because (Luke 12:32) He deeply desires to give us His Kingdom right here on earth.

That is worth whatever sacrifice of personal comfort may be required.

 

Texas And The Victims Of Abortion Will Be Heard

The Supreme Court will take up a case focused on the Texas law ordering abortion doctors and clinics to have admitting privileges in local hospitals before abortions can be legally performed. Clinics are also required to qualify as outpatient surgical centers; abortion is an outpatient surgical procedure. The law was challenged by abortion rights groups and Planned Parenthood on grounds that a woman’s right to abort is thwarted wherever doctors lack privileges. Under the law, most Texas abortion facilities would be closed; a similar Mississippi law closes the state’s only clinic. Texas argues – successfully so far – that it is nothing but good standard medical practice to expect practicing physicians to prove their competence through having admitting privileges – this is what privileges connote. Texas was upheld in the district court and on appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The abortionists have appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court has agreed to hear the case.

The issue is not clinics closing. Nothing in the law prevents doctors from obtaining the privilege to admit patients to a hospital in their area. The incompetence of the docs may prevent it; medical incompetence would be the most common reason for a patient needing admission following an abortion.  Any competent doctor can get privileges anywhere – the hospital makes money on each admission. But the principal argument for abortion on demand – in 1973 and today – is the prevention of death and disease from so-called back alley abortions. Yet the incidence of infection, sterility, and death to post-abortive women is unchanged since the procedure was legalized by the Warren Court. The Texas and Mississippi laws address that anomaly by requiring only competent doctors to perform the procedure. This is in sharp contrast to California – home of the most abortions and the highest per capita rate of abortion in the nation – where abortions performed by non-doctors are now authorized. Will anyone guess where the most complications occur?

The crux of the legal case will be the Casey Standard, a proved-to-be unworkable compromise emerging from a 1992 case striking down a Pennsylvania law. The court held that states could restrict abortions, but only if the restrictions were not imposing “undue burden” on women. The lawsuits claim the laws in question establish an undue burden. The standard has never been defined, and – until now – the Supreme Court has refused to address it except to allow state bans on partial birth abortion. President Obama vetoed a federal law banning the practice and has vowed to do it again.

The crux of the Godly case is quite different. These laws are designed to ensure a woman’s safety. Yes, they are adopted by legislatures determined to lessen the carnage of abortion across the board, but reality is the incidence of infection or other life-threatening complications remain unchanged because most good doctors prefer to practice life-saving medicine; this is fruit of the pro-life movement. It is the reason states like California find themselves so short of doctors willing to abort babies that they permit non-doctors to do what cannot legally be done to animals by anyone but a veterinary doctor. The doctors who cannot make a decent living are left with their patients – mother and child – at their mercy.

Our God came in human form that we might have abundant life – every life has a value and destiny all its own. These laws save the lives of the mothers, even if they deny life for their children.  Back in the secular arena, nothing could be more reasonable than requiring a standard of care that is axiomatic for any other medical procedure.

I am not innocent. At age twenty, I helped two friends obtain abortions years before Roe v Wade. The babies were not mine, but my highest value was having your friends’ back. I found a doctor, borrowed money, and did everything but have the abortions myself. When I met Jesus in 1970, He did not rebuke me for 1968. He did guide me into a church that practiced the ancient rite of confession. When I knelt, I heard Him audibly. All He said was, “Don’t forget about the abortions.” In that instant of absolution, I knew two things – abortion is the taking of innocent human life without excuse, and I dared not judge another as I have not been judged.

The good news is we have a chance to whittle away at the abortion colossus in these cases before the Supreme Court. The better news is that we Christians are God’s Body, not His Brain. While we fight the scourge of abortion, we had better recall His Word to judge not lest we ourselves be judged.

Breaking: Gay Marriage Just Took A Crushing Legal Blow – It’s Not Over

Though a U.S. Supreme Court ruling declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right, opponents of such unions continue to pursue state-level routes around the federal court decision. One such ally among gay marriage critics in Alabama has been the chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court.

Judge Roy Moore cited inconsistencies among prior court rulings in issuing an order this week instructing probate judges not to issue gay marriage licenses to applicants.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court,” Moore wrote, “the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.”

He went on to conclude that a number of states also have laws on the books that were invalidated by the Supreme Court decision. In his state, however, he asserted that “confusion and uncertain exist among the probate judges” regarding the effect that ruling has on their duties.

While some judges have been willing to comply with the high court’s mandate that they issue licenses to gay couples, Moore noted that “others are issuing marriage licenses only to couples of the opposite gender or have ceased issuing all marriage licenses.”