Commentary

Albert Mohler: The Kansas High Court and the Meaning of Words

The culture of death has gained new ground as the state Supreme Court in Kansas has now blocked a law that would have protected unborn human life.

In a decisive 6-1 decision, the majority said that, according to the Kansas state constitution, a woman there has a right to an abortion, to the procedure known as D&E—dilation and evacuation. Note: that is the dismemberment and the removal of the unborn child from the woman’s body.

The decision was breathtaking, catching both sides of the abortion argument in Kansas by surprise.

The constitution of Kansas was adopted in 1859. Abortion was not mentioned. Abortion wasn’t intended.

Once again: We’re looking at invented law and invented rights made by courts.

If we are not restrained by the meaning of words—in this case the words of the state constitution—then we are fundamentally unrestrained. And that means our government is unrestrained, and there are few more deadly dangers than a government unrestrained.

Read More »

Michael Medved: Tolerating Hatred in Their Midst

Six months to the day of the infamous synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh, neo-Nazi terrorism struck again with a murderous rampage at a vibrant Hassidic congregation in suburban San Diego.

The attack occurred days after the New York Times and Representative Ilhan Omar both outrageously described Jesus as a “Palestinian”—obscuring the well-known fact that he identified as Jewish, both ethnically and religiously.

It also came at a time when the Times had to apologize for a vile anti-Semitic cartoon showing the Prime Minister of Israel as a dog, leading a blind, yarmulke-wearing Trump.

No, it’s not true that Democrats have become “anti-Jewish”—the overwhelming majority of Jewish voters continue to identify as Democrats and play leadership roles in the party.

But facing an undeniable upsurge in anti-Semitism, Democrats have been reluctant to call-out the haters in their midst, especially in contrast with the GOP and its consistent support for Israel and religious liberty.

Read More »

Michael Medved: Minor Parties Play the Wild Card

The five presidential elections of the 21st Century have established a clear pattern of close battles between evenly matched parties—a pattern charismatic candidates and billions in spending can’t seem to break.

Republican nominees have all won similar popular vote percentages, ranging from 51 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, to 46 percent for both John McCain and Donald Trump.

Democrats draw similar support—between Obama’s 53 percent in 2008 and Hillary’s 48 percent last time.

What changes more significantly from election to election is the vote for minor party candidates, which soared to 6 percent in 2016, more than triple their combined percentage in 2008 and 2012. If Howard Schultz runs a third party campaign, and protest candidates draw a total of 7 million votes as they did last time, President Trump is almost certain to benefit.

Read More »

Lanhee Chen: Russian Meddling and the Mueller Report

While Democrats and Republicans argue over what to make of the Mueller Report, one thing is abundantly clear from its hundreds of pages:

Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election should not have come as a surprise to anyone—let alone President Obama and others in his administration who were asleep at the switch when it happened.

The Mueller Report is a stinging indictment of President Obama’s failure to deal forcefully and directly with the Russian threat. Russia had interfered in elections in the former Soviet Republics and throughout Europe in the years leading up to 2016. And their efforts to subvert US elections were known to officials as early as 2014. Other reports even suggest that national security officials who wanted a more aggressive response to Russian activities were ordered to “stand down” by President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice.

There are no signs that the Russians plan to let up in their efforts to meddle in our democracy. Here’s to hoping President Trump doesn’t repeat the mistakes of his predecessor.

Read More »

Albert Mohler: The Stage is Set for Another Drama at the High Court

The Supreme Court has announced that it will take up cases that will determine whether or not sexual orientation and gender identity are included as protected classes under the federal government’s Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During the Obama Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevented discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin — and they said that gender identity and sexual orientation should be considered included under “sex.”

But there is no one who can plausibly argue that Congress and the then President Lyndon Johnson had sexual orientation and gender identity in mind in 1964.

They didn’t.

They wouldn’t have even understood what we are talking about.

It’s an effort from the moral revolutionaries to try to further their aims by going around Congress—seeking action by executive order and then support from the Courts.

An ultimate decision in this case, is not likely to come until June of 2020, and that sets the stage for an incredible drama now to follow.

Read More »

Dan Proft: The Slaughter of Christian Innocents

“Christianity under attack? Sri Lanka church bombings stroke far-right anger in the West.”

That was the headline in the Washington Post the day after the world learned the Easter Sunday church bombers were radical Islamist terrorists.

It seems the Post isn’t sure if Christianity is under attack. But it is sure only the “far-right” is upset about the massacre of “Easter worshippers,” as they term them.

Historically, the Left has used perceived persecution to accrue power—so they are reticent to have Christians benefit from actual persecution, thus they use the label “Easter worshippers”—as if it’s a spring festival of sorts.

This is how identity politics works and it is at work in the coverage of the slaughter of Christian innocents.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and leading Democrats all used “Easter worshippers” language, generating much-deserved pushback.

No atrocity is so great as to prevent the Left’s pursuit of power.

Read More »

Hugh Hewitt: Who Is Lawyering Up Now?

During his news conference late last week, Attorney General William Barr communicated clearly and with confidence and authority the “bottom line” that neither President Trump, nor any member of his campaign or family colluded with Russia’s attack on our 2016 election. Barr did exactly what the chief law enforcement officer of the United States should do: explain the law and the decision in this matter.

No collusion.

No obstruction.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III made the first call. Barr made the second call. Now, the lightly redacted report has been presented to the Congress and to the people.

Many commentators will continue to ignore the “first rule of holes”: When in one, stop digging.

But we are not done. The attorney general soon will have the report of the inspector general reviewing the actions at the highest levels of the FBI and the intelligence community during the 2016 campaign and during the transition—and there are a host of issues that demand inquiry.

Who exactly is lawyering up now?

Read More »