The first two months of the new Republican Congress has been extremely disappointing. The only significant accomplishment has been the passage of the Keystone Pipeline bill. Unfortunately, when the Republicans caved on the issue of stopping President Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, it sent a strong signal to conservatives across the country that the party leadership will not stop the radical policies of this administration.


This begs the question, why did voters send Republicans to Congress? It certainly was not a mission to be a rubber stamp for the most liberal President in our nation’s history.  They were sent to Washington D.C. to stop Obama’s liberal policies and serve as a check and balance to the expansive agenda of the White House.


Next week, the Senate Republicans will have an opportunity to redeem themselves and improve their tattered reputation. To replace the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama has nominated another extreme liberal, Loretta Lynch, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In testimony before Congress, Lynch expressed support for everything Eric Holder has done. In fact, she told U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), that as Attorney General she would pursue an agenda that “would not be different” from Eric Holder.


While continuing Holder’s liberal policies is extremely troubling, Lynch’s support of the President’s lawless executive amnesty should be more than enough to disqualify her for the important position of Attorney General.  The President decreed, without congressional approval, the halting of deportations for five million illegal aliens, who will immediately qualify for work permits and benefits totaling $35,000 per year.


In testimony before Congress, Lynch made the incredulous statement that all illegal aliens have a “right to work.” The vast majority of Americans would disagree with Lynch. Illegal aliens do not have the right to enjoy benefits or secure employment. Instead, they have a right to return to their country of origin, posthaste.


After receiving approval from the Judiciary Committee with the support of three Republicans, Lynch now has the support of four Republicans in her battle for confirmation. This nefarious “Gang of Four” includes Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine.


If nothing changes, those four Republicans will be enough to confirm Lynch if she receives the unanimous support of all 46 Senate Democrats. In the case of a 50-50 tie, Vice President Joe Biden will cast the deciding vote in favor of Lynch.


Along with the four Republican Senators in support of Lynch, there are also several uncommitted Republican Senators including Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. However, Alexander is somewhat uncomfortable with Lynch, especially her “refusal to put limits on the president’s executive power.”


Another undecided Senator is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.  McConnell previously promised to oppose Lynch if she supported the President’s executive action granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Now that the vote is nearing, McConnell is non-committal. This is another reminder that the Republicans are so very poorly served by McConnell in the Senate and Speaker John Boehner in the House. Neither of these “leaders” are committed to conservative principles and neither of them have the courage to take on President Obama on issues of substance.


Next week will be an important test for the Republican Party and will determine how the remainder of Obama’s term will progress. Let’s hope Republican Senators finally decide to represent the voters who elected them and reject Loretta Lynch. It is time they stopped being intimidated by the liberal news media, their Democratic colleagues, and, most importantly, the President of the United States.

As predicted by many, it has happened, the world’s first three-way gay marriage. In Thailand, three gay men, known only as Art, Bell and Joke, exchanged marital vows in a wedding sanctioned by the Buddhist church, but not by the government, which officially forbids same sex marriage. While the announcement was just made public, the trio married on Valentine’s Day in the country’s Uthai Thani Province. According to Bell, “Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all.”


Unfortunately, Bell, along with advocates of same sex marriage, has a misguided view of marriage. As noted by Brian Brown, President of the National Association of Marriage, it is “an institution that serves to bind the complementary halves of humanity — male and female — in a publicly declared relationship that is designed to be stable, permanent, exclusive and faithful.” Brown believes the main reason why men and women come “together in holiday matrimony” is that this sacred union “offers the potential for children… and children are why the government is interested in marriage in the first place.”


Sorry, Bell, the institution of marriage is not just about love. Marriage has throughout human history been the best method to not only unite couples together, but also to propagate our species. Advocates of same sex marriage are making a mockery of this precious institution and opening the door for even more creative interpretations such as three-way unions.


Incredibly, the gay threesome in Thailand is not the first “throuple” to become “married.” In August of 2013 in Massachusetts, three lesbian women, Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young were “married” in a commitment ceremony. Through a sperm donor, Kitten became pregnant and the women welcomed their first child last July. Just imagine the weird environment that this poor child will have to navigate throughout life. Ideally, children should have a mother and father and be exposed to both male and female role models during their formative years, not three lesbians, each serving as the child’s mother.


These three-way marriages are only one manner in which the traditional concept of marriage is under assault in 2015. In the United States and other countries, there has been a well funded and highly publicized campaign to extend the definition of marriage to same sex couples. Liberal politicians and popular celebrities have joined together to show strong support for the “right” of gays and lesbians to marry. Today, 37 states recognize same sex marriages, although it has been approved by voters in only a handful of areas. Sadly, judges are disregarding the wishes of the majority of voters in several dozen states to officially sanction same sex marriages.


The mantra from liberal activists is that to deny marital rights to same sex couples is to engage in discrimination. In contrast, it is not discrimination to demand that the definition of marriage be limited to the union of one man and one woman. Homosexuals can have a civil union, a partnership, or whatever kind of arrangement they want, but not a marriage. Once society expands the definition of marriage, where will it end? Can it be expanded to family members, animals or multiple people?


As Joke noted, the acceptance of same sex marriage in Thailand paved the treacherous path for their three-way union. “Now Thai society has a better understanding of sexual orientation as many same sex weddings appear on TV, newspapers and social media, we feel more accepted and able to come out,” he said.


With three-way marriages today in Thailand and Massachusetts, who knows what surprises will be coming to a community near you.