http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/31/some-ambitious-house-democrats-shifting-right/

SOME AMBITIOUS HOUSE DEMOCRATS SHIFTING RIGHT

The New York Times reports that a small group of Democrats, some entertaining a run for the Senate, have begun backing away from more progressive legislation. Instead they now say they suppor tax cuts and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. They’re also expressing eagerness to rein in “the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies study and approve regulations.”

In the end, the shift means they are voting with their own party only about 70 – 75 percent of the time.

A small group of House Democrats has begun moving to the right in the current Congress, breaking from a majority of colleagues on votes that pit lawmakers from liberal areas against those from more rural and conservative districts.

The lure of a Senate seat, which in many cases requires shifting from a narrower ideological focus to a broader one, and the threat of a well-funded challenger are among the reasons for this this shift.

The newspaper names names here:

A few members of this group, which numbers fewer than a dozen, are congressional veterans like Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who survived a tough challenge in 2014 and is voting with a majority of his fellow Democrats 64 percent of the time, down slightly from the previous Congress.

But most are new to the House and have known life only in the minority, with Republicans controlling the schedule and agenda. These Democratic lawmakers have voted against Democratic legislation such as the alternative budgets proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Their ranks include John Delaney of Maryland, who was first elected in 2012 and narrowly defeated his Republican challenger last fall, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who won easily in 2014 but may be considering a run for the Senate (and, notably, did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House in January). Ms. Sinema’s party voting percentage has dropped to 73 percent from 80 percent this year, while Mr. Delaney’s score has fallen further, to 80 percent from 92 percent.

Patrick Murphy of Florida is another example; he’s already running for the Senate seat currently held by the Republican Marco Rubio, and his party voting score has dropped from 83 percent in the last Congress to 77 percent in this one.

Also in the group are four California Democrats who have voted less often with their party in the current Congress than in the previous one, including Julia Brownley, who has joined a majority of Democrats on 84 percent of votes in 2015 compared with 91 percent the previous two years.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/whats-next-for-the-same-sex-marriage-advocates/

WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ADVOCATES

Gay activists and their leftist allies told us decades ago that same-sex marriage wasn’t on the agenda. All homosexuals wanted was the benefits of marriage, but not the title. That, of course, was a lie.

Next, gay activists and their leftist allies told us that same-sex marriage would not threaten anyone; it was simply a matter of equal rights. “How will it affect anyone else if two men choose to get married?” they said. That, of course, was a lie. The same-sex marriage agenda includes with it the desire to force individual religious Americans to accept same-sex marriage. Hence the current attempt to leverage same-sex marriage into legislation forcing religious business owners to participate in activities, like same-sex weddings, that they consider sinful.

So, what’s next on the agenda?

Here are a few predictions:

Targeting The Churches

As I predicted in June 2013, the obvious next step is for the left to target churches for revocation of their non-profit status. As I wrote then:

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States that it was within the scope of the First Amendment’s protections for religion for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status for the university based on its policy prohibiting interracial dating…

The Supreme Court is clearly leaning toward a similar move here…

On the state level, a movement is already under way to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by the same-sex marriage.

Once non-profit status is revoked for churches on the basis of supposed discrimination against homosexuals, those churches become private institutions engaged in commerce. Which means that they are regulated as common businesses under anti-discrimination law. Which means they can be shut down or fined for failure to perform same-sex weddings. The left says this will never happen. Which means we are a few years away from it happening.

Targeting Universities

Religious universities will certainly be targeted, both as to their non-profit status and then for fines if they refuse to provide benefits for same-sex spouses, for example. Under the Bob Jones University case, which has already been touted by the left as the model for a federal case against same-sex marriage, universities will be considered discriminatory if they stand against same-sex marriage the same way Bob Jones University was with regard to its interracial dating standard. The difference, of course, is that dating between races is not the same as dating within the same sex. But the left has always equated race with homosexual behavior and will extend that equation to the law as it applies to institutions of higher education.

Shutting Down Religious Schools

Just because religious schools are run by religious institutions does not exempt them from the wrath of the left. Leftists have already declared in states in which same-sex marriage has been approved that children must be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools; in California, for example, the law also requires that parents allow children to attend such classes.

This logic will be extended to private schools. Why should private schools be allowed to “discriminate” against same-sex couples by exempting children from learning about them? Why should homeschooled children be given state-credentialed status without being indoctrinated in the decency of homosexual behavior, all in the name of non-discrimination?

The war between advocates for homosexual behavior and the legitimization thereof and the religious community has been brewing for decades. Now, that battle is out in the open, and it will not end with florists, bakers, or photographers. It will only end once religious people have been made to abandon their principles under the threat of fine or jail from the tolerant left.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Sent from my iPhone

IF NO RFRA, JEWISH SIGN MAKER MUST PRINT "DEATH TO ISRAEL" SIGN

The scenarios become more and more bizarre as this gets more and more and more and more out of hand!

http://eaglerising.com/16729/fascist-gay-lobby-says-jewish-business-must-print-death-to-israel-signs/

Fascist Gay Lobby says Jewish Business MUST Print "Death to Israel" Signs

The title to this article is the logical extension of protests against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If a baker is discriminating by refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a printer is discriminating for not printing a "Death to Israel" sign.

Homosexuals and their ignorant supporters are upset that Indiana has passed a freedom of religion law. I’m confused. I thought the First Amendment guaranteed that the government could not “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. That’s what it says. It does not add “unless a group that practices same-sex sex objects.”

The right is very comprehensive, that’s why I can’t understand why we ever needed a national Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). But we got one, and because the Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply to the states, states began to enact their own version of the 1993 law signed by then President Bill Clinton.

“A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states' bills, prohibiting the government from ‘substantially burdening’ individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a ‘compelling government interest’ and is doing so in the least restrictive means.”

Sixteen additional states have introduced similar “legislation this year regarding the creation of, or alteration to, a state religious freedom law. Currently, 19 states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs).”

When Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator, he voted “for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It passed the Illinois Senate 56-0 and became law on July 1, 1998.” So why all the same-sex angst over Indiana’s law?

The homosexual movement is similar to the Taliban.

Continue Reading at Godfather Politics...

Tags: Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Sent from my iPhone

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/jeb-bush-reveals-his-anti-israel-stance-with-speech-at-anti-israel-conference/

Jeb Bush Reveals His Anti-Israel Stance With Speech at Anti-Israel Conference

Jeb Bush has revealed that he is anti-Israel, says leading conservative talk show host Mark Levin. The radio talker says that two things show that Bush seems to be setting himself up as the anti-Israel candidate. Bush is anti-Israel not only for picking well-known Jew hater James Baker as a top advisor but for letting Baker give a headline speech at an anti-Israel conference last weekend.

Baker, Levin says, is a well-known hater of Israel. But that Bush allowed him to give this speech is pretty blatant.

 The annual conference of the activist group J Street features an array of anti-Israel speakers, including proponents of the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divest (BDS) movement, which seeks Israel’s destruction, and advocates for the terrorist group Hamas.

Jeb Bush’s selection of Baker as a foreign policy adviser has sparked concern among conservatives and in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities. Baker is infamous for his hostility to Israel, having said during his tenure as secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, “F—k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Baker is also a supporter of President Obama’s Iran negotiations.

“Jim Baker, much like Barack Obama, has always had a hate on for Israel,” Levin said. “This antipathy toward Israel is well documented. Baker wanted the U.S. to punish Israel for destroying Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor [in a 1981 airstrike]. He hated Netanyahu as early as 1990, barring him from entering the State Department’s building. And last but not least, Baker co-wrote the Iraq Study Group’s 2006 paper that recommended among other things that the United States tilt its foreign policy away from Israel and toward Syria and Iran—advice that Obama seems to have taken to heart.”

“This is the guy, the leading advisor to Jeb Bush on foreign policy, who Jeb Bush asked to be his leading adviser, and now he’s the keynote speaker to this left-wing hate group J Street,” Levin said. 

Do we want an anti-Israel president like the one we already have?

Sent from my iPhone

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/boycott-fail-chick-fil-a-opens-a-slew-of-new-locations-nationwide/

Boycott Fail: Chick-Fil-A Opens a Slew of New Locations Nationwide

Remember how liberals promised to boycott Chick-Fil-A because the owner is personally opposed to gay marriage? Well… Apparently the rest of America didn’t get the memo. Despite the objections of the left, the demand for the company’s chicken has pushed it to open a slew of new stores:

Despite the occasional negative press, Chick-Fil-A’s franchises are thriving throughout the United States. Shortly after the arrival of spring, new Chick-Fil-A restaurants are cropping up in states like Florida and Pennsylvania, signaling that the chain responsible for “Eat More Chicken” ads continues to outperform competitors, such as KFC and Church’s…

As reported by the Palm Beach Post, Chick-Fil-A’s newest restaurant held a grand opening in Delray Beach, Florida on March 26 to hundreds of people anxiously awaiting its debut. For more than 24 hours, customers camped outside the new restaurant hoping to be one of the first 100 people to enter the building. Not so much motivated by a love for chicken as by the promise of free Chick-Fil-A for a year, campers began gathering days before to secure their spot.

A tradition rooted in a love for community, giving away free food at grand openings is part of why Chick-Fil-A stands out from other fast food brands. Instead of devising ways to earn money, the company’s management is committed to serving others and it shows in their work.

And, let’s be honest: Their chicken sandwich is pretty addicting. Of course, that’s probably part of what drives the Left crazy: Most Americans seem to care more about an affordable fast-food chicken sandwich than the “uproar” over some business owner having personal opinions about gay marriage. (Gasp!)

Sent from my iPhone

AJC: RFRA TABLED IN GEORGIA

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/meeting-on-religious-liberty-bills-fate-cancelled/nkhWp/?ecmp=ajc_social_facebook_2014_politics_sfp#__federated=1

Meeting on ‘religious liberty’ bill’s fate canceled

Sunday, March 29, 2015

By Aaron Gould Sheinin

A specially called meeting of the House Judiciary Committee set for Monday was cancelled, leaving the future of the ‘religious liberty’ bill in doubt.

The committee was to meet at 10 a.m., to likely decide the fate of a controversial bill for this year. But a member of the committee, who asked not to be identified for fear of angering leadership, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution the meeting was off. The committee member did not know if it would be rescheduled, but with lawmakers only meeting in session Tuesday and Thursday before ending their 2015 session, time is rapidly expiring on Senate Bill 129.

The back-and-forth on the bill comes as Indiana deals with the backlash from adopting a similar law that has led to calls of boycotts and the potential loss of tens of millions of dollars in tourism and economic development. Indiana Gov. Mike Spence on Sunday told ABC News the law is not about discrimination but refused to say whether it would permit a business owner to refuse service to someone with whom they disagree.

In Georgia this past Thursday, in a surprise 9-8 vote, the Judiciary Committee voted to amend Senate Bill 129 to add language making clear the bill could not be used to discriminate against anyone already protected by any local, state or federal law. It was quickly tabled by supporters who said adding anti-discrimination language “gutted” the bill.

The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, and the deciding vote cast by Rep. Beth Beskin, R-Atlanta. Beskin, just a day before in subcommittee, had voted the other way — to deny the same protections against discrimination. Jacobs and Beskin, along with Rep. Jay Powell, R-Camilla, the other Republican to vote for Jacobs’ amendment, were vilified by conservatives.

THE MEANING OF PERSONS: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

"We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born. 

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. 

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. 

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” 

Advertisement

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” 

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”. 

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”. 

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing. 

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote. 

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” 

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised. 

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. 

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University. 

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?' 

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002. 

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”. 

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”. 

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” 

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.” 

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal. 

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen? 

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new." 

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide." 

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/28/the-real-reason-harry-reid-is-retiring/

THE REAL REASON HARRY REID IS RETIRING

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) explained his shocking decision to not seek re-election and retire when his term ends in 2016 by telling the New York Times “he was worried his race would consume campaign money that would be needed in other competitive states as Democrats try to regain control of the Senate.”

“I think it is unfair for me to be soaking up all the money to be re-elected with what we are doing in Maryland, in Pennsylvania, in Missouri, in Florida,” Reid told the Times.

Reid said neither his recent eye injury nor concern over his chances of winning played a factor in his decision.

But the real reason Reid is retiring may have nothing to do with any of these excuses and everything to do with his concerns that a possible Republican Presidential victory in 2016 would lead to the appointment of a Republican Attorney General in January 2017.

A Republican Attorney General would be almost certain to initiate a criminal investigation into Reid’s abuse of his political power in a brazen intervention in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) issuance of EB-5 visas to investors in a Las Vegas casino and hotel that was represented by his son, Rory Reid, as was highlighted in a report released by the Inspector General of DHS last week.

“I think Harry Reid’s getting out of town ahead of the posse,” former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova tells Breitbart News.

On Thursday, the non-profit group Cause of Action called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch a criminal investigation of Reid. Citing the specific federal statutes that were violated, the group said Reid “participat[ed] in unlawful political activity, possible coercion and fraud related to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.”

The DOJ under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder is so highly politicized it would never launch a criminal investigation into the many scandals in which Harry Reid is at the center.

But, as diGenova told Breitbart News on Friday, “[t]here is no doubt in my mind that an independent Department of Justice or an independent U.S. Attorney would open a preliminary criminal investigation into Harry Reid’s intervention into the expediting of EB-5 visas and would in addition convene a grand jury.” (emphasis added)

Reid announced his surprising decision to retire just days after the DHS Inspector General released a report that concluded, “Reid pressured a compliant DHS official to override normal departmental procedures and rush through 230 EB-5 foreign visa applications, thereby freeing up $115 million the applicants invested in the SLS Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.”

As Breitbart News reported, “the owner of that casino project had hired Reid’s son, Rory Reid, to provide legal representation for the project.”

Then there’s Reid’s complicity in Senator Robert Menedez’s (D-NJ) abuse of his political office by intervening extralegally in an ongoing Department of Health and Human Services adjudicatory process involving $8.9 million in Medicare overbilling by his friend and donor, Dr. Salomon Melgen.

As Breitbart News reported, Reid “hosted a meeting between Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. At the meeting, Menendez made the case for his friend and donor, Dr. Salomon Melgen, who was at the time embroiled in what was supposed to be an independent adjudicatory process at HHS involving $8.9 million the department said he overbilled Medicare.”

Reid’s intervention came “immediately after Melgen donated $300,000 to the Senate Majority PAC, a Super PAC that has close ties to Reid. By the end of 2012, Melgen’s donations to the Senate Majority PAC totaled $700,000.”

For his part in that intervention, Senator Menendez has been the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the DOJ. Press reports indicate that Menedez is expected to be indicted on charges of public corruption very soon, though last minute negotiation efforts by his attorneys may delay or possibly forestall such action.

The damaging information an independent DOJ investigation could turn up with the exercise of subpoena power on hundreds of investors and business associates involved in the numerous Harry Reid scandals could be substantial.

A recent report by ABC News indicates the kinds of embarrassing information likely to turn up when DOJ investigators start turning over the rocks in Reid’s landscape of insider deals.

One of the 230 foreign investors who obtained a visa in return for investing in the SLS Hotel and Casino of Las Vegas, the company represented by Reid’s son Rory, was linked to child pornography in China. Two others, ABC reported, had knowingly submitted false documentation to the DHS as part of their visa application process.

According to the DHS Inspector General’s report, Reid pressured DHS official Alejandro Mayorkas, (then the head of the department’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, now Deputy Secretary) to expedite these questionable visa applications and rush them through without the normal rigorous review applied by the DHS.

Given the improper level of scrutiny given these three foreign investors in the casino deal by DHS, it is unclear if the remaining 227 foreign investors in this casino deal are equally suspect.

More ominously, this lack of scrutiny may have allowed foreign investors who pose a national security threat to the country to obtain visas and a path to citizenship.

Reid’s retirement announcement was a sudden and dramatic reversal of even his most recent statements about his plans.

To hear Reid tell it, he was planning to stay in the Senate for many years to come. As recently as two months ago, Reid emphatically declared he was running in 2016.

“We have quite an operation in Nevada that hasn’t lost a step, and we’re off and running. At this stage, I’m fully intending to run,” he told the New York Times on January 22.

Reid’s response to the DHS report has been to double-down with impunity in defense of his potentially criminal conduct.

“If it had it to do over again, I’d try even harder,” he told a Nevada public radio station on Friday about his role in pressuring the DHS to expedite the E5-5 visas for the Las Vegas casino his son represented.

Reid went even further and besmirched the integrity of the Inspector General of the DHS, the author of the report.

“The Homeland Security report came from a bunch of whiners at the Department of Homeland Security,” he asserted brazenly.

(You can hear the full interview at the 13:04 mark here.)

With Barack Obama serving in the White House and Eric Holder as Attorney General, Harry Reid can get away with flaunting the law and attacking the integrity of the “whiner” Inspector General at DHS whose report documents how Reid abused his political power to benefit his political allies and family.

But if a Republican is elected President in 2016, there will be a new sheriff in town. Harry Reid knows the posse assembled by this newly appointed Attorney General is unlikely to consider Reid’s critics at DHS to be “whiners.” In fact, they are likely to be part of the posse.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS

Yesterday Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed into law the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The action has drawn sharp criticism by people and politicians who directly oppose religious freedoms and by those who are simply unaware of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the federal model for Indiana’s new law.

Here is what you should know about these types of religious freedom legislation:

What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

According to the text of the law, the purposes of the RFRA are:

 (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Here are the remarks Al Gore and Bill Clinton made on signing the legislation (a transcript can be found here):

Why was the RFRA needed?

As the text of the RFRA notes, the purpose of the legislation was to restore a prior standard of religious exemptions. Legal scholar Eugene Volokh identifies four periods in modern American history that relate to religious freedom exemptions:

Pre 1960s — Statute-by-statute exemptions: Prior to the early 1960s, exemption for religious objections were only allowed if the statute provided an explicit exemption.

1963 to 1990 — Sherbert/Yoder era of Free Exercise Clause law: In the 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner the Court expressly adopted the constitutional exemption model, under which sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption because of the Free Exercise clause. This decision was reaffirmed in the 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder. During this period that Court used what it called “strict scrutiny” when the law imposed a “substantial burden” on people’s religious beliefs. Under this strict scrutiny, religious objectors were to be given an exemption, unless denying the exemption was the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. But during this period, as Volokh notes, “The government usually won, and religious objectors won only rarely.”

1990-1993 — Return to statute-by-statute exemptions: In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court returned to the statute-by-statute exemption regime, and rejected the constitutional exemption regime.

1993-Present — Religious Freedom Restoration Act era: In 1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws (subject to strict scrutiny).

If we have the RFRA, why do we need religious freedom legislation at the state level?

RFRA was intended to apply to all branches of government, and both to federal and state law. But in 1997 in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled the RFRA exceeded federal power when applied to state laws. In response to this ruling, some individual states passed state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

Which states have state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts?

Currently, 19 states have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). Ten other states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar (strict scrutiny) level of protection (AK, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, OH, WA, and WI). With some exceptions (such as Mississippi), the state versions are almost exactly the same as the federal version.

What exactly is “strict scrutiny”?

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

Aren’t state RFRA’s about discrimination against homosexuals?

None of the RFRA’s even mention homosexuals, nor are they about discrimination. As University of Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett explains, regarding the Indiana law:

[T]he act is a moderate measure that tracks a well-established federal law and the laws of several dozen other states. Contrary to what some critics have suggested, it does not give anyone a “license to discriminate,” it would not undermine our important civil-rights commitments, and it would not impose excessive burdens on Indiana’s courts. . . .

The act’s standard is applied in many jurisdictions across the land and it has long enjoyed support from across the political spectrum. This standard is not new; we have plenty of evidence about how it works. We know that courts have not applied it to require excessive accommodations or exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and civil-rights protections. Fighting invidious public discrimination is, American courts agree, a public interest of the highest order. Contrary to the concern quoted in the recent Tribune piece, a business owner or medical professional who invoked the act as a “license” to engage in such discrimination would and should lose. The act creates a balancing test, not a blank check. . . .

Why then do so many people claim it is about discrimination of homosexuals?

Mostly because of biased and incompetent reporting by the media. Last year Mollie Hemingway wrote a blistering critique of reporting on the issue in which she said, “we have a press that loathes and works actively to suppress this religious liberty, as confident in being on the ‘right side of history’ as they are ignorant of natural rights, history, religion and basic civility.”

Not much has changed since last year. Many media outlets identified the Indiana bill as being “anti-gay.” Unfortunately, rather than being outraged at finding they were lied to by politicians and journalists, most Americans will not bother to learn the truth and will remain ignorant about these important laws that protect our “first freedom.”   

Sent from my iPhone

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/cause-of-action-wants-probe-of-reid-mcauliffe-roles-in-visas-for-cash-mess/article/2562142?utm_content=buffer1d14c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer?utm_content=buffer1d14c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Reid retirement follows call for probe of his role in visas-for-cash mess

                         

On Thursday, the nonprofit government watchdog Cause of Action called for a review by the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section of allegations that a top Homeland Security official improperly intervened on behalf of friends and political associates of Reid, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Anthony Rodham, brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (AP Photos)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's announcement Friday that he won't seek re-election in 2016 came at the end of a week in which his role in pressuring Department of Homeland Security officials on behalf of foreign investors in his home state of Nevada sparked one investigation and calls for another.

On Thursday, the nonprofit government watchdog Cause of Action called for a review by the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section of allegations that a top Homeland Security official improperly intervened on behalf of friends and political associates of Reid, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Anthony Rodham, brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The review by Justice Department's top anti-public corruption staff is needed, according to Cause of Action Executive Director Daniel Epstein, because "federal employees were pressured to make decisions that financially or politically benefited certain applicants and left many visa applicants feeling deprived of a fair process from their government."

Epstein told Raymond Hulser, the acting chief of the Public Integrity Section, in a letter Thursday that there is evidence "of unlawful political activity [and] possible coercion and fraud related to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program."

The EB-5 program grants visas to foreigners who agree to invest at least $500,000 in U.S. businesses located in areas of high unemployment. Those foreigners are then allowed to contribute to political American campaigns.

Earlier this week, Department of Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth issued a report describing in detail actions by then-director of the immigration services agency Alexander Mayorkas that "created an appearance of favoritism and special access." Mayorkas is now deputy secretary of the Homeland Security department.

Roth's report was the focus of a Thursday hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Roth said Mayorkas intervened at the request of Reid seeking "expedited review of investor petitions involved in funding a Las Vegas hotel and casino, notwithstanding the career staff's original decision not to do so." The inspector general said, "Mayorkas pressured staff to expedite the review. He also took the extraordinary step of requiring staff to brief Senator Reid's staff on a weekly basis for several months."

Mayorkas also mounted an "unprecedented" intervention in the denial of an EB-5 application for funding of a firm "to manufacture electric cars through investments in a company in which Terry McAuliffe was the board chairman." The inspector general said that "because of the political prominence of the individuals involved, as well as USCIS' traditional deference to its administrative appeals process, staff perceived it as politically motivated."

Roth further reported that "Mayorkas created a hand-picked 'deference review board' that reversed a series of decisions by the LA Films center to reject applications linked to film projects of Sony and Time Warner. 'This board did not previously exist and was never used again after it voted to reverse the adjudicators' proposed denials. Remarkably, there is no record of the proceedings of this board."

Rodham was involved with the electric car project headed by McAuliffe, a long-time Clinton fundraiser, who left the firm after declaring his candidacy for governor of Virginia. McAuliffe's role in the project and allegations of improper political influence as a result of the "cash-for-visas" program was first reported in April 2013 by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Roth told the Homeland Security committee that he does not believe Mayorkas' actions were illegal but they did violate federal ethics regulations. Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the inspector general's report was "extremely concerning" and suggested that further hearings may be coming.

Epstein told Hulser that Cause of Action raised concerns to Congress about the roles of Reid and McAuliffe in letters to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2013.

The Senate panel concluded there was no evidence of wrong-doing by Reid, but Epstein said Roth's report makes clear that the ethics committee's review was insufficient. Reid's intervention via Mayorkas was prohibited by Senate rules, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Sunshine in Government Act and the Senate's historical precedents, according to Epstein.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the former McAuliffe firm's actions, Epstein said.

If the Public Integrity Section finds sufficient evidence to consider prosecution, it would be up to U.S. attorneys in Virginia and Nevada to decide whether to seek a federal indictment.

McAuliffe has declined to comment on the allegations contained in the inspector general's report. A spokesman for Reid told the Washington Examiner earlier this week that the Senate Minority Leader's actions did not violate Senate rules or federal laws.

Mark Tapscott is executive editor of the Washington Examiner.

Sent from my iPhone

For the First Time in History, Israel Suspiciously Closes All Embassies and Consulates Worldwide...

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/something-is-about-to-happen-for-the-first-time-in-history-israel-suspiciously-closes-all-embassies-and-consulates-worldwide

SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN: For the First Time in History, Israel Suspiciously Closes All Embassies and Consulates Worldwide...

 

(DiscloseTV) -- In the video below as well as some articles around the internet we see that for the first time in history, Israel is closing all it’s embassies and consulates worldwide. I agree with DAHBOO here, the timing, the events going on across the globe, the missing Malaysia flight and the potential for this plane that is missing since March 9th possibly being used in a terrorist attack, all indicate that Israel is bringing their people back home where they can be protected, no matter what they claim is the “official” reason.

Israel recently threatened to “destroy” those that would attack them and a move like this, a historical move, could very well mean that Israel expects World War III to break out and is acting accordingly.

Something huge is coming… be prepared.

(The Jerusalem Post) -- Foreign Ministry’s workers committee declared a full-fledged strike on Sunday, closing the ministry and all the country’s embassies and consulates around the world for the first time.

The strike is the latest development in a nearly two-year-old work dispute that the workers declared for improved salaries and work conditions.

Seven months of mediation efforts exploded on March 4 when the workers rejected a Finance Ministry proposal.

The workers then resumed crippling labor measures that had been put on hold during the mediation period.

A number of high-profile visits to Israel were canceled as a result of the measures, as well as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s planned trip to Mexico, Colombia and Panama next month.

In addition, Pope Francis’s planned visit in May is in doubt because of the strike measures.

A statement put out by the workers committee said that the workers declared an “indefinite” strike “in protest of the employment conditions for Israeli diplomats and because of the draconian decision by the Treasury to cut the workers’ salaries.

“Today, for the first time in Israel’s history, the Foreign Ministry will be closed and no work will be done in any sphere under the ministry’s authority,” the statement read.

Read more...

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.caintv.com/operation-choke-point-obamas-h

Operation Choke Point: Obama's harassment of legal businesses comes under scrutiny

Image Credit: 

Weaponizing government.

It's long overdue, but a horrendously abusive initiative of the Obama Administration is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. If you haven't heard of Operation Choke Point, you need to start paying attention.

Here's how it works:

Initiating by the Justice Department in 2013, Operation Choke Point pressures banks via the FDIC to stop doing business with perfectly legal businesses that the Obama Administration doesn't like. One of the main targets has been the payday lending industry, and the FDIC justifies this on the flimsy premise that these businesses represent a high risk of fraud in electronic transactions.

Now you may have issues with payday lenders. There are certainly downsides to getting your hands on cash in that fashion. But while that may be your opinion, and it may be mine, and it may be that of some people in government - the fact remains that payday lending is a perfectly legal type of business. There is no law that says they can't operate, and the administration can't get the Congress to pass such a law.

So what they've done instead is what one member of Congress called "weaponizing government" to achieve an ideological goal they can't achieve through legislation. Because banks are required by law to be insured by the FDIC, and because payday lenders have to have relationships with banks in order to function, banking regulators put the muscle on the banks to cut off the payday lenders.

The banks could resist, but if you know anything about running a bank, you know that the last thing you want is to invite hostility from federal regulators - especially today in the era of Dodd-Frank. All kinds of things can happen to bankers when they tell federal regulators what they can do with their pressure tactics, and none of them are good.

Even so, you might say, so what? Who cares about these businesses? Well let me tell you why you should care.

The next legal business the administration decides to go after might be you do like. It might even be one you're connect to. It wouldn't be unprecedented. Back in 2009, I remember meeting a man who owned a General Motors dealership. This was just after the federal government had taken over GM, and they were forcing massive shutdowns of dealerships. Although his dealership was caught up on all its payments and was actually exceeding its sales goals, the Obama Administration had nonetheless told him they were shutting down his dealership.

He told me this in tears. His dealership was his life, and it was being taken away from him. Why? He was pretty confident he knew the answer. A black man, he had contributed to two Republican presidential candidates. And he heard from a lot of other dealers across the country who were experiencing the same thing.

This is what the Obama Administration is willing to do in the pursuit of its political agenda. They will weaponize government to shut down anyone they don't like - legal or otherwise. Somehow there's a way you need to be in the good graces of a federal agency in order to survive. They'll find what that is, they'll remove those good graces, and you'll be screwed.

That's what Operation Choke Point is really all about. Because that's how this White House rolls.

Sent from my iPhone