Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for March, 2015

These 19 States Have Religious Freedom Laws Similar to Indiana’s. Here’s What That Means.


Posted by Kelsey Harkness / / March 31, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Gov. Mike Pence gained national attention when he signed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law last week. It caused the Twitter hashtag #BoycottIndiana to go viral and triggered Apple CEO Tim Cook to pen a Washington Post op-ed calling “pro-discrimination” laws “dangerous.” Yet, despite the uproar, Indiana isn’t alone in enacting legislation that seeks to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts—or what critics call “pro-discrimination” laws—have been around for over two decades.  Religious Freedom Restoration Acts first came about after the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which “narrowed protections for the free exercise of religion.” In response to the court’s ruling, Congress sought to restore religious freedom by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, popularly known as RFRA. The legislation won unanimous support in the House, passed 97-3 in the Senate, and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.

Since then, in addition to Indiana, 19 states have passed their own state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Another 11 states have RFRA-like protections provided by state court decisions.


Under Indiana’s new law, “[T]he state cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it is furthering a compelling government interest and acting in the least restrictive way possible.”

Critics say the legislation will enable business owners to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation—or as Hillary Clinton put it, because of “who they love.” They also argue Indiana’s religious freedom law, which goes into effect in July, is more loosely written than other RFRAs. Pence has said that he plans to “clarify” the law’s intent.

But those who support RFRAs—including The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, who researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty—argue RFRAs are not written to be “anti-gay.” Anderson says Indiana’s RFRA does not allow business owners to refuse service based on a person’s sexual orientation. He argues that the law provides those with strong religious beliefs a shield from being discriminated against for dissenting against popular opinions about marriage or other faith-based matters.

“This debate has nothing to do with refusing to serve gays simply because they’re gay, and this law wouldn’t protect that,” he told The Daily Signal.

The religious liberty concern centers on the reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The question is whether the government should discriminate against these citizens, should the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith? A Religious Freedom Restoration Act could protect these citizens. But it might not.

But Indiana is different than some other states that have RFRAs in at least one way. Unlike Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, and Rhode Island, which in addition to RFRAs, also passed some form of legislation explicitly banning the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation, Indiana doesn’t have a law on the books that specifically protects against the discrimination of gays and lesbians.


Critics of Indiana’s new law say because there is no state law protecting gays and lesbians (only measures in certain cities throughout the state), those people may be discriminated against through the RFRA. They also fear supporters of the RFRA will use it to undermine the few local nondiscrimination laws that do exist in cities like Indianapolis.

Those in favor of RFRA laws argue nondiscrimination legislation shouldn’t matter much in the eyes of the court because there have been no cases to date where business owners refused service simply based on a person’s sexual orientation. There have been instances where business owners refused service to gay and lesbian customers—like when a 70-year-old florist from Washington would not design floral arrangements for a same-sex marriage.


But in those situations, the business owners who denied service said they should not be forced to contribute to a religious ceremony that conflicts with their religious beliefs.AMEN

“I did serve Rob,” Barronelle Stutzman, the Washington florist, told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview. “It’s the event that I turned down, not the service for Rob or his partner.” Still, Washington state—which doesn’t have a RFRA—ruled against Stutzman, finding her in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws.

>>> Read More: State Says 70-Year-Old Flower Shop Owner Discriminated Against Gay Couple. Here’s How She Responded.

Cases such as Stutzman’s are why many religious freedom advocates argue that it’s important that states adopt RFRAs as protections. “The law doesn’t say who will win,” Anderson said. “Only that a court should review, using a well-established balancing test, and hold the government accountable to justify its action.”

Some of the attached graphics have been corrected.Picture6

The ACLU’s Hypocritical Defense of Laws That Violate Religious Liberty


Posted by Carson Holloway / March 30, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

The campus of Catholic University of America, which could be affected by the D.C. laws. (Photo: Chris Maddaloni/Roll Call Photos/Newscom)

<!– A window looks to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception from the Trinity Center health club –>

Commentary By Carson Holloway;

One of the great ironies of our politics is that the American Civil Liberties Union is now actually hostile to traditional American civil liberties.

acluThis is the conclusion one must draw from a letter the organization has sent to the House of Representatives, seeking to defend two District of Columbia laws that, under the guise of enforcing non-discrimination, undermine the First Amendment rights of private organizations. Essentially, the ACLU seeks to defend regulations that require religious universities to provide their facilities for the use of student LGBT advocacy groups and that forbid religious organizations from firing employees whose personal conduct violates the morality to which the organizations are dedicated.

As I explain at greater length at Public Discourse, the ACLU’s zeal for “non-discrimination” here directly infringes on not just one but two fundamental constitutional freedoms—freedoms that the ACLU was originally founded to protect. 

to the rightUnder the First Amendment, Americans enjoy the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has long held that this freedom includes as well a freedom of association. Since individuals have a right to free speech, they also have a right to band together and form organizations that exist to promote their views. This is precisely the constitutional freedom that is being exercised by organizations that are constituted to promote a particular moral and religious worldview, and that in pursuit of that aim must choose to employ and support only those who will assist them in this undertaking.

This principle should be precious to any freedom-loving American, regardless of partisanship or ideology.  Without it, no Americans of any point of view could reliably cooperate in order to promote their shared ideas. Discarding this principle would permit the government to frustrate their efforts by making them employ or otherwise cooperate with people bent on undermining rather than advancing the organization’s cause. Since individuals usually are not powerful enough to make themselves heard without joining in associations with others, freedom of association is necessary to any effective form of freedom of speech.

There is, however, an additional problem. The organizations whose liberties the ACLU seeks to curtail are religious organizations, which means that their freedom to operate is protected not only by the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech and freedom of association, but also by its explicit protection for the “free exercise” of “religion.”tebow

It is impossible for individuals to freely exercise their religion without permitting them to join into associations for that purpose.  And such associations are rendered effectively useless if they must employ and otherwise work with people hostile to their purposes.

Again, these freedoms should be defended by all Americans. The ACLU is organized with a view to the defense of certain principles.  In its mission it has often been aided by liberal religious organizations.

Neither the ACLU nor its allies could carry on their political and legal activism if the law could require them to employ people opposed to their purposes. To the extent that the ACLU wants this freedom for itself, it should respect it in others as well.  This is the American way.


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Solar Loafer

URL of the Original Posting Site:



NO BRIDGEmedia block




cause of death


Thatcher Expert: The Iron Lady Would Be ‘Appalled’ By Obama


By Ginni Thomas, Contributor , 03/29/2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Ginni Thomas

Virginia Thomas, 54, is a special correspondent for the Daily Caller producing videos of emerging leaders and educators in the public square. Her ear is to the ground outside the Washington Beltway as a social entrepreneur. Previously, she was the founder of (nonprofit for citizen activists), and has worked at The Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College’s Washington office, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the senior levels of the legislative and executive branches of government. She has maintained her midwestern authenticity after 30 years in Washington, D.C. and enjoys motor homing and the Nebraska Cornhuskers with her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas. Her degrees are: Business Communication & Political Science from Creighton University, and J.D. from Creighton Law School (Omaha, NE).

gardiner 01

A visitor to America might think Democrats won last fall’s election and that Republicans lost. Why? Because, when observers connect the dots, Republicans are on defense, ceding legislative powers to an aggressive executive branch in an unprecedented manner.

Despite electoral losses for his party, President Obama is on offense. He is now testing the radical proposition of having his secretary of state negotiate a nuclear weapons deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terror without having the Senate ratify the treaty. How? By naming it an “agreement” rather than a “treaty,” and by seeking its authority through the United Nations rather than Congress.Picture2

As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote this month, “It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things.”

Nile Gardiner, the Heritage Foundation’s Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center, calls this development “astonishing” and “imperialistic” in this video interview. “If the British Prime Minister decided to strike a deal with a rogue regime against the wishes of Parliament, that Prime Minister wouldn’t last very long,” Gardiner explains. “There’d be a rebellion and revolt. There’d be a vote of no confidence. That’s the difference in our systems of government.”Tyrant Obama obama- Marxist tyrant Imperial President Obama

Dr. Gardiner praised Sen. Tom Cotton and the 46 Republicans who warned Iran that any deal would not last beyond Obama’s term in office. The Cotton letter has resulted in leftist protests and bizarre calls for his prosecution under the Logan Act as an “act of treason” for trying to restrain President Obama’s and Secretary of State John Kerry’s Iranian negotiations.

Does a country with porous borders still have its national sovereignty? The concept of national sovereignty, according to Gardiner, doesn’t mean much to the left who are in power right now. Rather, they seek governance from supra-nationalist organizations. “Once you allow the United Nations to start dictating U.S. policies, America is no longer a sovereign and free nation.”Picture3

Asked for what Margaret Thatcher might say of world affairs, Gardiner ventures to guess, “She’d be pretty appalled at the state of affairs today. She would be warning the free world that the West has to mobilize to face an array of threats — the rise of Islamic militancy in the Middle East and Europe, the specter of nuclear Iran on the horizon and the resurgence of an imperialist Russia. She would have been rallying the leaders of the West to stand up against evil that is rising up.”

Gardiner also discusses Russia’s aggression in Eastern Europe, and the Islamic threat in Europe in this two-part video interview.


gardiner 02

For more on Gardiner, see his page at Heritage here and his book on Margaret Thatcher here.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.


Here’s Two Reasons Why Hillary’s Email Server Was Scrubbed

Posted by “The Right Curmudgeon”, Mar 28, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:


And both reasons add up to “it’s none of your damn business.”  After all she IS Hillary and she answers to different standards than the rest of the world.  And Hillary’s email is at the top of the list of things that are none of your business.

  1. The first reason is foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.  The Foundation was barred from accepting donations from foreign countries while Hillary was Secretary of State.  It appears that they got around that by accepting multi-million dollar contributions from foreign individuals instead. It’s very likely that the server held emails related to those donations and under the definitions used by Hillary’s lawyers, those would not have been archived and would have been wiped from the server.
  2. The second reason relates directly to Benghazi.

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal’s account.Clinton Obama


Blumenthal’s emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal’s account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.Party of Deciet and lies

If you take the time to read everything Hillary and her mouthpieces have said about what they turned over to the State Department, they always talk about “her emails.”  A Clintonesque parsing of that term would exclude email FROM others to Hillary.  After all, everything depends on the meaning of “is.”  The State Department says that Blumenthal’s emails were turned over to them and that they turned them over to the Committee.  And we have some great land in Florida for you to build your retirement home.

Blumenthal’s emails raise a number of other questions, chief among them would be, does Blumenthal have a security clearance?  What was he doing working on Benghazi related matters, he wasn’t a State Department employee, nor, to our knowledge, was he a contractor.

It’s unclear who tasked Blumenthal, known for his fierce loyalty to the Clintons, with preparing detailed intelligence briefs. It’s also not known who was paying him, or where the operation got its money. The memos were marked “confidential” and relied in many cases on “sensitive” sources in the Libyan opposition and Western intelligence and security services. Other reports focused on Egypt, Germany, and Turkey.

Indeed, though they were sent under Blumenthal’s name, the reports appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005.Really with logo

The State Department has declined comment on the issue, and even if they did comment, it would come from Marie Harf.  Barf.  Hillary is, thus far, silent on the issue as well. Picture6

BREAKING: Top Iranian Official DEFECTS, Drops Bombshell About Barack Obama

Posted by Conservative Tribune

URL of the Original Posting Site:

New York John Kerry, Mohammad Javad ZarifAs the deadline for an agreement draws near, it is looking more and more like the proposed nuclear deal with Iran is a really bad deal.

Not that we didn’t already know this, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned about a bad deal, as has a majority of Congress.

But now comes confirmation of just how one-sided the negotiations have been, straight from a top Iranian official in Switzerland for the nuclear talks who has defected to the West.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” said Amir Hossein Motaghi, exposing U.S. President Barack Obama’s seeming obsession with reaching any sort of deal with Iran.muslim-obama Islamapologist Obama Muslim collection

Motaghi was a close media aide for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and was the head of his public relations team and social media efforts during his 2013 election campaign. But now, according to The U.K. Telegraph, Motaghi has sought asylum in Switzerland, denouncing both the government of his home country and the ongoing nuclear talks. Motaghi said that he quit his job with the Iran Students Correspondents Association, having become disillusioned with his job as a reporter due to the fact that he was only allowed to write about what he was told to write about.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more,” said Motaghi, as he went on to reveal that a number of so-called “journalists” at the nuclear talks are only there to ensure that all news makes it back to Iran through the proper channels.

This man took a courageous step to expose the ongoing nuclear talks and can likely never return to Tehran, as he would probably be arrested and forgotten in prison. Hopefully, as more information surrounding the one-sided horribleness of the impending nuclear deal leaks out, it will prove too much.

It seems that the best possible outcome now would be for the talks to fall apart, dashing Obama’s hopes for his legacy moment — proclaiming peace in our time while Iran celebrates nukes in no time. Picture6


Reporter says John Kerry answered ‘Allah willing’ – in Arabic- when asked if nuke deal would happen

March 28, 2015 by

URL of the original Posting Site:

Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly responded in a most unusual way to a reporter’s question Friday whether a nuclear arms deal could be reached with Iran before the March 31 deadline.

Allah willing,” Kerry replied — in Arabic, according to Laura Rozen, a reporter covering the Iran nuclear talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the Washington, D.C.-based online publication, Al-Monitor.

As news reached the public Friday that a deal may be forthcoming, Rozen tweeted:


“Inshallah” is Arabic for “Allah willing,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Rosen followed up a minute later with this tweet:


Rozen also retweeted a post from Iranian-American journalist Negar Mortazavi that included a photo of Kerry:

View image on Twitter


Rosen’s tweets elicited a few replies on each end of the political spectrum. Here are a few examples:



muslim-obama Islamapologist 

Obama Muslim collectionH/T: TruthRevolt


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: