Latest Entries »
Complaint says crosses at Catholic school offensive, prevent Muslim prayers
Catholic Unversity President John Garvey standing in front of one of the many campus crosses (Photo by Rafael Crisostomo)
Crosses in every room at Washingon D.C.’s Catholic University of America are a human rights violation that prevent Muslim students from praying.
That’s the complaint to the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights filed by a professor from rival George Washington University across town.
GWU Law School Professor John Banzhaf takes the Catholic institution to task for acting “probably with malice” against Muslim students in a 60-page complaint that cites “offensive” Catholic imagery all over the Catholic school, which he says hinder Muslims from praying.
Baffled Catholic University officials say they have never received a complaint from any of the schools Muslim students.
Banzhaf, who already has a pending lawsuit against the university over ending its policy of allowing mixed-gender dormitories and has a history of filing civil rights suits on such topics as childhood obesity and smoking, filed the complaint alleging that Muslim students are not given their own prayer rooms.
He alleges that the university, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion,” according to the Tower, Catholic University’s student newspaper.
The complaint further objects that Muslims must pray at the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”
A spokesperson for the human rights office said they are investigating Banzhaf’s complaint — and the inquiry could take as long as six months.
“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” observed Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Socity. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”
The complaint is absurd, writes Thomas Peters on the website CatholicVote.
“Can you imagine a law professor helping Catholic students to sue a Jewish or Muslim school to demand that the schools install crosses, remove their religious symbols, and allow the Catholics to construct a chapel on their property?” wrote Peters. “Can you imagine the argument being that Jewish and Muslims schools using their religious symbols and following their faith traditions would be described in the legal brief as “offensive”?!
“Normally I would have confidence that this lawsuit will be deemed without merit, but the way things are going these days, I just can’t be sure anymore. Simply incredible.”
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/10/lawsuit-says-crosses-at-catholic-university-offensive-prevent-muslim-prayers.php#ixzz3aq5UXMjD
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/10/lawsuit-says-crosses-at-catholic-university-offensive-prevent-muslim-prayers.php#FJKUGpFbKI4ZeFeB.99
The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/34896
Apr. 29, 2015
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” —John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1812
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Same-Sex Marriage Decision Hinges on Justice Kennedy1
In the oral arguments over the Supreme Court case that may institute same-sex marriage nationwide, the Court appeared to split along its usual lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again becoming the justice on which the whole decision rests. Like many, Hot Air’s Allahpundit2 saw Justice Kennedy sympathetic to the arguments made by the pro-same-sex-marriage lobby. Allahpundit believes the Court will rule against traditional marriage; the only question now is by what vote. Nevertheless, some justices were cautious. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. Then, the Netherlands changed its definition of marriage in 2001. “You’re not seeking to join the institution,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.” He added, “One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys have been practicing for months3, running moot courts and rehearsing responses to Justice Antonin Scalia’s style of questioning. The goal, The New York Times reported, is not just win, but “win big.” If SCOTUS rules in their favor, then they already have. More…4
National Guard, Curfew Quell Second Night of Baltimore Unrest5
The rioting Monday night in Baltimore left 19 buildings and 144 vehicles burned, 20 police officers injured and 235 people arrested. But what we saw by dawn on Wednesday is that Tuesday’s violence was subdued. Two thousand National Guard members and 400 state troopers enforced a 10 p.m. city-wide curfew. Baltimore was hesitant at first to crack down on the initial stages of unrest because many of the unruly were youth, but then the violence evolved. “When we deployed our officers yesterday, we were deploying for a high school event,” Baltimore PD spokesman Capt. Eric Kowalcyzk6 said. “I don’t think there’s anyone that would expect us to deploy with automatic weapons and armored vehicles for 13-, 14- and 15-year olds.”
Meanwhile, about 50 protesters were demonstrating in Ferguson, Missouri, last night when a man was shot in the lower leg7. While it’s not clear if the shooting is connected to the demonstrations, police threatened to use “chemical munitions” to clear the crowd. Later, a group set fire to trashcans and a portable toilet. Even after all this time, violence still lingers in the St. Louis suburb. However, Barack Obama wasn’t about to say the riots are due to a malformed relationship between cops and citizens. No, for him, the problem is Republicans. He said at a press conference yesterday8, “I’m under no illusion that out of this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities … But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could.” Leftists believe the answer to everything is more money. More…9
Obama: Congress Is Just Afraid of a Little Globalization
In pushing for a free-trade agreement with countries arrayed around the Pacific Ocean, Barack Obama has managed to enter the rare political situation of gaining opponents in both Democrat and Republican parties11. Democrats, led by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, bray that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt the middle class. Republicans, well, they have a right to be suspicious, because the administration that “led” the U.S. economy on its slowest recovery to date wants to negotiate a trade deal that will have huge economic implications. Furthermore, Obama is seeking approval for this treaty in a simple yes-no vote, a move that speeds up the negotiation process, but one that also cheapens Congress’ role in negotiating treaties. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Obama called the skeptics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership scared of a little globalization. After all, if the U.S. does nothing, then China will establish its trade agreements and earn influence over that corner of the globe. “What we can’t do, though, is withdraw,” Obama said. “There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think [is] a big mistake.” There is a reason why the Constitution grants Congress the power to approve treaties, and the argument that we’re running out of time is no excuse to trust the judgment of one man. More…12
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Why Is SCOTUS Even Considering Same-Sex Marriage?
By John J. Bastiat
Since the very definition of marriage is up for grabs at the U.S. Supreme Court this week — SCOTUS entertained oral arguments Tuesday on a number of cases consolidated under the central issue of the un-constitutionality of states’ ability to deny gay marriage — we thought this an appropriate point to interject reason into the debate, strengthened by an understanding of history — Constitutional history. Let’s start with the basics: The Constitution of the United States has nothing to say about marriage, “gay” or otherwise. What does that mean?
Well, if you know nothing about civics, it means nothing. Unfortunately, that’s the take the religiously zealous supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to foist off on the Supremes this week. Their approach, of course, doesn’t admit to this, or even begin to touch on the truly core issue — Federalism — for the same reason abortionist supporters of Roe v. Wade did not: They would otherwise lose. Let’s walk through this Matrix together, Neo.
The Constitution is the foundational legal document governing our nation. For almost 200 years it served as the backbone behind the body of laws under which the lowliest individual to the U.S. President operated. All of that changed with the Progressive Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, FDR’s New Deal and a host of other progressive assaults on the concept of the Rule of Law. Wiser-than-the-rest-of-us progressives rejected this idea in favor of the arrogation that some people (read: them) are better suited to rule than others (read: you), and accordingly pushed to make the Constitution a “living, breathing document” (read: changeable to suit progressives’ needs). The practical upshot of this “breathing” is that Rule of Law is all but a dead letter in our nation. But we digress.
Since the progressives’ constitutional onslaught, the model formerly known as “federalism” has died yet another — virtual, if not actual — death. The Constitution originally gave power to the federal government to make and enforce certain, very particular laws across the land. These so-called “enumerated” powers were so called because they were very limited in scope, though unlimited within the span of that scope. Such laws were applicable to the entirety of the United States and evolved from the previous federal power failures of the former bedrock document, the Articles of Confederation. For example, the power to regulate commerce among the states — a power itself abused over the past century by an overly-ambitious SCOTUS interpretation of the term “interstate commerce” — is specifically granted to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. Likewise, the power to enter treaties — another power very recently abused, since the current office holder ignores the prerequisite Senate consent to such power (“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties… ”) — is specifically granted to the president under Article II.
However, the rest of governmental power is vested within the states. This structural component was codified under the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In a nutshell, the Tenth Amendment is saying if We-the-People didn’t give you-the-federal-government a particular power in the Constitution, we are keeping that plenary power for individual states to make those calls. The rationale behind this principle, as aptly annunciated in the opinion section of Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal14, is that the “Founders believed that social mores should be reflected in law through the democratic process, not judicial command.” Indeed.
Unfortunately, over a century of assaults on the Tenth Amendment have withered it to a bare thread of what it once was. Were this not the case, the issue before SCOTUS wouldn’t even be here. It would be among each of the 50 states to decide for themselves. Sadly, that option was foreclosed with SCOTUS’s unreasonable shoot-down of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), whose primary focus was the assertion of individual states’ rights to choose for themselves whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. Ultimately, that means the decision of whether to recognize same-sex marriages rests not with individual states, but rather with an arbitrary and often-fickle Supreme Court.
The real issue is whether a state’s free people can decide for themselves whether they can choose one such path or another. The more the Tenth Amendment is eviscerated by the Court, the less likely they can. The Founders envisioned the states as political laboratories to experiment with governmental models. Those that worked encouraged people to move and join in the prosperity of successful models; those that didn’t encouraged people to vote with their feet. Let’s hope the Supreme Court learns its lesson from Roe v. Wade and decides the Founders’ model is best. If history is any guide, however, we’re not overly optimistic.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Star Parker: “[I]f leaders in these various institutions of our nation’s left-wing elite look in the rearview mirror to their own family histories, histories of Christians and Jews arriving and settling in America, they most certainly, overwhelmingly, will find families — parents, grandparents, great-grandparents — defined by the very traditional values that their offspring today throw to the trash. Central to the propaganda being sold is the notion that embracing sexual behaviors that our religions prohibit represents progress. But in fact, these behaviors are more ancient than our religions. Our religions were the answer to these destructive behaviors. And no, this is not about freedom. Few do not believe or accept that every American should be free to live as he or she chooses. This is a battle about redefining the values of our nation’s culture and, hence, redefining our nation itself.”
Insight: “The real freedom of any individual can always be measured by the amount of responsibility which he must assume for his own welfare and security.” —Author Robert Welch (1899-1985)
Non Compos Mentis: “I’m under no illusion that under this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities. And so we’ll try to find areas where we can make a difference around school reform, and around job training, and around some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses in.” —Barack Obama, faulting Republicans for the rioting in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore
“The fact is that al-Qaida was not in Iraq prior to President Bush’s decision to commit significant American resources on the ground in that country. That is a historical fact.” —Obama spokesman Josh Earnest, shooting back17 at George W. Bush after he criticized his successor’s foreign policy
Dezinformatsia: “You get into Baltimore, you can’t find a job with a short commute. And that’s, to me, the problem that’s behind all of this [rioting]. … [The jobs] went to the right-to-work states … where the unions didn’t have any power. You could get people to work for nothing and the stuff wasn’t that good that was made down there.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews
Village Idiots: “[Baltimore] policemen and firemen have the right to work in the city and live in the suburbs. Some live as far away as … Pennsylvania. And so they come in as an occupying force, not as neighbors. So, often people are afraid of them, because they’re not taxpaying neighbors whose children go to school with their children. So there is this gap between police and people. And you really ought to have residential requirements for policemen and firemen. Those who get nectar from the flower should sow pollen where they pick up nectar.” —Jesse Jackson
And last… “Sixth-year president blames fourth-month GOP Congress for blocking agenda which would’ve aided city run by Democrats for decades. #Baltimore” —twitter satirist @hale_razor
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling Could Create Religious Liberty Issues For Christian Schools, Charities, Obama’s Lawyer Admits
Judicial Crisis Network chief counsel, Carrie Severino, speaks at a Heritage Foundation panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on April 29, 2015.
WASHINGTON — The lead attorney representing the Obama administration admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that if the court were to rule in favor of making same-sex marriage a constitutional right, it would create a religious liberty “issue” for faith-based schools and institutions, who could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt statuses.
As the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments regarding whether the 14th Amendment requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tried to dodge a question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked him whether or not religious schools which have married housing would be required to provide housing to same-sex married couples.
The solicitor general, which is the third highest ranking official in the Justice Department and is appointed to speak on behalf of the Obama administration in court cases, provided a winded answer to Roberts about how it is the states that are responsible for setting their civil laws.
Roberts continued prodding Verrilli by saying that even though states set their laws, the federal government has “enforcement power,” which Verrilli admitted was true but reasoned that there is no federal law “now” that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Justice Samuel Alito followed up and asked a pointed question regarding whether religious schools could have their tax-exempt status revoked for not providing same-sex couples with housing. Alito referenced the 1983 Bob Jones University Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the school’s tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate interracial married couples with housing.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Says Definition of Marriage as One Man-One Woman Has ‘Been With Us for Millennia’
“So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked.
It was clear that Verrilli did not want to answer that question but offered an offhand remark assuring that a ruling in favor of gay marriage would create some issues.
“You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli stated. “I I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”
Speaking at a Heritage Foundation panel on Wednesday, which discussed Tuesday’s oral arguments, Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, explained that Verrilli’s answer indicates that the Obama administration is looking to “preserve the ability to remove tax-exempt status from institutions, like religious universities.”
“What this exchange shows is that the administration wants to leave the door wide open to do [removing tax-exempt statuses],” Severino told The Christian Post after the panel. “Not that they could really be bound, necessarily, by the statements here but the solicitor general does not want to, even in furtherance of winning this case, because him saying ‘Don’t worry, that won’t happen,’ that would actually help him in this case. Even though that would help his case, he said, ‘I am not going to say that. We are not going to go there.'”
“Frankly his answer to Chief Justice Roberts a minute earlier more or less admitted that the federal government could say this case could force a religious college to open its married housing to a married same-sex couple if they were married under laws of the state,” Severino added.
Severino also explained that such a ruling in favor of constitutional gay marriage would create a “head-on collision” with religious expression.
“That ought to give a lot of people cause to say that this is an absolute head-on collision potentially with religious liberty because the arguments that are being made on the other side are so extreme here,” Severino stated.
Severino reasoned that if such a ruling could cause tax-exempt status issues for Christian universities and schools, it could also present religious freedom conflict for faith-based charities and other organizations also.
“There isn’t any reason to say that it clearly wouldn’t extend to charitable organizations, potentially even to removing tax-exempt status from a house of worship, which is a slightly different argument but I can see people trying to make that argument,” Severino asserted. “Taking the tax-exempt status thing would be a gigantic step and a very serious blow to a lot of institutions, all sorts of charitable institutions that are run by religious organizations from Salvation Army on down.”
“Just imagine if all of those groups were not tax-exempt anymore and what impact that would have on their ability to serve the poor the way they are attempting to do and live out their faith,” she continued.
Severino expects that the potential for conflict with religious liberty will somehow weigh into the case’s outcome even if the court decides to constitutionalize gay marriage.
“Those potential collisions were brought out and will affect the way the justices decide this case because I think that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is not going to want to have that kind of collision with religious liberty, and any of the justices ought to be concerned with the potential of further limiting the religious liberty at this point,” she said. “Perhaps, even if it doesn’t mean that is going to affect the outcome entirely, it may affect the way that the opinion is written in a way to have less of a risk to steamroll religious freedom.”
PAUL RYAN’S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
A List of Republican Budget Cuts
Notice S.S. And the military are NOT on this list .
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Read to the end.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual savings.
* Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion total savings. WHAT’S THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees — $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of — $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN’T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program — $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs — $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!
Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan.
Please Send to everyone you know .
The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/34773
Apr. 22, 2015
“We may look up to armies for defense, but virtue is our best security. It is not possible that any state should long remain free, where virtue is not supremely honored.” —Samuel Adams, Letter to Joseph Warren, 1775
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Obama Lied About Iranian Nuclear Breakout Times1
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists might want to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock2 a few minutes closer to midnight because of Barack Obama’s lies over how close Iran is to nuclear breakout. For months, the official talking point of the administration has been that Iran is a year away from placing fissile material in a warhead. But the assessment of U.S. Intelligence and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always been that Iran is months away from becoming a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nukes. Now, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz admitted to Bloomberg News that Iran is spinning nearly 10,000 centrifuges and could reach nuclear breakout in two to three months. Yet even with this knowledge, Obama discouraged Israel from acting militarily and continued to send John Kerry to craft a lousy deal with the Iranians.
The U.S. has repositioned ships3 in the waters off Yemen, partially because Iran is sending a flotilla to supposedly arm Yemeni rebels. Meanwhile, Iranian aircraft are buzzing U.S. naval ships4. And all the while, Obama keeps insisting climate change is the gravest threat we face. More…5
Green Times for Energy Efficiency, No Thanks to Government6
Are you feeling green this Earth Day? You should. The White House would have you believe our days are numbered because we’ve failed to enter another ice age (take a moment to shiver in the irony), but statistics suggest we’re in unprecedented times — in terms of energy efficiency. But here’s the kicker: Neither Earth Day nor government intervention have anything to do with our greener ways. Based on data from the Energy Information Administration, American Enterprise Institute’s Mark Perry writes, “In 2014, it required only 6,110 BTUs of energy (petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear and renewables) to produce each real dollar of GDP, which was the least amount of energy required to produce a dollar of real GDP in US history.” That’s even more extraordinary when you consider how much the economy has expanded. “[T]he US economy was 28% larger last year than 14 years ago, even though slightly less total energy was required in 2014 than in 2000 (98.324 vs. 98.819 quadrillion BTUs) to produce $3.5 trillion more real output,” says Perry. “That would be like adding an economy about the size of Germany’s to the US, but without requiring any additional energy to produce 28% more output!” And consider this even crazier statistic: It cost a whopping 15,930 BTUs in 1949 to squeeze out just $2 trillion in GDP. So next time you hear demagogues claiming we’re dirtying up our planet, tell them we’re living in remarkably efficient times relative to yesteryear using the same old fossil fuels. And tell them they can thank capitalist innovators for the progress.
Democrats Drop Abortion Fight for Lynch Confirmation Vote7
After stalling a bill to fight human trafficking because Republicans wanted to strengthen its provisions forbidding federal funds for abortions, Democrats finally relented so the Senate could get around to its confirmation vote on Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general. To stall a bill8 that would help society’s most vulnerable women is one thing. To stop that opposition just to get a fellow leftist into an appointed seat is another. It’s surely part of the Democrats’ strategy to advance in incremental steps.
“I’m glad we can say there is a bipartisan proposal that will allow us to complete action on this legislation so we can provide help to the victims who desperately need it,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell9 said from the floor of the Senate. “As soon as we finish the trafficking bill, as I’ve indicated for some time now, we’ll move to the president’s nominee for attorney general.” As Ed Morrissey10 writes at Hot Air, the Left may spin this as a political victory, but Senate Democrats backed down from their obstructionism over “abortion rights.” Meanwhile, the winds coming from Congress indicate Lynch will be confirmed — even though she supports Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. More…11
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
When Government Takes the Grapevine12
By Jim Harrington
Raisin growers Marvin and Laura Horne have run afoul of one of those federal agencies you’ve never heard of, but it could have far-ranging consequences. The Supreme Court will soon decide the reach of federal power over food growers.
Horne, a former tax auditor, retired to raise raisins in Kerman, California, a farming community just outside Fresno. He soon discovered that he’s required to hand over a large percentage of his raisins to the federal government — specifically, the Raisin Administrative Committee, a grandchild of the price stabilization programs adopted by FDR’s “brain trust.” The original intent was arguably noble — to stabilize farm prices for people struggling to keep their farms. But as with all socialist programs, noble beginnings lead to evil ends.
Thus in 1949 when the government stopped buying massive quantities of raisins for our overseas troops, raisin prices plummeted. To correct this imbalance in the economy, the Department of Agriculture promulgated Marketing Order 98913 requiring serfs, er, farmers to fork over a significant portion of their crops to the Raisin Administrative Committee, the intent being to artificially raise raisin prices.
“An elected board of bureaucrats known as the Raisin Administrative Committee decide what the proper yield should be in any given year in order to meet a previously agreed-upon price,” writes14 Reason’s Zach Weissmueller. The committee then gives a percentage of each farmer’s crop to packers working for the committee. The raisins go into a holding vat and sit. They can’t be sold in the United States, but they can eventually be sold overseas or to school lunch programs.
Weissmueller says farmers theoretically “get a percentage of the money raised from the [confiscated] raisins, but as profit margins dwindled … so did the return to farmers. The tipping point [for Horne] came in 2003 when farmers received zero dollars in return for the 47 percent of the crop they had surrendered.”
Horne decided enough was enough. In 2002 he stopped giving up his grapes. The regulation specifies “raisin handlers,” and the Horne’s consider themselves “raisin farmers” for whom the rule doesn’t apply. The government, however, sees otherwise. One of the most annoying aspects of this sorry story is that this law should have been sunsetted long ago. Instead it was actually renewed in 1989 with some legislators voting with greased hands.
Now the government is demanding the Hornes pay at least $650,000 (some sources say $1 million) in fines and surrender 1.2 million pounds of raisins, or about four years’ worth of harvest.
Outraged, Marvin decries the government’s thievery. “The hell with the whole mess,” he said, “It’s like being a serf.” Indeed it is. The Hornes and other growers tried to challenge the USDA’s seizure of their crops without payment as an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, but the USDA claimed the issue should be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Instead, the Hornes took the USDA to an administrative court, but they were shot down there, too. Next they took their case to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court and lost again15. Challenging that ruling, they asked for a hearing before the entire Ninth Circuit. After hearing the case, the court surprisingly declared it had no jurisdiction in the matter. But the Supreme Court disagreed and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to decide on the merits.
This time the Ninth Circuit almost seemed to retaliate to being challenged. They found that, as The Wall Street Journal put it16, “the Takings Clause was meant to address the seizure of land, not other personal private property. And even if the government did take raisin farmers’ property, the confiscation created raisin scarcity which raised raisin prices, so the Hornes were compensated for their property in that way.”
Even for the Ninth Circuit, this is a bizarre ruling. By its logic, any company could be ordered to hand over a percentage of its profits, or even its holdings. And there’s no end to this line of reasoning. No end, that is, except the crystal clear language of the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
In the case of the Raisin Administrative Committee, its actions are unconstitutional because Congress did not create it and endow it with the powers it wielded. Beyond that, government has no power to seize the raisins without due compensation.
The Court that wrongly decided Kelo v. New London could go some way toward correcting that blatantly improper eminent domain decision. Each day brings news of yet another attack on the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand what’s at stake in these cases. We’re thankful for Patriots like the Hornes who not only stood up to a bullying federal agency, but also had the strength of will and the stamina to get the case into the hands of the Supremes for the final decision. Let’s just hope the nine robed justices get it right.
ALSO AT PATRIOTPOST.US TODAY
ANALYSIS: Will the Clinton Foundation Be Hillary’s Downfall?17
When Will Hillary Answer for Libya?18
Americans Ditch Gun Control to Secure Their Own Security19
Perception Dictates Reality for Parents20
Bill Nye Carpools With Obama21
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Joe Bastardi: Some Inconvenient Global Warming Truths22
Ben Shapiro: Hillary’s Vietnam23
Tony Perkins: Republicans Look to Red-light District’s Intolerance24
For more, visit Right Opinion25.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Columnist Ben Shapiro: “Headless bodies lie in the sand. Above those corpses stand the black-clad minions of ISIS, outlined against the coastline of Libya. This is the second video in three months depicting Islamic terrorists cutting the heads off of Christian captives. Bodies float in the Mediterranean Sea, face down. Twelve Christian bodies, thrown from a rubber boat by 15 Muslims. Their launch point: Libya. Approximately 700 more bodies float face down in the Mediterranean, victims of a smuggling operation gone wrong when their rickety craft sunk as it made its way to Italy. Its source location: Libya. Four American bodies in Benghazi, Libya. These are the wages of Hillary Clinton’s war. … Vox.com, a leftist outlet, points out, 1,600 migrants ‘have drowned in the Mediterranean this year.’ Why? Again, according to Vox.com, when Moammar Gadhafi ‘ruled Libya, his government had an agreement with Italy to try to intercept and turn back ships leaving for Europe. … And in the utter chaos that’s engulfed Libya over the past few years, there’s no government entity really capable of patrolling the Mediterranean.’ Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy has promoted chaos around the world. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in her signal foreign policy legacy, the collapsed state of Libya.”
On this date in history: “In God We Trust” — Congress first authorized the official use of this phrase; it became the national motto in 1956
Non Compos Mentis: “People keep saying, ‘We need to have a conversation about race.’ This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back. And I want to see a white man convicted for raping a black woman. Then when you ask me, ‘Is it over?’ I will say yes.” —Pulitzer Prize-winning author Toni Morrison (She wants to see a white unarmed teenager get shot? Isn’t that, by definition, racism? For the record, police are more likely to kill whites than blacks26.)
Dezinformatsia: “Mitch McConnell and others who are trying to obstruct climate protections will be regarded one day in the same way we think of 19th-century apologists for human slavery: How could economic interests blind them to the immorality of their position?” —Lexington Herald-Leader editorial
The BIG Lie: “It is not true that regulation holds poor people down or regulation keeps the middle class from advancing. That’s kind of patently bulls—.” —former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Wayne Crews estimates the regulatory state cost the economy $1.863 trillion in 2013. And we’re supposed to believe that doesn’t have any effect on economic mobility?)
Demo-gogues: “[T]here actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today than there might have been 30-40 years ago. It doesn’t make it any less painful. But things can get better.” —Barack Obama (See, his foreign policy is awesome!)
Late-night humor: “An intruder was arrested at the White House [this week] after trying to jump the fence. Authorities aren’t releasing the fence jumper’s identity, but they did say that she tore her pantsuit.” —Seth Meyers
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Apr. 9, 2015
“Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself.” –Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1747
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Will Boston Bomber Get Death Penalty?1
There never was a question of guilt. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense admitted as much on the first day of trial2. Yesterday, the Boston jury handed down its decision3: The 22-year-old who helped his brother plant pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013 is guilty on all 30 counts. Seventeen of those charges are punishable by the death penalty. Now, the most important part of the trial begins — deciding whether Tsarnaev will get life in a federal prison or be executed. “This [bombing] reminds us, once again, that this is not ordinary crime, it’s not even [an] ordinary enemy; these are people who are irredeemable,” political analyst Charles Krauthammer4 said on Fox News. “Nonetheless, I personally generally oppose the death penalty with some exceptions. I would rather not make him a martyr. Let him serve all his life and contemplate his deeds for decades.” For conservatives, it boils down to one question. Should jurors consider the effect Tsarnaev’s death would have on radical Islamists looking for martyrdom, or should the punishment match the crime?
Footnote: Tsarnaev’s mother said, “America is the real terrorist and everyone knows that,” adding, “My boys are the best of the best.” That explains some things.
SC Police Officer Charged With Murder Thanks to Video5
Thanks to a citizen who filmed an altercation between a South Carolina police officer and a motorist, Rule of Law is being upheld in the death of Walter Scott. On Saturday, Officer Michael Slager of the North Charleston Police Department stopped Scott because of a broken taillight. According to the initial police account, Scott grabbed the officer’s Taser, and in the ensuing struggle Slager feared for his life and shot in self-defense. Officers then administered CPR, according to the police. But a video of the event that emerged earlier this week shows a vastly different story. Unlike the altercation in Ferguson between Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, Scott turned and ran from the officer with what appeared to be the wires of the Taser trailing behind. Slager drew his gun, aimed at the fleeing man, and fired eight times. It appears the officer then planted the Taser next to Scott, and when other officers arrived on the scene, CPR was never given to him. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said at a news conference, “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. If you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.” Slager was charged with murder and fired, which might not have happened without the video. Seems like a good case for body cameras. More…6
With Iran Deal Crumbling, Pelosi Defends Negotiations7
Well that was fast. Before Barack Obama could finish his victory lap around the Rose Garden, Iran announced a couple red lines that could derail the whole nuclear deal crazy train. Mohammad Javad Zarif8, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, said inspectors would not be allowed to photograph or film the country’s nuclear sites, because it would endanger nuclear scientists. Then the country’s Defense Minister, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan9, said there were certain nuclear sites inspectors would be forbidden from entering. He said, “No such agreement has been made; principally speaking, visit to military centers is among our redlines and no such visit will be accepted.” Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate alike are skeptical of Team Obama’s negotiating prowess, as they are pushing a bill10 that says Congress must approve the Iran deal. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stands in their way. She insists11 the “legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement.” Constitutionally, the Senate works with the president to make international treaties. What Congress does with the Iran deal isn’t Pelosi’s business.
U.S. Ships Arms to Yemen, Obama’s Foreign Policy Success Story12
It’s plan B for the Obama administration after the government of Yemen dissolved in the face of warring groups in the nation. A few months ago, al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula was decimated. This week, the Obama administration’s strategy13 is to mitigate threats. Ashton Carter14 told an audience in Tokyo, “AQAP has seized the opportunity of the disorder there and the collapse of the central government. … Obviously it’s always easier to conduct counterterrorism when there’s a stable government in place. That circumstance obviously doesn’t exist in Yemen.” Now, the United States is sidelined, sending precision-guided munitions to the Saudi Arabian-led coalition that is fighting the Houthi rebels. In a twist of fate, Saudi Arabia was targeting U.S. arms in Yemen during its bombing runs because it feared those weapons would fall in the hands of the enemy. Whoever said war was economical? More…15
If Biden Thinks He Makes Too Much, He Should Donate16
It’s funny how the meaning of $200,000 differs from one politician to the next. For the Clintons, $200K is a pittance, a discounted speaking gig for Hillary. But for Joe Biden, that amount is almost too much, probably because he’s echoing his boss’ mantra about “middle-class economics17.” During an appearance at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Biden said, “I make a lot of money now as vice president — I make a lot of money. When the president was thanking everyone for the sacrifices they made when they got us all in the Blair House — after he took office — and the financial sacrifices they made, he looked at me and said, ‘Except for Joe, he’s getting a pay raise.’” Biden needs it. According to the Washington Free Beacon18, Biden doesn’t have a savings account. He never invested in stocks. His mismanagement of finances is a good reason no one should take financial advice from him. But when he leaves office and its $230,700-a-year salary, Biden will receive a pension of about $200,000 a year for life. If he thinks that’s too much, maybe he could do a bit better than the $369 annual average19 he gave to charity over a decade. More…20
For more, visit Right Hooks21.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read Amendment II: In Defense of Liberty22, on how any discussion about the Rights of Man is nothing more than talk unless it includes discourse on the ability to defend those rights.
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here23.
Smelting Down the Water Supply24
Call it potty policy. This week, California took aim at the porcelain throne, mandating that all toilets — along with urinals and faucets — sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2016, conserve water. It’s part of a frantic effort to do anything to manage the state’s severe drought without actually doing what’s needed to manage the state’s severe drought.
While it’s true that California is in the fourth year of below-average precipitation, and that January and March of this year have been particularly dry, neither of these things is fully to blame for the intensity of the drought’s impact. Instead, the culprit is bad government policy and a three-inch fish.
Despite population growth, California has not completed a major water infrastructure project in nearly 50 years. Indeed, Democrats, including Governor Jerry Brown, have opposed state and federal water projects since the 1970s. And while California voters have authorized $22 billion in water bonds since 2000, most of the money has gone to environmental projects and not to safeguarding and improving water supply.
Then there’s the Delta smelt. The little swimmers, whose most appreciated contribution to society arguably comes in conjunction with the word “fried,” have become so revered by ecofascists that they’re willing to imperil the entire state to save them. Delta smelt are native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in northern California, and a federal rule from the 1970s limits diversion of water from this northern delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California — all for the sake of the smelt.
The ridiculousness becomes apparent when you consider that in the past two years more than 2.6 million acre-feet of water were let out into the San Francisco Bay because there was not enough capacity north of the delta to store the water, and the “save the smelt” policies wouldn’t allow the water to be sent to reservoirs south of the delta. So instead, the water was wasted.
Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal notes25, “During normal [rainfall] years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water — enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland — be diverted to ecological purposes.”
And the problem is nothing new. A year ago, California, populated by thriving smelt, was in a similar situation26. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the smelt27 and against diverting much-needed water south. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California took the issue to the Supreme Court, which earlier this year turned down the appeal28, effectively raising a glass to smelt and a finger to California farmers and residents.
The water shortage has become so severe that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which houses about one-third of California’s water reserve, is at a paltry 5% of its normal average. Given smelt priority and the mismanagement of billions intended for water improvement projects, Governor Brown has now instituted the first mandatory water restrictions in the state’s history, requiring cities and towns to cut usage by 25%, with possible fines of up to $10,000 per day for those localities that fail to meet the mandate.
While conserving water will help, it will hardly solve a problem decades in the making. For this, a good lesson is needed in prioritizing humans over fish. Now, please pass the tartar sauce.
Judge Rebukes Obama’s Immigration Deception29
The executive amnesty ordered by Barack Obama last November has been eclipsed in the headlines by his disastrous dealings with Iran. But the story isn’t over.
The amnesty would grant three-year stays of deportation, Social Security numbers and work permits to some illegal aliens, but in February U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen declared that Obama exceeded his authority and blocked the amnesty30.
After further deliberation, Hanen this week declared31 his injunction will remain in place in part because Obama’s lawyers misled the court. The administration revealed two weeks after Hanen’s first ruling that it had already granted more than 100,000 work permits to illegals before the court issued its injunction, and the judge wasn’t too happy. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients,” Hanen wrote, “the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”
“Even worse,” he added [emphasis in the original], the government’s lawyers “urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals under the 2014 DACA amendments despite their statements to the contrary.”
“Thus,” he concluded, “even under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created ‘confusion,’ but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion.”
So incensed was Hanen at this deception that he considered dismissing the case with prejudice, but opted instead for the greater good of settling the constitutional matters at hand through further court hearings. “Under different circumstances,” he wrote, “this Court might very well [consider striking the Government’s pleadings]. The Court, however, finds that the issues at stake here have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in all probability, the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Next week, the Fifth Circuit Court will hear oral arguments in the case. Clearly, Obama has flouted Rule of Law with his smoke and mirrors immigration strategy32, and then misled Congress, the courts and the people to keep it in place. So it certainly bears watching whether the Fifth Circuit takes into account the administration’s deliberate deception.
In related immigration news, Obama’s policies have real world consequences. Word of Obama’s executive amnesty (notwithstanding the nuances of court battles) has surely made the rounds south of the border. “The second wave of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children has begun, with more than 3,000 of them surging across the Mexican border into the U.S. last month — the highest rate since the peak of last summer’s crisis and a warning that another rough season could be ahead,” The Washington Times reports33. “Authorities report having captured 15,647 children traveling without parents who tried to jump the border in the first six months of the fiscal year.”
While those numbers are down a bit from last year’s record surge, 2015 is still on pace to be the second-biggest year on record.
Immigration officials say both violence in Central America and warmer weather are to blame for the influx, and there’s no doubt that’s at least partly true. But again, when the president of the United States issues an executive amnesty, it’s a virtual welcome mat for any who might come illegally — especially children, given Obama’s favorable treatment of them. Specifically, the administration ordered non-Mexican children to be released pending deportation proceedings. Those children rarely show up for hearings and end up staying in the U.S.
Obama himself once said, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” We have no further witnesses, your honor.
For more, visit Right Analysis21.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
George Will: When Everything Is a Crime34
Ann Coulter: Can the Left Come Up With One True Story?35
Jonah Goldberg: Iran Nuke Deal Is No Deal At All36
Larry Elder: Someday the World Will Cry, ‘Why?!’37
Victor Davis Hanson: Is the Modern American University a Failed State?38
For more, visit Right Opinion39.
OPINION IN BRIEF
French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): “In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.”
Columnist George Will: “What began as a trickle has become a stream that could become a cleansing torrent. Criticisms of the overcriminalization of American life might catalyze an appreciation of the toll the administrative state is taking on the criminal justice system, and liberty generally. … There are an estimated 4,500 federal criminal statutes — and innumerable regulations backed by criminal penalties that include incarceration. Even if none of these were arcane, which many are, their sheer number would mean that Americans would not have clear notice of what behavior is proscribed or prescribed. The presumption of knowledge of the law is refuted by the mere fact that estimates of the number of federal statutes vary by hundreds. If you are sent to prison for excavating arrowheads on federal land without a permit, your cellmate might have accidentally driven his snowmobile onto land protected by the Wilderness Act. … Given the principle — which itself should be reconsidered — of prosecutorial immunity, we have a criminal justice system with too many opportunities for generating defendants, too few inhibitions on prosecutors, and ongoing corrosion of the rule and morality of law. Congress, the ultimate cause of all this, has work to undo.”
Columnist Ann Coulter: “Without even knowing that the rape accuser, ‘Jackie,’ had refused to let Rolling Stone check the most basic elements of her narrative, every human being who read Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s piece knew it was nonsense by around the second paragraph. … Her managing editor, Will Dana, admitted that he should have ‘pull(ed) the strings a little harder … question(ed) things a little more deeply.’ Yes, maybe the editors were just not pushing hard enough. It’s as if a doctor attacked his patient with an ax, and the Columbia Medical Review responded with a forensic report concluding that the procedure failed to follow clinical protocols on hand hygiene, scrubs and restricted areas, while the doctor gallantly admitted that mistakes were made. How about not allowing reporters to go off on politically driven crusades against liberal hate-objects, like fraternities, the military and athletes? How about not basing entire stories on the uncorroborated dream sequences of fantasists?”
Comedian Conan O’Brien: “The top 15 contenders for the Republican presidential nomination own at least 40 guns among them. In other words, if we elect a Republican president, nobody is hopping over the White House fence.”
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Walmart’s right to sell firearms and ammunition is being threatened by a lawsuit.
Fox Business Network reporter Adam Shapiro reported on “Fox and Friends First” this morning that a court decision could stop the retail giant from selling guns, which could change the way publicly traded companies do business in the United States.
Shapiro said that Trinity Wall Street Church in New York City owns stock in Walmart.
“The church sued the Walmart when they refused to place a proposal on the shareholder ballot at the annual company meeting,” he explained. “That proposal could be interpreted to force Walmart’s board of directors to suspend the sale of guns and ammunition.”
Shapiro said that the church won the lawsuit and Walmart appealed. The decision on the appeal is due as early as today, he said.
“People who support gun rights say, the first court ruling allows political activists to push whatever agenda they wish at the corporate level, instead of through state and federal law,” he said. “Trinity Wall Street Church says it does not intend to end the sale of products at Walmart.”
Watch the video above to hear more
If You’re a Second Amendment Supporter, This Story Will Scare You
Mar 24, 2015 // 8:08am
As seen on Fox and Friends
A federal program could be “choking off” legal businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
Operation Choke Point is a secretive Obama administration program that was originally intended to help prevent fraud by eliminating access to banks for certain businesses. But now it appears that the program – overseen by the Justice Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies – has been expanded and is being used to target legal businesses that Obama administration officials are opposed to.
Gun store owner Mike Schuetz says the federal government forced his bank to close his recently opened account, all because he’s a legal gun dealer.
Luckily, Schuetz operates a private investigation company and he was able to put his investigatory skills to use and capture chilling audio that reveals why his business was targeted.
Schuetz, who opened Hawkins Guns LLC in Hawkins, Wisconsin, in November 2014, explained to Kimberly Guilfoyle on “Fox and Friends” that he recorded a conversation with Heritage Credit Union, in which the branch manager says that they closed his account because they do not service businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
“It’s a sad day in America when this can happen to you,” Schuetz told Guilfoyle. “I didn’t realize how big of an issue it was until I started investigating what had happened to me.”
Schuetz said that he hopes a Capitol Hill hearing today will bring light to the situation, put the controversy to rest and hold those behind the Operation Choke Point program accountable.
Watch more on this outrageous story above.