Category: Freedom of speech freedom of religion


Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwiches Are Now…. RACIST?
By TPIWriter

With so many sensitive “politically correct” problems now, we’re now living in a society where even FOOD can be deemed racist. I’m not kidding!

Principal Verenice Guiterrez, who certainly voted for Obama, runs the Harvey Scott School (K-8) in Portland, Oregon. And she has made an announcement that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist!

Why? Because, as Principal Guiterrez explained, this effort was made to, “improve education for students of color.” She noted that some students – such as those from Mexico or Somalia – haven’t eaten bread in their culture. Instead, they eat pitas, tortas, and other bread substitutes.

Therefore, the serving of delicious PB&Js is a brazen display of white privilege. The Principal wants to cancel out this supposed racial privilege and “change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.”

How is this possible? Food can’t make racial comments… And a sandwich can’t even watch The Dukes of Hazzard. It is two slices of bread, with your favorite jelly and crunchy or creamy peanut butter. Most children think they are delicious, and I bet you probably still eat them.

They are nutritious, full of energy, and are cheap. That’s why millions of people eat PB&Js every day!

I wonder if I should rush to the store and buy whole grain wheat bread. Perhaps that would boost my kitchen’s racial diversity?

This has gone too far. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are not racist and children should be allowed to eat them.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/peanut-butter-jelly-sandwiches-are-now-racist/#ixzz3fKOiFpSr

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36236
Daily Digest

Jul. 7, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis W. Gilmer, 1816

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Obama Plans to Debate Islamic State Into Submission1

Barack Obama should be more up front with what he’s trying to do to the Islamic State. Why doesn’t he just say he’s practicing a strategy of non-intervention? On Monday, Obama touted the “success” of his strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State. Still, he had one caveat2: “Our strategy recognizes that no amount of military force will end the terror that is ISIL unless it’s matched by a broader effort — political and economic — that addresses the underlying conditions that have allowed ISIL to gain traction. … Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida, it’s going to also require us to discredit their ideology. This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they’re defeated by better ideas — a more attractive and more compelling vision.” Clearly, we didn’t win independence from Britain with superior debating skills, nor did we defeat the Nazis or Soviets with speeches. Debate works amidst a civil society, but not when one side is enslaving minorities, burning prisoners alive and beheading others, while vowing further violence against people with whom it disagrees. On the flip side, if Obama believes no further debate can be had and the gloves must come off, there’s always the IRS.

South Carolina Nears Removing Confederate Flag3

The nation is one step closer to finally solving the racism Rubik’s cube once and for all. No, not really, but the South Carolina Senate did just vote 37-3 to remove what’s commonly known as the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds. After a formality of a third vote, the measure moves to the state House, and what Republican Gov. Nikki Haley recently said was not “going to be easy” or “painless” will have turned out to be rather easy and relatively painless. The debate over the flag4 began with the horrific murders of nine blacks at a church in Charleston by a racist thug who took a picture with a Confederate flag. As far as public debate was concerned, that cemented the connection between the flag and racism. It’s one thing to remove the flag from state grounds — a flag put there by a Democrat governor, by the way, and kept there in a compromise supported by slain Rev. Clementa Pinckney. But it’s something else entirely to try to purge the flag from every store shelf, TV show or NASCAR race, while leaving untouched symbols of Nazism and Communism — ideologies that still exist and are still killing people. The bottom line is that the Left is intent on blaming all Southerners — especially Republicans — for slavery and all racism.

No, Polar Bears Won’t Face Existential Threat Within 10 Years5

In 2009, then-Sen. John Kerry said, “Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013.” In that same year, Al Gore reiterated the claim: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Without ice, polar bears have a tough time surviving, and sadly we had to bid farewell to this wonderful creature a few short years ago because we failed to heed the warning. Actually, no, that’s not at all true. Not only has the Arctic retained a considerable amount of ice in recent summers, but polar bears are thriving6. Earlier this year, Dr. Susan Crockford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation discovered, “On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears. Scientists are finding that they are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice. Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey.” With roughly 25,000 polar bears estimated to be roaming the Arctic, up from 5,000 in the ‘60s, the alarm should over. But it’s not.

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey, computer models suggest nearly one-third of polar bears could be wiped off the planet in 10 years as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Let’s get this straight: The same scientific lobby that warned decades ago polar bears would be extinct by now — but which instead grew in population — are now telling us that a significant percentage of bears could face eradication within a decade based on computer models. The same computer models that utterly failed to forecast the current 18-year-old global warming hiatus. That kind of logic is enough to make even a polar bear do a facepalm.

 

Sanctuary Cities and Obama’s Failed Immigration Policies9

By Paul Albaugh

Last Wednesday in San Francisco, an illegal immigrant named Francisco Sanchez murdered Kathryn Steinle. While Sanchez alone is responsible for his crime, Steinle just might be alive had it not been for bad immigration policy from the Obama administration, and likewise the city of San Francisco.

The fact is Sanchez should not have been in the United States at all. Sanchez had already been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times10 before this murder. Yet he chose San Francisco as his dwelling because it’s a “sanctuary city.”

Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, that is. Cities like San Francisco that adopt such policies typically don’t necessarily seek out undocumented immigrants, but they also don’t enforce deportation, which yields the same result. These cities — primarily run by Democrats — have a policy in place that benefits illegal aliens at the expense of citizens. Such a policy is detrimental to these communities, as evidenced by this recent killing, and the politicos responsible for this terrible policy should be held accountable.

Democrats, of course, claim creating sanctuary cities is good policy. One such enlightened progressive is Hillary Clinton, who claimed in a 2007 speech at Dartmouth College that sanctuary cities help to ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.” (Note the particular irony of using the word “citizens.”) Furthermore, she claimed that if local police officers acted like immigration enforcement officers, then people would be hiding from the police instead of reporting crime.

We’re still waiting for the Leftmedia to question Hillary on her continued support of this policy, but the noise from Donald Trump’s recent bombast on immigration seems to be drowning that out. It would be a prime opportunity for serious conservative candidates to say something about the failed policy of sanctuary cities, but so far most of them are missing it.

Sanctuary cities aren’t the only problem with immigration policy. There is a massive problem at the federal level too, which is one of the reasons Sanchez wasn’t kept out of the U.S. for good. Yet he is just one of the many illegal immigrants who remain in or return to the U.S. because of a faulty deportation process.

Recent documents11 from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) show that “about 900,000 undocumented immigrants, including 170,000 criminals, have been ordered deported ‘in absentia,’ meaning a judge kicked them out without them even knowing it.” How can someone be deported for being here illegally when they don’t even know they have been ordered to leave?

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at CIS, notes, “[E]ven those immigrants who are in court to receive their removal orders are not immediately removed. Instead, they are often told to report in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — but often vanish.”

Certainly there could be more and better detention centers to hold these illegal aliens. After all, does anyone really think that someone who is here illegally would turn themselves into Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Apparently the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t see the need for more detention facilities, as it has sought new rules that will loosen detention policies.

According to a recent DHS release, “[O]nce a family has established eligibility for asylum or other relief under our laws, long-term detention is an inefficient use of our resources and should be discontinued.” Can the Department of Homeland Security explain how this bolsters homeland security?

Not surprisingly, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest took to the stage Monday to not only defend the administration’s immigration policies but to blast Republicans for blocking “common-sense” immigration reform.

Of course, Obama’s version of common-sense immigration reform12 was nonsense. Democrats have made the issue of immigration a divisive one for their own political benefit. Forget security, they are worried about votes.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to do a better job at explaining how they are going to fix immigration policy. And there are basically four points to drive home:

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrat lackeys are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. Allowing 5-10 million immigrants to compete for low-wage jobs is certainly not consistent with that agenda.

Second, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. That includes eliminating sanctuary cities. As Ronald Reagan declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

In the end, Americans like Kathryn Steinle shouldn’t pay the ultimate price for Democrats’ vote-buying schemes.

 

OPINION IN BRIEF

Cal Thomas: “The ‘culture wars,’ while well-intentioned, were a mistake from the beginning. Evangelical Christians, whose Leader said, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world,’ thought they could organize people of like mind and like faith and create a voting bloc to elect people who would impose something resembling that other kingdom on people who do not see themselves as members of that kingdom. Given the number of politicians who seem to have difficulty imposing a moral code of any sort on themselves, such a strategy was doomed from the start. Why didn’t they learn from previous ‘moral improvement’ movements that if one wants to change culture, one must first change individuals? For evangelical Christians that can only be done by the transformation of the heart, soul and mind, something that is beyond the power of secular — or even religious — politicians. … The country grows increasingly secular in part because conservative evangelicals gave the impression that being born again means instant adoption into the Republican Party. … [T]his isn’t about surrender; it is about enlisting in a different ‘army,’ using more powerful nonpolitical weapons. Google ‘Beatitudes’ and see what I mean. Practice them and observe the impact they have on the culture.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.” —English philosopher William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879)

Upright: “Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race. Even the leading moral and religious thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life. … What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage. That was not yet a majority view among Americans in the 18th century, but it was not even a serious minority view in non-Western societies at that time.” —Thomas Sowell

Gun rights: “The discussion over the debate to own a gun is just ridiculous. As Americans we have the right to bear arms and as humans the right to protect ourselves. I’m sure that the man who shot my husband did not have a gun permit. Criminals will always have guns. The rest of us legally obtain our gun permits. If you don’t want to carry, please don’t. Then, shut the f— up about it.” —former CNN anchor Lynne Russell, whose husband killed an armed assailant last week25

And last… “Solution to Supreme Court is make it like jury duty. Grab people off the street to rule based on plain meaning of language in Constitution. The Constitution is a frick’n six page document. Doesn’t require years as a judge to understand anymore than rules to Monopoly.” —Frank Fleming

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.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36226
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2015/07/06/president-obama-provides-update-our-campaign-degrade-and-destroy-isil
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36232
http://patriotpost.us/articles/35952
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36167
http://patriotpost.us/posts/33553
http://patriotpost.us/humor/36202
http://patriotpost.us/manage/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36235
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/how-unusual-is-francisco-sanchez-case-the-facts-about-illegal-immigrants-and-crimes/
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/wrd-9-22-14_0.pdf
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/31108
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36224
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36210
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36212
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36211
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36213
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36214
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36218
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36222
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36221
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36219
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36216
http://patriotpost.us/opinion
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36166

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36208
Daily Digest

Jul. 6, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families.” —Benjamin Rush, letter to His Fellow Countrymen: On Patriotism, 1773

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Greece Faces Hard Economic Times of Its Own Making1

Ah, the innocence of short-term groupthink. Sixty-one percent of Greeks voted Sunday to resist the economic demands of international creditors. In doing so, the Greeks are strumming their Bouzoukis2 right into a steaming pile of economic mess. How could they not? International creditors are telling the country to cut its spending, telling the country how to spend its money. And the birthplace of democracy has figured out it can vote itself into regulatory tyranny and a death by entitlement spending. A vote against accepting the repayment plan is a vote for Greece’s bull-headed independence, whatever the consequences. Well, the consequences are dire for the country with the economic clout of Connecticut, as there’s a good chance it will be booted from the Eurozone3. Greece’s pile of rubble for an economy will disintegrate even further because it may try to resurrect its own currency, the drachma. Cue the inflation, cold creditors and hard times. While Greece’s plight sounds like the international version of a shopper with five-too-many credit cards, America should not be quick to laugh4. Our entitlement spending is increasing our $18 trillion federal debt. Meanwhile, the Greek government plans on going back to the rest of Europe to ask for another bailout5, a move that sounds like it will go over like a lead balloon.

10 Holiday Murders in Chicago, Not One by Confederate Flag6

Chicago had yet another bloody weekend, as some 64 were shot and 10 killed. Amazingly, this Independence Day weekend was a bit better than last year’s tragic numbers7, and not terribly different from any weekend on the shores of Lake Michigan. Leftists continue to cry for something to be done — “Where are the gun laws?” demands Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. But the Windy City sports some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws. Leftists often blame out-of-state guns, but, clearly, this isn’t a “gun problem8.” It’s also worth noting that none of the gangbangers doing the shooting were flying Confederate flags9, which, we gather from leftist drivel, are responsible for the Charleston murders last month. From the South Carolina state capitol to Amazon and TV Land, the Confederate flag is being purged from society, as if the Left’s politically correct exorcism can heal all racial wounds. Yet there’s nary a peep about the plague of inner city black-on-black violence created by deliberately institutionalized urban poverty plantations10, which have become mass breeding grounds for such violence.

CNN Bites the Bullet, Reports Two Former Employees Saved by Gun11

How hard must it have been for CNN to report this story12: “A former CNN reporter was wounded three times Tuesday night during a deadly shootout with a man who allegedly tried to rob him and his wife in a New Mexico motel room. Chuck de Caro and his wife, former Headline News anchor and CNN correspondent Lynne Russell, were on a road trip and spending the night at an Albuquerque motel when de Caro killed the man during what Russell called an attempted robbery.” No charges will be filed against Caro, who clearly acted in self-defense. “I am really proud of him,” Russell said. “I thank him over and over for saving my life. He really is my hero.” Of course, if the network itself had its way with guns, as typified by former anchor and anti-gun zealot Piers Morgan, this pair wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves, and CNN would be reporting about the deaths of two former CNN employees.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Oregon Bakers Fined, Silenced for Hurting Lesbians’ Feelings13

By Nate Jackson

Not only do Christians who oppose same-sex marriage no longer have their religious liberty, they no longer have the right to free speech. At least that’s what an Oregon judge decided in the case of the bakers who refused to bake the cake for a same-sex wedding. Expect the beatings to continue until morale improves because this is what happens when “love wins14.”

In February 2013, Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned the now-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa, declined to bake a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. At the time, same-sex marriage wasn’t even yet legal in Oregon, but no matter — the offended couple filed a complaint.

In January 2014, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which enforces discrimination law, decided the Kleins illegally discriminated.

Last Thursday, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian issued his final decision on the punishment — just in time for Independence Day, and only days after the Supreme Court endorsed “gay marriage.”15 The Kleins must pay a fine of $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the couple they denied service. The alleged suffering included — no kidding — “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “loss of sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

Clearly, this couple needs serious counseling, not $135,000.

And to add gratuitous insult to unbelievably ridiculous injury for the Kleins, Avakian put a gag order on them. That’s not terribly surprising, given Avakian’s previously stated desire to “rehabilitate” the Kleins and his association with “Basic Rights Oregon,” a pro-homosexual group. Avakian wrote, “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation.”

The only thing missing was the horse’s head in their bed.

The gag order is somewhat moot because the Kleins already lost their business to the Rainbow Mafia, but it may still affect the orders they take from home.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins responded. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

But some rights are more equal than others16. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian declared. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

Avakian is dead wrong. The Kleins declined to endorse same-sex marriage by providing particular services for the couple’s wedding — they did not entirely refuse to serve them because of their gender disorientation pathology17.

It’s no small irony that all of this came to a head just before Independence Day. Our nation was founded by pilgrims seeking religious freedom. Our Declaration of Independence18 cites “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” both of which are violated by same-sex marriage. And yet here we are with Rule of Law turned on its head to suit the feelings of the offended.

But the Kleins aren’t going quietly. They wrote, “We will NOT give up this fight, and we will NOT be silenced. We stand for God’s truth, God’s word and freedom for ALL Americans. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!”

The Kleins’ resolve reminds us of the Declaration itself, whose signers declared, “[F]or the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” We pray they ultimately succeed, and we exhort like-minded Patriots to have such a relentless attitude in the battle for Liberty.

 

OPINION IN BRIEF

Stephen Moore: “[H]ere’s the dirty little secret that motorists aren’t being told: the so-called highway funding shortfall is a hoax. … The problem is that Congress steals money from the highway trust fund to finance projects that have nothing to do with roads. Overall, about 20 cents of every federal gas tax dollar underwrites non-highway projects like mass transit, bike paths, high-speed rail and bus lines. Think about that the next time you plunge into a watermelon-sized pothole. This year alone roughly $8 billion of highway trust fund money will be raided and used for mass transit projects. Funding rail and buses with the gas tax violates the principle that those who use the infrastructure should pay for it. … Then there is the federal Davis Bacon Act that requires effectively a ‘prevailing wage’ be spent on all federal road projects. This adds as much as 20 percent to the cost of building a road. We could get a free bridge for every five we build, if we could repeal this SOP to the unions. If Congress would implement these two measures alone they could fully fund the interstate roads America needs. … The gas tax is supposed to be a user fee to pay for roads. Right now it pays for Washington waste. The gas tax hike isn’t about roads; it’s about Congress making another bipartisan raid of taxpayers’ wallets.”

SHORT CUTS

The Gipper: “I hope that when you’re my age you’ll be able to say, as I have been able to say: we lived in freedom, we lived lives that were a statement, not an apology.”

Alpha Jackass: “[Clarence Thomas] is a clown in black face sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there. … He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.” —Star Trek actor George Takei, who doubled down before finally apologizing (“It’s one thing to critique Thomas’ positions. I do all the time. But to suggest that’s he’s [a] ‘blackface clown’ and ‘unqualified’ is wrong.” —liberal pundit Marc Lamont Hill)

From the expert on making things up: “They are good people but their ideas are bad. They will be making a whole bunch of stuff up.” —Barack Obama on the Republican field and the economy

Let them eat cake: “I’m not the type to have [guns] in my house. The security at the front of my house might but not in my house. I truly honestly believe we don’t have strict enough gun control laws and it would change a lot.” —Kim Kardashian (Guns for her guards but not for you commoners.)

The BIG Lie: “If we don’t get a deal, if we don’t have a [nuclear] deal [with Iran], if there’s absolute intransigence, if there’s an unwillingness to move on the things that are important, President Obama has always said we’ll be prepared to walk away.” —Secretary of State John Kerry, who really, really wants a deal, on tomorrow’s deadline

Dezinformatsia: “American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.” —Vox’s Dylan Matthews

And last… “Speaking about a new State Department report, John Kerry said ‘the United States has room to improve’ on human rights. OK, so where are we coming up short? Beheadings or stonings?” —Fred Thompson

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.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36199

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/05/as-greece-votes-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nations-crisis/
http://nypost.com/2015/07/05/think-greece-cant-happen-here-youre-wrong/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/polls-close-in-greek-referendum-1436113280
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36204
http://patriotpost.us/articles/27331
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/8675
http://patriotpost.us/articles/35952
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14816
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36166
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/new-mexico-motel-shooting/index.html
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36206
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36076
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36045
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36084
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2804
http://patriotpost.us/documents/28
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36198
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36196
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36186
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36165
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36168
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36164
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36181
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36182
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36189
http://patriotpost.us/opinion

GOP Finally Showing Some Chutzpah Over Gay Marriage Ruling with HUGE New Bill
July 2, 2015 By Colleen Conley

Well, it’s about time.
After the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is the law of the land in all 50 states, concerns arose about the legal status and obligations of religious institutions which clashed with the LGBT agenda.

Specifically, would churches and other religious entities be forced to participate in something with which it’s teachings and dogma were at odds? And if these institutions refused to participate, what would be the consequences?

It seems the Republican party has finally awakened, and has shown some testicular fortitude in its efforts to stand up in favor of religious institutions’ First Amendment rights.

Just days after the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would ensure nobody could be discriminated against based on their views on gay marriage.

Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced a bill, H.R. 2802 Labrador, to “prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”

The bill would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and organizations that believed in traditional marriage.

It would strictly forbid any attempt to “alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”

Other things defined as discriminatory actions by the bill would be to “disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person … withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person … withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or … otherwise discriminate against such person.”

The bill also provided avenues of judicial relief, essentially defining the process by which those wronged could seek redress.

With a clearly divided and passionate electorate, it will be interesting to see if Obama will advocate for the equal protection of believers, as he has the special interest groups that are part of the liberal base. Or are some groups more equal than others?

Unite or Die: States’ Rights Movement Gaining Ground
July 6, 2015 By Colleen Conley

There are stirrings of a “new” old movement afoot. IT’S ABOUT TIME.
The latest Rasmussen Poll shows that a growing number of Americans want their state governments to tell the Supreme Court to hit the road and stop rewriting the Constitution. In other words, the “Don’t Tread On Me” culture is gaining steam.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

In 2009, the Tea Party movement arose in response to a grossly over-bloated and tyrannical federal government which was clearly no longer accountable to the people who it purports to represent.

Diffuse and truly grassroots – in spite of what it’s detractors say – the tea party’s everyday working Americans who believe in a limited, constitutional government and fiscal sanity stood up to say ‘Enough!’ in every corner of the nation. But despite election wins that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment has instead aligned with the forces of statism.

More than ever, there now exists two Americas -one in which individual liberty is still revered, the other where statism and dependency are the norm.

We now have an executive branch which tramples the Constitution on a regular basis, a legislative branch beholden to corporations and maintaining their own power, and a Supreme Court comprised of elitist Ivy League graduates who are molded by an alarmingly leftist-run academia.

SCOTUS’ rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, along with Republican passage of fast track of Obamatrade, all in the same week, forced conservatives to sit up a take note. It is now readily apparent that Washington DC is now aligned against the notion of limited government and constrained federal power.

But our Founders did not leave us without recourse. Those who represented the states in ratifying the Constitution were supremely suspicious of federal powers, so much so that it took much internal wrangling to finally get the document signed. And it was the 10th Amendment that secured its passage.

The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:

“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.”

The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.

Various options are being bandied about, such as an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution that would limit federal powers by requiring ratification by the states.

Conservative author Charles Murray has advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.

But our best option is to use the tool with which our Founders had the foresight to provide us – the power of the 10th amendment. For it to be effective, we need bold governors and state legislatures to follow through and ultimately work together to rein in the federal government.

Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives. And, importantly, it does not require secession from the union.

Ben Franklin warned that we have “a republic, ma’am, if we can keep it.” If states do not act to limit the role of the federal government to that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, WE will have lost the greatest experiment in governance the world has ever seen.

Do you want that hanging over your head?

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Best of the Web Today
OPINION
Lois Lerner for President
Mrs. Clinton’s email deceit gets worse.

BY JAMES TARANTO
The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt has been doing some excellent reporting on the Hillary Clinton email scandal, but one has to wonder if his editors are holding him back. Buried on page A14 of today’s paper is a story that begins as follows:

Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters last month that the memos about Libya she received while secretary of state from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime adviser whom the Obama administration had barred her from hiring, had been “unsolicited.”
But email records that Mrs. Clinton, according to officials briefed on the matter, apparently failed to turn over to the State Department last fall show that she repeatedly encouraged Mr. Blumenthal to “keep ’em coming,” as she said in an August 2012 reply to a memo from him, which she called “another keeper.”
All or part of 15 Libya-related emails she sent to Mr. Blumenthal were missing from the trove of 30,000 that Mrs. Clinton provided to the State Department last year, as well as from the 847 that the department in turn provided in February to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The emails were reviewed by a reporter.
Much more interesting than the content of the emails, though, is the confirmation that Mrs. Clinton was not telling the truth when she said the following at her March 10 press conference:

After I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department.
Schmidt had already broken on Friday (albeit back on page A18) the story that “15 emails . . . were missing from records that she has turned over.” But the even more damning detail is mentioned only in passing in both stories—in the third paragraph of today’s, and the sixth paragraph of Friday’s, to wit:

Of the 15 Blumenthal emails in question, only nine were missing in their entirety. Printouts of the other six were turned over with parts missing , which would mean they were identified as official emails and then redacted by somebody in Mrs. Clinton’s employ. That points even more clearly to an active effort at withholding evidence than do entirely missing emails, which might be put down, however unconvincingly, to mere sloppiness.

The full set of 15 emails, Schmidt reports, was “discovered after Mr. Blumenthal turned over to the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks his own batch of Libya-related email correspondence with Mrs. Clinton.” If Mrs. Clinton told the truth when she said she had destroyed the server that held the emails—a big if, though the assertion doesn’t strain credulity as far as some of her other claims—then there is no way of knowing the extent of the coverup.

Complaint says crosses at Catholic school offensive, prevent Muslim prayers
posted by
image: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/files/2011/10/John-Garvey.jpg

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
Daily Digest
Apr. 29, 2015

THE FOUNDATION
“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.”

SHORT CUTS
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.

Links
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34895
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/28/supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-gay-marriage-kennedy-a-surprise-skeptic-on-ssm/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling.html?ref=politics
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/no-clear-answers-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34889
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html?ref=us
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/more-gunfire-erupts-after-one-shot-amid-protest-in-ferguson/article_20958339-2ed0-577d-a80d-ba0959137074.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/28/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-abe-japan-joint-press-confere
http://www.wsj.com/articles/national-guard-deployed-in-baltimore-amid-riots-after-freddie-grays-funeral-1430218096
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34880
http://patriotpost.us/articles/34794
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-presses-case-for-asia-trade-deal-warns-failure-would-benefit-china-1430160415
http://patriotpost.us/articles/34893
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scenes-from-gay-marriage-1430177356
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34891
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34879
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34878
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34877
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34875
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34888
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34885
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34884
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34882
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34851
http://patriotpost.us/opinion

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.”