Advertisements
Home

The Left Repeats “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Tactic on the State of Indiana

Leave a comment

This is from Rush Limbaugh.com.

Rush is this article explains  the Religious Freedom Restoration Act here in Indiana.

I want to ask or two of the liberals bitching about this law.

Would you sue a Muslim butcher to force him to process a hog that violates his religious beliefs?

I will answer that question for you no you would not violate the Muslims religious beliefs.

So why are you so Hell Bent on violating Christians religious beliefs?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go to Indiana and discuss this supposedly controversial Indiana religious freedom law. It’s made to order for the modern-day Drive-By Media.  On Saturday and Sunday, ABC, CBS, NBC — virtually every mainstream media organization — condemned a new law in Indiana that would protect private businesses from government infringement on their religious freedom.  What this means is that the Obama administration wants to do away — and the media is assisting — with the whole notion of free markets, the Constitution, and the freedom of religion clause.The administration wants the power to mandate everything as much as they can.  Now, the news organizations — ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the others — just had a collective cow over this.  And rather than provide any kind of balance, rather than explain the history and the context and the true meaning and detail of the Indiana law, they predictably began to trash the legislation andIndianans as a bunch of bigots opening the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.http://www.mrctv.org/videos/big-three-mercilessly-attack-controversial-indiana-religious-freedom-lawEven the CEO of Apple, Inc., Tim Cook took to the pages of the Washington Post and wrote an editorial condemning this kind of legislation — not just in Indiana, but wherever it might be — and making it out to be example of the worst instincts among us that we have here discriminating against people, and it’s so un-American and so forth.  Mr. Snerdley me asked me today, “When’s the last time Tim Cook wrote an op-ed in the Shanghai Daily News ripping the ChiComs?”

I mean, the ChiComs impinge on everybody’s freedom, particularly religious freedom in China.  Of course it’s a major, major Apple market.  I happened to think about it when Snerdley asked me the question. I can’t think of the time when an Apple executive…  All I can think of when it comes to ChiComs is Google caving to the ChiComs on what kind of search results will not be seen and produced by Google when Chinese citizens are searching.

But what is fascinating about this, and it’s becoming an even more prevalent reality.  On the one hand, on any issue, we have the reality.  We have facts, we have history, we have context, we have truth.  On the other hand, we have the absence of all of that, the misrepresentation of the facts, misrepresentation of the truth, misrepresentation of the context. In addition to that, then the media is hyping it all with a bunch of emotional propaganda that is designed specifically to misinform people bunch of about what has happened, particularly this case, this law in Indiana.

It’s like everybody’s forgotten the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.  It’s like it never happened!  Does anybody remember this, or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which the Supreme Court upheld last year in the Hobby Lobby case?  Everybody’s acting like that’s not the law of the land.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (Democrat-New York) on March 11, 1993; it was passed by a unanimous House of Representatives and a near unanimous Senate.

There were only three dissenting votes, and it was eagerly signed into law by none other than Slick Willie, a law that is practically identical to what happened in Indiana.  If you want another similarity, it’s like what happened to Arizona.  Arizona passes some immigration law that pretty much paralleled, reflected — maybe even you could say copied — federal immigration law. The reason Arizona did it was that the federal government was not enforcing its law.

The borders were wide open.

There was no effort being made to curb illegal immigration in Arizona, so in Arizona passed a law that held (for the most part) the identical circumstances in it that federal law does.  And Obama sued the state of Arizona!  But there was nothing in the Arizona law that had not already passed the United States Congress and been signed into law by numerous American presidents.  And it’s the same thing here.  The Indiana law isn’t anything new, and the Supreme Court has affirmed in the Hobby Lobby case.

When the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. There’s literally nothing new that’s happened here in Indiana that hasn’t already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed US Congress and been signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton.  But you would think… Because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity.  What we’ve got here, folks, if I may draw… It’s not the perfect analogy, but it’s pretty close.

We’ve got “hands up, don’t shoot,” except in this case it’s supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders, and that’s not what it is.  It’s a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed.  But you see, it’s selective outrage. Remember the case involving peyote?  Remember that, Mr. Snerdley?  A bunch of Native Americans wanted an exemption from federal laws against marijuana and similar things like peyote ’cause it was part of their religion.

Peyote was required, they said, for certain religious ceremonies.  They got an exemption.  Peyote was claimed legal because it was said that we could not infringe on the religious freedoms of Native Americans.  I remember when that argument came up because then everybody said, “You know what’s gonna happen now? Every crackpot and oddball out there is gonna claim everything he’s doing is because of his religion as a means of getting away with it.”  Now we’ve done an absolute 180.

Now a law passed to affirm the religious freedom of the people of Indiana has been restated, and the media is telling you that the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence — who we know here; he’s a good guy, he’s a good man — and the people of Indiana have decided that they don’t like gays and they don’t want gays anywhere in the state and they don’t want gays doing business there. So the gays say, “Fine! You don’t want us here? We’ll leave, and we’re gonna take all our business with us.”

That’s not what the law is.

But that’s how it’s being construed, that’s how it’s being portrayed. On one side we’ve got the facts, the history, the context, and it doesn’t matter.  Over here we have what the media is saying about it. It’s purely emotional. It is driving people’s emotions and is creating almost a replica of the lie that “hands up, don’t shoot” was.  As I say, it’s not a perfect analogy, but terms helping you to understand what’s going on here, it might work.

More when we come back, more details, plus some comments from Governor Pence.  He was on This Week yesterday. He was on This Week with Stephanopoulos, and the Drive-Bys have been playing segments of it all day, and they’ve been claiming, “Boy, this guy, Pence? What an idiot! My God, he should never have gone on TV! Why, this guy looks like an absolute troglodyte.  This is one of the worst interviews we have ever seen.  This guy just dug his own grave and started shoveling the dirt on himself!”

That’s how bad they tried to portray it, because Pence was again dealing with, “Here’s what the law is and these are the facts,” and that doesn’t matter to people over here who are attempting to further an agenda — and, I might add further, the brand destruction of Republicans and the GOP.  By the way, this is how and why a bunch of mainstream Republicans are running around all saying, “We’ve gotta get rid of social issues! We’ve just got to! We can’t win a thing with abortion and gay rights! We gotta get rid of social issues. We gotta stick to economic matters.”

They don’t want to have these battles.

They don’t care if we’ve got facts and history and context on our side.  They don’t even want to engage.  They just want to sweep the social issues off the table and declare defeat.  “Let the left have whatever they want socially. Let ’em have whatever they want.  We want to win elections and we can’t if our party is identified with the social crap.  This the media knows, and this the Democrat Party knows, and this is why they continue to hammer the stuff even though none of what they’re saying — or very little of it — has any basis in truth.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Adam in Anderson, Indiana, you’re first today on the phones, and it’s great to have you here.  Hello.

CALLER:  Thanks, Rush.  Hey, a big pleasure to talk to you.  I’m 34-years-old, so I guess I’m an old Millennial, but I’ve been listening to you since 1998, since I was eight years old.

RUSH:  I appreciate that.  I’m sure it’s helped you well, too.

CALLER:  Well, I have a little bit of insight on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act being that I live in Indiana. I’ve lived here for about eight years, and I grew up in Illinois, but had a few people who don’t agree with me on a lot of issues say that it’s an open door for discrimination and all that type of thing.  And I just look at them, and I say, “Really?”  And they say, “Yeah, you know, our president, Barack Obama, he would never okay that or agree with that or believe in that.”  And I said, “Really?”  I said, “In 1998 in Illinois it’s been the law, state law in Illinois since 1998.”  I said, “There was actually a state senator in 1998 who actually voted for that.”  I said, “I can’t remember his name.” And I said, “Oh, yeah, it was Barack Hussein Obama.”

RUSH:  And what did they say to that, when you tell ’em?

CALLER:  They just get real quiet and then they go, “Are you sure?” I go, “Yeah, you can look it up if you want.”

RUSH:  Well, they either accuse you of making it up and if they then think you didn’t make it up, well, Obama’s changed, he doesn’t think that any more. Troglodytes like you think it, but Obama doesn’t think it anymore by virtue of what’s happened now.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  Here’s the thing.  You get in an argument with people who believe what they believe that have nothing to do with facts, if you start throwing facts at ’em you’re never gonna — I mean, I don’t blame you for doing it, don’t misunderstand, but you’re not gonna persuade ’em, because they aren’t dealing with facts.  Facts, context, history, are not in any way relevant to what they think.  So you can give ’em every fact in the world that would disabuse them of every notion they’ve got. You can tell them they’re wrong here, you’re wrong there, you’re wrong, doesn’t matter, because they, in their minds, are good people, and their intentions matter, and so they’re not discriminating and you are, and that’s it.

Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA School of Law.  He has a website called the Volokh Conspiracy.  In fact, he even has a blog at the Washington Post.  I have a post here from the Volokh Conspiracy in December 2013 from his archives called, “What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?”  In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws subject to strict scrutiny.  Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

Now, I can tell you that your average low-information voter has no idea what I just read, no idea what I just said, and no idea what this means and never will understand what this means.  But the vote for this proposition, as I just mentioned, was unanimous in the House.  It was 97-3 in the Senate.  And basically what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was is what just happened in Indiana, pretty much on par.  Back in 1993, a Democrat president signed into law, a unanimous House passed it in the Senate, 97-3.  It was meant to apply to all branches of government and both to federal and state law.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  There’s many aspects to it, but this is made to order for the Democrat Party and left wing gay activist fundraising, and that’s another element of this so-called righteous indignant opposition.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Yes, of course it’s frustrating.  What are you gonna do, though?  All you can do is tell people the truth and then that’s it.  I mean, I can’t assemble everybody that lives in this country and put ’em in a room and tell ’em the truth and have ’em leave thinking they know it all.  I would love for that to be able to happen, but I can’t do it.

Greetings, and welcome back.  Great to have you.  Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

Folks, it really is frustrating. This whole thing with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what happened in Indiana, I’m not kidding, on the one side we have facts, truth, history, context.  Over here we’ve got something not related to that at all that is sufficing as the news of the day on this.

So all I can do is come here and give you the facts, give you the truth of the history of this and what this means, and beyond that if the primary conveyors of information in this country are gonna abandon that and ignore it, then there’s nothing that can be done about it.  You just throw it open and you have to trust that at some point the truth will out.

By the way, greetings, and welcome back.  800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.

Let me continue with the history of this, because I want you to realize here that what Indiana has done is they’re just the latest.  They’re not setting any trends here, and they’re certainly not blazing any trails.  In one sense they’re just the next in line, Johnny-come-latelies.

Again, now, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws.  Let me translate that for you.  In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave people the religious right to invoke their religious principles and be exempt from applicable laws in the process if they were in fact invoking religious principles.

That’s all that Indiana has done here, has simply affirmed that on a state basis, which many other states have done before.  When Bill Clinton signed this bill back in 1993, let me read to you what he said. (imitating Clinton) “The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen.”  That’s what Bill Clinton said.  Kid you not.

Now, what it was about back then was letting Indian kids smoke peyote.  That’s all it was about.  I brought up peyote for a reason.  That’s what the religious freedom restoration act was all about was peyote, Indians, Native Americans claiming that they were exempt from the law making it illegal because it was part of their religion, and the US Congress affirmed that unanimously in the House, and by 97-3 in the Senate.

Even after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many members of the Native American church still had issues using peyote in their ceremonies, which led to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  There were some amendments to it in 1994 which state this.  “The use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation.”

And Bill Clinton said, while signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, he said, “The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen.”  This was about peyote.  Just to show you how things change, it’s a Democrat president admittedly in his first year invoking God.  God is perceived to be the problem now with the current Democrat Party.

This is an example of a law coming back to bite you.  But everybody back then was so eager for the Indian vote and so eager to be on the side of the angels where a minority was concerned, that when the Indians said, “You can’t take away our peyote.  It’s part of our religion.”  They were granted exemption from the law.  That’s all that’s happened in Indiana.

Now, folks, look, I could spend all three hours on this if I wanted to.  The bottom line is the facts are the facts.  The law is the law.  And that’s on one hand.  On the other hand, none of that matters to the news of the day.  The news of the day is not related to facts, history, context whatsoever.  The daily soap opera is such that the narrative today is that once again another Democrat minority is being besmirched and impugned and denied liberty and freedom, and it is our beloved gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.  And we’re not gonna put up with it.  We’ve had enough of this.  Since this country was founded there’s been too much discrimination, and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore.

And so now gay groups, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever groups, they’re announcing they’re all getting out of Indiana. They’re gonna cancel business meetings they had, conventions, all that. They’re scramming. They’re leaving.  You might think, “Rush, this is an awfully fine point, it’s an awfully fine line, isn’t it?”  Well, it wasn’t with peyote. It wasn’t when other states came up with their own version of the law, which has happened many times since.  Ready for this?

“Since 1997 (and in some measure before), about a dozen states enacted similar state-level RFRAs as to state law, and about a dozen more interpreted their state constitutions to follow,” the court’s previous ruling.  Indiana is not alone here. At least 25 states, 26 states right along with them, which means half of the states as we sit here today have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws or else they interpret their laws to follow the Supreme Court previous rulings, which would now include Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby is exactly what this was about.  Have people already forgotten Hobby Lobby?  Yes, they have.  Conveniently so.  “Therefore, the rule now is that there is a religious exemption regime as to federal statutes (under the federal RFRA), and as to state statutes in the about half the states that have state RFRAs or state constitutional exemption regimes. Religious objectors in those jurisdictions may demand exemptions from generally applicable laws that substantially burden the objectors’ practice,” meaning the religious person’s practice of their religion, “which the government must grant unless it can show that applying the laws is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.”

So what exactly is so controversial about this, is the bottom line?  What is so controversial about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Indiana has passed?  The answer is nothing.  It’s just another way to gin up controversy about gay rights, which is the cause celebre of the day, and particularly with Millennials, and to also keep the donor base churning.

I mean, this is gonna cause Democrat gay donors to be sending money to the Democrat Party like never before because the objective is the world is gunning for American gays and only the Democrat Party can stop it.  And that’s not what’s happened here.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, let’s go back to its origins, peyote. It had nothing to do with gays. It had nothing to do with lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals, none of that.  It had to do with the Indians’ version of pot and their claim that it was part of their religious ceremonies.  And guess what?  The government found in their favor.  So now they’re exempt from whatever laws everybody else has to obey on peyote.

And then gay marriage came along — I’m really jumping forward here in years — gay marriage came along and gay couples purposely targeted certain businesses to challenge this.  In Denver, if you’re getting married and you’re gay, there are plenty of places you can go that’ll bake a cake for you, but you pick the place that won’t to give yourself a cause, and you gin everything up, and then you claim you’re being discriminated against, and then everybody piles on bakery that will not bake a cake for a gay wedding ’cause it violates their religion, and the bad guys happen to be the religious people who refuse to violate their religion so they won’t bake the cake, everybody jumps on them and in the case of the bake shop in Denver, they’re out of business.

They lost their business.  They were so tarred and feathered, so stigmatized that they lost their business.  And this was by design.  There’s any number of places in Denver the gay couple could have gone, I’m sure, but what people refuse to acknowledge or admit is that everything with the left is politics.  Everything is an opportunity to advance the agenda.  There are plenty of gay couples that wouldn’t want any part of this.  If they’re gonna get married, find a place that will bake ’em a cake, go there, have the wedding, be happy, have the reception, be happy, you know, go wherever, Saks Fifth Avenue, to fill the registry and adopt a kid and just live.

Others a say, “A-ha, we’ve got a chance here to attack the Republicans, attack conservatives and advance the liberal agenda.  Let’s go find a bake shop that won’t serve us.”  And they do.  Twenty-five states already have things like this on the books.  Indiana is just the latest to come along, and it’s because the people of Indiana have determined that religious people are the ones that are being attacked and discriminated against when you get right down to it.

But, see, that’s not deemed to be possible, because Christians, religious people are deemed to be in the majority, and the majority cannot possibly be discriminated against, it’s simply not possible. Just like a man cannot be raped, no matter what happens, it can’t be rape, not possible.  And a Christian is a majority member, therefore can’t be discriminated against.  Christians are the discriminators.  Christians are the oppressors, ’cause they’re the majority.  And if you want to know what modern-day Democrat Party politics is about, it’s attacking every majority, real or perceived, that exists and claim a grievance because of it.

This is how you tear down institutions and traditions that have defined a culture and society in a country.  And that’s the objective here.  So 25 states have fought back.  We’re gonna stand up for the people who have their religion.  We’re gonna stand up for the people who stand behind their morality and so forth, and we’re not going to sit by and make them be forced to act in violation of their religious principles.  And when that happens, then here comes the left armed for battle to tear down anybody that’s involved in either the Christian business here and/or its defenders.  You remember, Chick-fil-A, I mean, these stories are fairly common and fairly recent.

Let’s go to the audio sound bites.  Again, I mentioned that Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana.  He was on This Week with Stephanopoulos yesterday.  The Drive-Bys are saying it was a horrible interview; this guy just embarrassed himself; he should quit; he should resign; this is one of the worst interviews we have ever seen; this guy was clearly over his head and out of his league. He had no business being on TV, it was such an embarrassment.

Advertisements

Christian Publishing House Wins Legal Contest Over Obamacare Mandate

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

As Christians we need to fight these immoral mandates.

If we stand united we can win.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction on Friday to Christian Publishing Company Tyndale House Publishers, which prevented the Obama administration from forcing them to provide employees with certain contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

The particular contraceptives at issue are Plan B and IUDs. Tyndale sees both contraceptives as immoral as abortion as each works differently, they can both have the same effect upon a woman’s uterus that would prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall. Since Tyndale believes that life begins at conception, then they don’t see a difference between the use of these methods and a woman that enters an abortion clinic to murder her unborn child.

Walton wrote in his opinion, “The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance.”

While he acknowledged that hte government has interests in promoting public health, including making sure that women have equal access to health care, he also said the question “is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests.”

He also said that the government failed to make their case that mandating that Tyndale provide these contraceptives to their employees via their health insurance was in accordance with the government’s interests.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman, who represented Tyndale House Publishers, said “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.”

“The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our lawsuit moves forward,” he continued. “For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”

Bowman also points out that the court wrote:

“the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission. The Court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”

It is victories like this which give me hope that we can overcome the tyranny that is being thrust upon us in clear violation of God given rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution by the very politicians who took and oath to uphold the founding document. My hope is that others like Hobby Lobby will also find a victory in the near future.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/christian-publishing-house-wins-legal-contest-over-obamacare-mandate/#ixzz2CcPrQXkV

 

%d bloggers like this: