Kamala Harris Not Eligible To Become President, Is She Eligible To Be Vice President?

The $64 Thousand Question begins with this,

The 14th Amendment has two requirements to become a citizen of the U.S..
1) born in the U.S. and
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
The Supreme Court has yet to address the significance of #2.  Those most interested in the subject have gone back to the intent of the drafters, as expressed before Congress, to determine that the drafters expressly stated that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded the birth of babies of foreign nationals such as diplomatic representatives of foreign countries and persons of foreign nations here legally or illegally.
https://cgalightbearer.blogspot.com/2020/08/kamala-harris-is-not-eligible-for.html
The discussions centered around the term "inhabitants" and the concept of inhabitants owing their allegiance to the U.S.  To understand the importance of this term one must remember the backdrop of events surrounding the 14th Amendment. 
(The Year 1868) This was just after the end of the Civil War.  Most of the Southern states had yet to be admitted back into the Union.  Take Texas, for example and states to come within the territory of the U.S. such as AZ and NM.  These "inhabitants" owed their allegiance to the U.S. and were not yet part of the Union.  Because of the allegiance to the U.S. they became citizens having been born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the U.S.  Noteworthy, because of either systemic bias against American Indians or simply because American Indians owned their allegiance to their independent tribe or nation, they were not considered citizens of the U.S. at that time.

So, with the above in mind, people here legally or illegally, from a foreign nation, with a passport and allegiance to that nation, do not fit within the definition of "inhabitants" as that term was used by the framers of the 14th.Amendment.  Their children would have the same allegiance the parents.  For example, John McCain was born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents.  He was deemed to have the same allegiance as that of his parents.  I do not recall the circumstances of having a birth certificate of say Spain to U.S. citizens who happen to be there for one reason or another but in that gray area of memory I recall that McCain, when he reached the age of maturity, had to apply for and go through the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag  to obtain a U.S. passport and vote.

So, with the above in mind, after receiving the an email from an astute City Attorney friend of mine and being somewhat intrigued by the questions it raises, I decided to do a Google search to see what I could find.
Do you recall Google, Facebook and the lot being placed on the carpet by Senate hearings regarding their control over what comes up on your research screen when you do a search?  When I plugged in my research criteria I was shocked to see how many articles from all of the alphabet media, newspapers and liberal organizations there were saying, in the headline of the article, "fake", so one reading the result of the research would immediately feel the above email was fake.  I had to go to page 9 to find my first article discussing the subject and revealing questions I have.

What I found is that Kamala's parents were not U.S. citizens.  Her mother was scheduled to go to India for an arranged marriage but, instead, she married Harris.  Both were students at the UniversityCalifornia.  They appear to have been here legally.  Then, the stories split on circumstance.  One, Peggy Noonan of t  he Waall Street Journal, related a wonderful experience of Kamila growing up with the classic American experience.  Others address the fact that Kamila's mother divorced and she and Kamala moved to Canada- suggesting no allegiance to the U.S.- where Kamala was raised without the American experience (OK, Canada is pretty close).

        (Above, Former Senator and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Kamala Harris.)

The story goes that Kamala then returned to the U.S. for her college education, thereafter she met California Senator Willie Brown, 15 years  the Speaker of the Assembly, and we know what happened thereafter. She worked for his Law Firm, became his Mistress, and he appointed he r to several influencial Boards of Directors on a salary of $73,000/year each. Eventually with his recommendations she eventually became the Attorney General of California.

Questions I have, beyond the fact that Kamala's parents were not U.S. citizens, include what citizenship did she declare when she was in Canada ( if this is accurate), and how and when did she become a U.S. citizen.  As they say, "prove it"

So, these questions that should not be swept under the rug as they were with Barack Hussein Obama.  Qualification for president is a serious Issue.  If one party, with the ability and money to hide the past or fake the past of a candidate can look to how it worked once will continue to ignore the Constitution and try fix the history of their candidates.  This conduct makes the Constitution meaningless.
Where there are questions, the public should have the freedom to raise the question and the person running for President or Vice President of the United States should automatically have the obligation to prove their citizenship.

 

Webster Smith's Former Attorney, Ronald Machen, Was A Good Man, Once

                                       

The Obama Administration’s latest gift to Lois Lerner, the former IRS tax-exempt chief, came recently when U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen informed the House of Representatives that he would not file charges on its formal contempt citation against Ms. Lerner. This absolution, which shields Ms. Lerner from a grand jury probe, came on Ronald Machen’s final day on the job. Then he pulled a quick disappearing act.

                                                            (Ronald Machen)
To review the Facts:
Ronald Machen is no stranger to high profile cases, and he has taken his share to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He represented former Coast Guard Academy cadet, Webster Smith in his efforts to overturn his 2006 court-martial conviction.
(https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com)


    (Lois Lerner)
 If Americans know anything about the IRS it’s that it accepts no excuses, and so they trudged wearily on Wednesday, April 15th, to pay their taxes. That’s in notable contrast to the free passes that keep flowing to the tax agency’s most famous former employee, Lois Lerner.
Ms. Lerner was summoned to the House on May 22, 2013, to answer questions about her role in the IRS’s politically biased review of Tea Party nonprofit group applications for tax-exempt status.
She began her testimony with a statement recounting her career, reprising the scandal and proclaiming her innocence. She ended by saying: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” Only after she offered this long defense did she claim her right not to incriminate herself by citing the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions.
House lawyers determined that, in making that statement, Ms. Lerner had forfeited her right to remain silent. The House on May 7, 2014 held her in contempt of Congress and sent the citation to Ronald Machen.
The law clearly explains that the U.S. Attorney’s only “duty” “shall be” to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Mr. Machen instead sat on the contempt citation for 11 months, and on March 31 sent Speaker John Boehner a letter explaining he ha unilaterally decided not to investigate Ms. Lerner.
According to Ronald Machen’s rationale, Ms. Lerner’s statement made only “general claims of innocence” that did not forfeit her Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to answer questions. To reach this conclusion, Ronald Machen had to willfully ignore that Ms. Lerner, in her statement, rebutted specific accusations against her.
“[M]embers of this committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption,” she said, before claiming she had never done so. Those accusations had been detailed to her in a letter from former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, eight days before she testified.
Ronald Machen also had to ignore that Ms. Lerner had prior to her House appearance voluntarily met for an interview with Justice prosecutors. As the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has noted, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its 1969 Ellis v. U.S. decision found that “once a witness has voluntarily spoken out, we do not see how his protected interest is jeopardized by testifying in a subsequent proceeding, provided he is not required to disclose matters of substance which are unknown to the Government.”
Since Ms. Lerner had already disclosed to the “government” (prosecutors), she lost her privilege to clam up before Congress. And we’d note that after her House stonewall, she again chose to speak in an interview with the Politico website. Ms. Lerner wants the right not to answer questions except when it suits her public-relations purposes.
In any event, the job of making these legal calls belonged to a grand jury—not Ronald Machen.

                                         (Eric Holder with Ronald Machen)

Then again, this is the prosecutor who in an exit interview with the National Law Journal about his tenure touted his allegiance to Attorney General Eric Holder, describing him as a “tremendous mentor and a tremendous friend.”
After Ronald Machen’s performance in shielding Ms. Lerner from the consequences of her actions, Mr. Holder would no doubt return the compliment. The handling of the IRS scandal is a blot on both of their careers. 
(Source: wall Street Journal Opinion, Apr15, 2015)

Federal Courts Issue Conflicting Rulings On ObamaCare Subsidy

Good. This means that we are a nation of laws and the Rule of Law still applies. The Rule of the Political Party does not control; not yet, anyway. But wait, this is not over. The DOJ plans to appeal this decision to the full Washington DC Circuit Court. This was a 2-1 majority decision by 3 judges out of the full 11 on the DC Circuit. 4 of the 11were appointed by Obama and 7 of the 11 were appointed by Democrats. If the Rule of Law still governs in America, then an "en banc" decision by the full 11 judges will result in the same decision. But if political party trumps the Law then an appeal would result in the politically absurd ruling advanced by the Democrats who pushed thru the flawed and defective ObamaCare Law.
WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.
The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.
A separate federal appeals court in Virginia, next door to Washington, DC -- the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.
The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stressed Tuesday that different courts have reached different conclusions on the subsidy issue, and said the latest ruling against the subsidies “does not have any practical impact” at this point on the ability of people to get tax credits. The White House later said the D.C. decision was "undermined" by the Fourth Circuit decision.

Still, the D.C. court ruling nevertheless strikes at the foundation of the law by challenging subsidies that millions of people obtained through the federally run exchange known as HealthCare.gov.
The suit maintained that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges -- of which there are only 14 -- and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system.
The court agreed.
“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions  of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” the ruling stated.
The case, Halbig v. Burwell, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.
The decision said the law "unambiguously restricts" the subsidies to insurance bought on state-run exchanges.
The dissenting opinion, though, claimed political motivations were at play. “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ('ACA'),” the dissent stated.
The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes, and the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.
“Today’s decision rightly holds the Obama administration accountable to the law,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a written statement adding, “… As it has on so many occasions, the Obama administration simply ignored the law and implemented its own policy instead.”
The next step for the Obama administration would be that they request a so-called en banc ruling, which means there would be a vote taken by all of the judges on the court. An appeals court can only overrule a decision made by a panel if the court is sitting en banc.
Earnest said the Department of Justice will likely appeal to the full D.C. Circuit Court and defended the administration’s position that Congress intended “all eligible Americans” to have access to the subsidies regardless of which entity set up the exchange.
“We are confident in the legal position that we have,” Earnest said.
Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, said in a written statement that the ruling “represents the high-water mark for Affordable Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly.”
He added, “It will inevitably be placed on hold pending further proceedings; will probably be reheard by all of the 11-member active D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals members, who predictably will reverse it; and runs contrary to" the ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals process could eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court deciding on the legality of the subsidies, but Pollack, whose group supports the law, believes that won’t happen.
Of the 11 judges that could rehear the case, seven are Democrats and four are Republicans.
Halbig v. Burwell, which previously had been called Halbig v. Sebelius, is one of four federal lawsuits that have been filed aimed at targeting the idea of tax credits and other subsidies afforded under ObamaCare.
A total of $1 trillion in subsidies is projected to be doled out over the next decade.
A U.S. District Court previously sided with the Obama administration on Jan. 15.

Mississippi Governor Signs Religious Freedom Bill

Mississippi's governor signed into law Thursday April 3rd a measure that allows individuals and organizations to sue the government over laws that they feel thwart their ability to practice religion.

“I am proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference,” Gov. Phil Bryant said.
 Seen as a response to recent lawsuits that have required business owners to bake a cake for or photograph same-sex weddings, the bill managed to escape the controversy that killed a similar bill in Arizona last month.
 Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of it would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business.
The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.
 This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one’s conscience,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council and an attendant at the signing ceremony, in a public statement. “This commonsense measure was a no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce.”
Perkins said Mississippi becomes the 19th state to enact its own religious-practices law since 1996.
"Those who understand the importance and cherish the historic understanding of religious freedom are grateful for leaders who respond to fact and not fictitious claims of those who are trying to quarantine faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said in a statement.
 The thrust of Senate Bill 2681 says no law should impose a "substantial burden" on someone's "exercise of religion" unless there is a "compelling interest" and a lack of less burdensome alternatives.
The bill was amended several times in recent weeks as homosexual rights supporters lobbied lawmakers and brought in stars, including former 'N Sync singer Lance Bass, to boost their cause. The second half of the bill adds the phrase "In God we trust" to the state seal, which features an eagle with a shield.

This year, several other states considered joining the 18 that already have religious freedom laws. Each has been criticized because it could pave the way for businesses to legally refuse to serve gays and lesbians. The law passed in Mississippi is similar to what Arizona has on its books -- and had sought to expand as part of a controversial proposal that was recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Governor Jan Brewer shot down a law that she said ‘could result in unintended and negative consequences.

Arizona gov. vetoes controversial ‘religious freedom’ bill

(February 26, 2014)

Governor Jan Brewer shoots down law that she says ‘could result in unintended and negative consequences’

Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday announcing she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062.

Ross D. Franklin/AP

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected her state to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.
The bill, backed by Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays. But opponents called it an open attack on Arizona's LGBT community.
The bill thrust Arizona into the national spotlight last week after both chambers of the state Legislature approved it. As the days passed, more and more groups, politicians and average citizens weighed in against Senate Bill 1062. Many took to social media to criticize the bill.
Prominent Phoenix business groups said it would be another black eye for the state and warned that businesses looking to expand into Arizona might not do so if the bill became law.
Companies such as Apple and American Airlines and politicians including Arizona's senior GOP senator, John McCain, were among those who urged Brewer to veto the legislation.
The governor was under intense pressure to veto the bill, including from three Republicans who had voted for it last week. They said in a letter to Brewer that while the intent of their vote "was to create a shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance."
SB 1062 would allow people to use their religious beliefs as a defense against claims of discrimination. Backers cite a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to document their wedding, even though the law that allowed that suit doesn't exist in Arizona.
Republican state Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during a Senate debate.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."
Democrats said it was a veiled attempt to legally discriminate against gay people and cite religious freedom as a defense.

Wave of new state bills: Religious freedom or license to discriminate?

In response to legalization of same-sex marriage, many states aim to broaden exemptions for providing services

"The heart of this bill would allow for discrimination versus gays and lesbians," said state Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"You can't argue the fact that the bill will invite discrimination. That's the point of this bill. It is."
Supporters of the law criticized the governor's decision as a loss for religious freedom.
“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed. Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona," said Doug Napier, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that supported the bill. 
The Center for Arizona Policy argued that the law was needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarified existing state law. "We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.
Similar religious-protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has been passed by a state legislature. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.
The push in Arizona comes as an increasing number of conservative states grapple with ways to counter the growing legality of gay marriage. Arizona's voters approved a ban on gay marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. It is one of 29 states with such constitutional prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Federal judges have recently struck down those bans in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but those decisions are under appeal.
Al Jazeera and The Associated Press

 

Arizona Religious-Freedom Bill Becomes Test Case

Opponents of the measure say it would allow stores and other businesses to refuse to serve gays and some other minorities. Zuma Press

Legislation in Arizona that would allow business owners to deny service to customers based on the owners' religious beliefs is becoming a test case in a widening clash over religious freedom and discrimination.

This week, under mounting pressure from business groups, companies including Apple Inc. AAPL -0.16% and gay-rights advocates to veto the bill passed by the state Legislature, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to decide whether to sign it into law.

Advocates say the bill doesn't discriminate and merely strengthens and clarifies the state's existing religious-freedom law to protect business owners from being forced to act against their consciences.

Opponents say the measure—prompted in part by a New Mexico photographer who refused to work at a gay couple's commitment ceremony—would open the door to discrimination against gays, lesbians and women, and potentially boost similar legislative efforts in other states.

"Are we going back to the days when we have signs in the windows saying, 'Don't come in, I don't want to serve you?' " said Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights.

Law Blog

• Roundup: Religious-Freedom Bills Proliferate in Statehouses

The Arizona bill adds businesses, churches and foundations to the list of entities protected under the state's religious-freedom law, which says the state may not "substantially burden" the free practice of religion without "compelling interest." It also allows individuals and businesses to assert religious freedom as a defense even when the government isn't a party to a legal proceeding.

The bill is one of several being considered around the country. In Georgia, lawmakers introduced an act modeled on the federal version, which has been adopted in over a dozen states, as well as an act prohibiting teachers from penalizing students from expressing their religious beliefs in school. The federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, says the U.S. government may not put a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion unless it advances a "compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering" it.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to decide this week whether to sign a bill that has become a test case for religious freedom and discrimination. Associated Press

In Oregon, backers have launched an effort to get an initiative on the ballot to allow business owners to opt out of playing a role in same-sex commitment ceremonies based on religious belief, and a California pastor is behind a ballot effort that would protect individuals from "any action that would violate their liberty of conscience" based on biblical authority.

Other bills, like ones in Kansas, Tennessee and South Dakota, have failed or been tabled after an outcry from civil-rights activists.

Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family, a conservative group whose sister organization, CitizenLink, has been involved in proposing or backing such bills in several states, said the clash over religious freedom in the private sector has been building for years.

The new bills are an outgrowth of expanding definitions of what qualifies as a "public accommodation," Mr. Hausknecht said, which traditionally has meant public venues like buses, restaurants and stadiums. Those spaces are protected from discrimination under federal civil rights law. But some states and municipalities have been expanding the definition of public accommodation to include all types of business, he said.

Some religious groups also are feeling pressured by the expansion of gay rights and the federal Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers pay for contraceptives.

"The threat to religious freedom is really being driven by government officials and policies that are focused on compelling people to violate their conscience," said Brian Walsh, head of the American Religious Freedom Program, which advocates for religious-freedom laws.

Though the Arizona bill and some others like it don't specifically mention sexual orientation, the bills follow several lawsuits involving business owners who objected to providing services to same-sex couples.

Arizona is becoming ground zero for a national debate over religious freedom and discrimination as Gov. Jan Brewer must decide whether she will veto a bill that allows businesses to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds. Tammy Audi and Ashby Jones report on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

Douglas Napier, senior vice president for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based conservative group that helped draft the Arizona bill, said "there's an increased amount of hostility toward people of faith, especially with regard to the homosexual agenda."

Mr. Napier's group represents the photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph the same-sex couple's ceremony. Her case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Arizona bill reached Ms. Brewer's desk Monday. A number of fellow Republicans, including U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney —as well as three state senators who had voted for the bill—urged Ms. Brewer to veto it.

An array of business groups and leaders, including the state's Chamber of Commerce, also spoke out against the bill, fearing the impact it could have on tourism and commerce. Marriott International Inc. MAR -0.47% and American Airlines Group Inc. AAL -0.68% have criticized the bill as being potentially damaging to the state's economy. Apple, which has opened a component-manufacturing plant in Mesa, Ariz., is urging its veto.

Already, 18 states have passed some form of basic religious-freedom laws. But the Arizona bill would "take Arizona beyond where any other state has gone," said Ms. Warbelow of the Human Rights Campaign.

—Daisuke Wakabayashi contributed to this article.

 (By

Tamara Audi and

Jacob Gershman)

Write to Tamara Audi at tammy.audi@wsj.com and Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com

Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.
Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:
1.  If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
2.  Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays," in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business.
4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.
6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.
To understand these points, it first helps to understand the history of RFRA.
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989). In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together, therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's religious freedom under certain conditions (more on these later), and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states.
The bill passed Thursday by the Arizona legislature modifies that existing law. More specifically, it more precisely spells out what RFRA was always understood to mean. Arizona legislators believed a few points needed to be clarified mainly for two reasons, according to Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh.
First, the Obama administration's birth control mandate raised the question of whether RFRA applies to a person's religious freedom when they own a business. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that question next Summer. Two Christian owned businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties, sued the government over the mandate, saying it violated their religious freedom.
Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School, was instrumental in helping get the federal RFRA passed. He points out for a Feb. 19 ScotusBlog post that RFRA was always understood to protect corporations, including for-profit corporations. The birth control mandate cases, though, demonstrate the possibility that judges may not see it that way, even though that was the intent of the legislators who passed those laws.
Second, in a case involving a wedding photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding based upon her religious beliefs, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's RFRA law only applies when the government is a party in the case. RFRA was never understood to mean that by the legislators who passed it, but that case demonstrated the need to make the Arizona state law more specific.
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:

• Those covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."
• A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
• The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: "1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under RFRA, government action may still violate one's religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a "compelling government interest" and the "least restrictive means" were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone's religious freedom.
This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone's religious belief.
Recent cases involving Christian vendors refusing service for gay weddings has, understandably, been part of the debate over the Arizona bill. Those recent cases, though, involving wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers, are not about discrimination against gays. The photogaphers and bakers in those cases have made clear they would gladly serve gays outside the context of a same-sex wedding. They are not refusing to serve gays, they are refusing to serve a same-sex wedding.
Should the government be able to force them to violate their religious conscience? A court using RFRA would apply the balancing test: the answer is yes, only if there is a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest were used.
At this point, it should be clear why the Arizona bill would not usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays" in that state. Even if there were a host of Arizona businesses hoping to turn away gay customers (there is not), this bill would not make that any more likely. In fact, just the opposite. Sueing under RFRA is made more difficult by the Arizona bill.

(By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter, 02/24/ 2014)

Freedom Of Speech Isn't Free

Freedom of Speech isn't Free. It  is not free from intimidation or retaliation. Sometimes silence may be golden and more peaceful.
If you are an educated, critical thinker and of a different opinion concerning the current political hot topic, you may want to think twice before voicing your opinion. You may find it is true that no good deed or opinion goes unpunished.
If you think that ObamaScare is a train wreck, or that the Democrats or the Republicans are more responsible for the Government slowdown, or that the NSA spies on American citizens, or that Cadet Webster Smith was a victim of racial bias, you might want to hold your tongue; or, at least, think twice of the possible adverse consequences to you personally before making your opinion known. Discretion may be the better part of valor; and silence may be golden. Your silence may allow you to keep a greater portion of your hard-earned gold, because the IRS is alive and well and going to and fro like a roaring lion seeking which First Amendment free thinker it may devour.

Tea party groups, Reverend Franklin Graham, Christine O'Donnell, and a pro-marriage group have all discovered that the price of free speech in today's society is an audit of your personal finances by the IRS. And now Dr. Ben Carson has made the "List".
The list of conservatives targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for audits, tax-exempt reviews or tax privacy breaches keeps growing, raising fresh questions in Washington about whether a scandal the Obama administration has blamed on bureaucratic incompetence and coincidence may in fact involve something more nefarious.

The latest revelation came Thursday from Dr. Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon who told The Washington Times that he was targeted for an audit just months after he gave a speech in front of President Obama that challenged America’s leadership. The agency requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit.In the end, the IRS found no wrongdoing, Dr. Carson said, but it raised his suspicions about being singled out for his speech.
“I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS,” Dr. Carson said in an interview. “But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion.”
Melanie Sloan, head of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a former Justice Department prosecutor during the Clinton years, said she had not been that concerned about the IRS reviews of the growing number of tea party groups but the story of Dr. Carson’s audit raised red flags.
“I have not been particularly persuaded in the past with the IRS targeting of the tea party groups. But this one seems a little odd. This certainly raises questions that I assume someone will begin to investigate,” she said.
Dr. Carson, whose rise from poverty and medical work with pediatric patients were celebrated in the movie “Gifted Hands,” is the latest in a growing number of high-profile figures to come forward and

The Rev. Franklin Graham and others have said either they or their organizations were singled out by the IRS, while former Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said she was audited and that someone used the IRS system to access her private tax information.On Wednesday, the National Organization for Marriage announced that it would sue the IRS, saying it has evidence that someone within the agency leaked the group’s donor list to its political enemies in 2012.
As in the other instances, the organization claims no one at the IRS has been held responsible.
Calls to the IRS went unanswered Thursday. Much of the agency’s staff has been furloughed as a result of the federal government shutdown.
In the past, the IRS has declined to discuss specific audits, citing privacy laws. Such instances typically come to light only when individuals or businesses divulge that they’ve been targeted.
That was what happened this week. During a speech in Alabama, Dr. Carson made a vague reference to having his first “encounter with the IRS.”
The encounter came just four months after his speech in February at the National Prayer Breakfast, an address that brought him into the national spotlight and one in which he decried the “moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility” of the U.S. in recent years.

Since then, he has electrified the conservative world and fueled talk of a presidential run with speeches and other works, including his weekly column for The Times.
Dr. Carson said IRS agents contacted him in June and asked to look at his real estate holdings. After finding nothing that concerned them, the agents informed him that they were conducting a full audit of his finances and asked to go back an additional year to review his records, he said.
They ended the review in August after finding no problems.
“They told me everything was in good standing and left,” Dr. Carson said.
Asked whether he thought the audit was a retaliation for his speech, Dr. Carson quipped: “I guess I’m surprised it took them that long.”
He said the more serious issue is that the IRS has been politicized — “something that never should have happened” — and that leaves all of its activities open to suspicion.

Indeed, Dr. Carson isn’t the first high-profile conservative figure to come under fire from the IRS.
Earlier this year, Ms. O’Donnell — a former Senate candidate from Delaware who rose to prominence amid heavy tea party backing — revealed to The Times that she, too, had been audited and also had her personal tax information breached.
Ms. O’Donnell’s tax records were accessed by David Smith, an investigator with Delaware’s Division of Revenue.
Revelations about that access, which took place in March 2010, spawned an inquiry by the U.S. Treasury Department and denials by Delaware officials that anything inappropriate had taken place.
It also has spawned a congressional investigation spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Grassley, a powerful Iowa Republican.
Ms. O’Donnell’s story, which also includes an erroneous lien placed on a home she no longer owned, broke just as the IRS inspector general acknowledged that at least four politicians or political donors have had their personal tax records improperly accessed since 2006. One of those cases involved a willful violation of federal law.
The Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.
Also this year, Mr. Graham, son of legendary evangelist the Rev. Billy Graham, wrote a letter to Mr. Obama in which he accused the IRS of targeting two of his nonprofit organization for political purposes.
Mr. Graham heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, a worldwide relief group.

In his letter, Mr. Graham said he believes “someone in the administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us.”

(Solomon, John and Ben Wolfgang, Washington Times, 4 Oct 2013)

Second Amendment Rights Prevail In Colorado and Illinois

  Second Amendment Rights Prevail in Colorado
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Suffers Resounding Defeat – A historic grassroots effort by voters in Colorado’s Senate Districts 11 and 3 has resulted in the recall of Colorado Senate President John Morse (D) and Senator Angela Giron (D).

                                    (Colorado Senate President John Morse (Democrat))
   The people of Colorado Springs and Pueblo sent a clear message to their elected officials that their primary job is to defend our rights and freedoms and that they are accountable to their constituents – not the dollars or social engineering agendas of anti-gun billionai

Recall proceedings began earlier this year after Sens. Morse and Giron voted for anti-gun legislation that restricted the ability of law-abiding residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights, including their inherent right to self-defense.
  This effort was driven by concerned citizens, who made phone calls, knocked on doors, and worked diligently to turn voters out in this historic effort.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to have stood with the men and women in these legislative districts who sent a clear message that their Second Amendment rights are not for sale in Colorado. We look forward to working with NRA-PVF “A” rated and endorsed Bernie Herpin (R) from Colorado Springs and NRA-PVF “AQ” rated and endorsed George Rivera (R) from Pueblo in the Colorado State Senate.

 
   In an unusually forceful and straightforward opinion in the case of People v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously held that the state's "comprehensive ban" on the "use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home" is invalid on its face under the Second Amendment.  The NRA had participated in the case with an amicus brief. 

   The court surveyed the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decisions, as well as state and federal precedents from courts in Illinois.  Regarding the significance of the Supreme Court's opinions, it declared: "neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment's protections to the home.  On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home."  It also characterized the Illinois law as "a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution…."  According to the court, "In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either."

   While the court noted that "we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation," it did not condition its holding on any further action by the legislature.  It noted Illinois' recently-enacted Firearm Concealed Carry Act only in passing, stating that it was not "at issue in this case."

   Invoking precedents from two federal appellate courts, the Illinois Supreme Court also held that the state's general ban on the possession of concealable firearms by minors does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.  Notably, one of the cases upon which the court relied for this portion of the opinion was National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms [&] Explosives, which upheld a federal prohibition on the sale of handguns by federally licensed dealers to adults aged 18 to 20.  The NRA has recently filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision.  Twenty-two state attorneys general also filed a brief in support of NRA's efforts in that case.

  While residents of Illinois eagerly await implementation of the state's new concealed carry licensing process, they can rest assured that under controlling precedent in both state and federal courts, their right to bear arms in self-defense is not a "privilege" bestowed upon them by the legislature but a fundamental right the state and its localities are bound to respect.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. 

More than four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime.

 The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. 

National Black Republicans File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Black American Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Sarasota, FL - The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language.

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  -  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

ARTICLE 1

He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.

Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (4) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.

Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:

On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.

Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars.  It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs.  Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. Ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.

ARTICLE 2

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of  Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

ARTICLE 3

He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

ARTICLE 4

He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.

ARTICLE 5

He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012. 

Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington -- Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.

ARTICLE 6

He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United States Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012. 

ARTICLE 7

He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.

ARTICLE 8

He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.

ARTICLE 9

He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ARTICLE 10

He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined.  Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

###

Contact:

Frances Rice, Chairman

National Black Republican Association

4594 Chase Oaks Drive, Sarasota, FL  34241