The new administration is questioning the motives and actions of legitimate news outlets as a way to prioritize its own rhetoric, distract us from unconstitutional directives and quash dissent. While we must hold the press accountable, we must also preserve their independence.

Freedom of the press is front and center in our democracy. The First Amendment clearly states this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. But freedom of the press is dismissed routinely by totalitarian governments. Control of the media is one of the first goals of those who would control any society.

In Russia, the Kremlin controls national television, newspapers are mostly owned by those with ties to the Kremlin, and punitive laws criminalize dissent and criticism of Putins government. Even in America, freedom of the press has been challenged. Despite Jeffersons declaration that he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers, the Sedition Act was passed in 1778.

Fortunately, the courts continue to re-affirm freedom of the press. As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1971, "The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government."

Steve Bannons attacks on the free press are attacks on the First Amendment. It is crucial for citizens to support impartial and independent reporting by reading broadly, objecting to censorship, examining and rejecting fake news and subscribing to publications that inform us about the administrations actions. The publics right to know is at stake.

Read more:

Support freedom of the press - The Missoulian

Katherine Klein, Guest Columnist 11:04 a.m. CT Feb. 9, 2017

Katherine Klein(Photo: Special to The Clarion-Ledger)

Late January, President Trump signed an executive order suspending refugee resettlement from any country for 120 days and suspending resettlement from Syria indefinitely. In the same order, he banned the entries of nationals from seven majority Muslim countries for 90 days. This ban was issued under the guise of safety, despite the fact no American has been killed by a foreign national or refugee from the specified seven nations since 1975.

This refugee ban does, however, put at risk the lives of people who will be turned away. These are people women, children, families who have already been extensively vetted, have been found to pose no risk to our country, and are likely to be at a high risk of victimization if they remain in their own countries. It is particularly poignant that Trump chose to sign these orders on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Before and during World War II, the United States turned away thousands of refugees fleeing Nazi terror. Among them was Anne Frank, whose family was denied entry into America in the interest of protecting national security.

Aside from inaccurate targeting, this ban is also unconstitutional. President Trumps executive order favors Christian refugees and stigmatizes Muslims. Can supporters of Trump honestly in good faith stand by this order? Is this what religious freedom in America has come to mean?

Religious freedom does not mean a Christian theocracy.

True religious freedom means the ability to believe what you believe without fear of community reprisal. True religious freedom means the government does not favor one religion over another. These are the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. To undermine these tenants is to betray what America stands for.

America is a melting pot; a diverse fabric of varied life experiences. No group of people is more or less important than another. The greatest thing we as Americans and as Mississippians can do to protect the institutions of religious freedom is to oppose government involvement in religious issues.

The ACLU of Mississippi is calling on the governor and all Mississippians to speak out against this immoral immigration ban and to speak up for true religious freedom. To sign our petition, go tohttps://action.aclu.org/secure/MS-religious-freedom-petition.. Together, we can show the nation that Mississippi values the religious rights and freedoms of all.

Katherine Klein is the Equality for All Advocacy coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi.

Read or Share this story: http://on.thec-l.com/2kT8dIJ

Read more:

Is this is what religious freedom means? - Jackson Clarion Ledger

Forbes

Like Freedom Fighters Before Us, We Believe Human Nature Bends Towards Justice Forbes From where we sit in history we do not know for certain where we are along the path to freedom, justice and equality. Just when we feel that we have emerged into an era of hope, of fallen barriers and new opportunities, those very advances can be ... and more »

Read more here:

Like Freedom Fighters Before Us, We Believe Human Nature Bends Towards Justice - Forbes

In matters small and large, President Donald Trump has served notice that religion will play a significant role in how he carries out his duties.

His inaugural ceremony featured a record six clergy members taking part, rather than the usual one or two, and some of the more poetic passages in Trumps speech were about the role of faith in our nations life.

At the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 2, Trumpsremarks took up thematically the question of faith and politics with a robust defense of religious liberty and an assertion that our rights and freedoms come from God.

Trump quoted Thomas Jefferson in saying, Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?

According toMark David Hall, professor of politics at George Fox University and author of Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, Trumps remarks as a whole harkened back to the ways in which the nations founders discussed religion.

*

Mark David Hall,professor of politics, George Fox University

It was very prevalent in the American founding that religious liberty or freedom of conscience is a gift of God, Hall said. Trumps remarks reminded Hall of George Washingtons 1790 letter to the Hebrew congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. The letter makes clear, religious liberty is a gift from God for all people in America.

Patrick Garry, professor of law at the University of South Dakota law school, said Trumps remarks were in the natural law and natural rights tradition. If our rights are given by God, then there is a truth that transcends humanity.

Gary Smith, professor of history at Grove City College and author of Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush, said Trumps remarks were in the mainstream of presidential speeches at the annual National Prayer Breakfast.

Presidents typically use the prayer breakfast to speak about what their faith means to them, Smith said, or the role of faith in America, or the importance of faiths role in addressing various problems, or to encourage support for particular policies.

Smith felt the context within which Trump defended religious liberty was significant. We have a much more militant atheist community than before, Smith said. The proposition that our rights come from God is much more under fire than it ever has been in American history.

*

Patrick Garry,professor of law, University of South Dakota School of Law

In his speech, Trump finds a basis for national unity in God being a common creator: We are all united by our faith in our Creator and our firm knowledge that we are all equal in His eyes. We are not just flesh and bone and blood. We are human beings, with souls.

Garry sees in this invocation of God the creator a subtle rejoinder to doctrines that emphasize our differences. The primary word we have fed on, particularly during the Obama administration, is diversity, Garry said. Here [Trump] is using religious faith as a matter of unity. Thats different.

The theme of unity echoed Trumps inaugural speech, when, for instance, he said, And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

Hall believes that there is a significant difference between Trumps praise of religious liberty and the tendency by the Obama administration to speak of freedom of worship.

Many on the right do think that religious liberty was threatened in profound ways under the Obama administration, Hall said.

Freedom of worship protects what churches or clergy do, but it doesnt extend to individuals. If you are a small businessperson, a florist, a baker, a photographer, and you have a sincerely held religious objection this right will not be protected.

By vowing to defend religious liberty, Trump is saying under his administration there will be an effort to protect people like that.

At the prayer breakfast, Trump mentioned two policies drawn from his understanding of freedom of belief: repealing the Johnson Amendment and reforming immigration policy to protect religious tolerance in the United States.

The 1954 Johnson Amendmentnamed for its sponsor, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnsonstrips from religious or charitable organizations their tax exempt status should they endorse or oppose political candidates. Critics have charged the amendment denies religious and charitable groups freedom of speech and freedom of belief.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump advocated repeal of this law, and now he has put this on his agenda as president.

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump bow their heads in prayer during the Inaugural Luncheon in the US Capitol in Washington on Jan. 20, 2017. President Trump is attending the luncheon along with other dignitaries after being sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

Regarding his plans for immigration, Trump said, We will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty, and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination.

Another instance of Trumps emphasis on religious liberty occurred in his executive order on immigration, which specified that persecuted religious minorities should receive priority in appealing for refugee status.

The order has been criticized as being aimed at Christians who have suffered persecution in the Middle East.

In defending this provision, Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute notes in an article in Christianity Today that Christian refugees from Syria have been marginalized. The executive order will help this population, Shea notes, but it will also help Rohingya Muslims from Burma, Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan, Iraqi Yazidis, Iranian Bahais, and Vietnamese independent Buddhists.

Smith said that Americans need to take seriously a presidents rhetoric about faith, but cautions keeping a healthy skepticism, since such arguments may be stated mainly for their political benefits.

Garry finds something unusual in Trumps remarks at the prayer breakfast. I dont think this is just politics, he said. I thought he would be like everyone else and modify everything he said earlier. I think this might be very sincere.

Originally posted here:

Trump Puts Religious Freedom Front and Center - The Epoch Times

Most conservativesare masters of the bad-faith argument, but none so more than anti-choice activists. For decades now, anti-choicers have perfected the art of concealingtheir hostility to abortion and contraception with terms like pro-life and theirsupposed concern with protecting womens health.

This disingenuous approach characterized the conservative response to a Department of Health and Human Services requirement, created under the Affordable Care Act, that requires insurance plans to cover contraception without a co-payment.

Until recently Republicans have framed their objections to mandatory contraception coverage witha religious freedom argument, arguing that the mandate offended the sensibilities of religious employers.Efforts to chip away at insurance coverage of contraception were largely focused on carving out broad exemptions for employers who claimed a religious objection to the mandate, instead of ending the regulation itself.

But now were living under President Donald Trump in an America shaped by Breitbart News, and right-wingers opposed to womens reproductive freedom can zoom right past the euphemism and into the territory of belligerent misogyny.

Trumps chief strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, used to run Breitbart and under his leadership, the arguments against contraception were a bit less genteel whatanti-choice activiststypically prefer.

The rightsmore openly misogynist direction may go a long way in explaining the reaction ofRep. Diane Black, one of the most outspokenly anti-choice members of Congress, to questions she was asked about contraception at apress conferencelast week.

It started when a reporter asked Black whether House Republicans intended to preserve the contraception benefit, if and when they finally got around to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

Black at first answered a question about the birth control benefit byinaccurately stating that people could simply obtain care elsewhere, the GOPs long-touted but misleading alternative to Planned Parenthood affiliates, Christine Grimaldi of Rewire wrote.

Yep, Black mixed up two separate anti-contraception cover stories:When objecting to insurance coverage for contraception, the standard right-wing script calls forcomplaining thatit offends the religious sensibilities of Christian employers to lettheir employees have thatcoverage.

Black apparently got confused, however, and started reciting the script that conservativesuse for another purpose forjustifying slashing the federally funded contraception that millions of womenobtain throughPlanned Parenthood.Thatswhen conservatives claim that women can simply go to other publicly funded clinics for contraception, even though repeated investigations have demonstrated thisis simply not true.

But in the age of a Breitbart White House,theres no need to bother with nuanced distinctions between differentbad-faith arguments for undermining contraception access.

After a reporter clarified that the birth control benefit applies to insurance, not clinics, Grimaldi continued, Black said that a comparable benefit isnt on the table, quickly turning again to other facilities as the catchall solution.

Its unfortunate that Rep. Black continues to misrepresent Planned Parenthood as she simultaneously threatens to rip affordable birth control access from 55 million women all while apparently failing to understand how the birth control insurance benefit works, Mary Alice Carter, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote by email.

Blacks planto slash both insurance coverage for contraception and contraception funding atPlanned Parenthoodwould derail the family-planningstrategies of many women who now use birth control probably most of them. This doesnt just concern lower-income women, either. Middle-class women will suffer if they suddenly have to pay hundreds or even thousands a year for coverage thats currently available for free.

The congresswomans simply invoking the existence of public clinics(which cant possibly take onPlanned Parenthoods patients, much less all the women nowreceivingcontraception through private insurance) shows that shedoes not actuallycare how many women she cuts off from birth control.

Of course, this is Breitbarts America, where women who use contraception which is more than99 percent of sexually active women at some point in their lives are accused of being ugly, crazy and a threat to national security. In that environment, theres little need for Black to keep up the pretense that this is anything but a war on birth control.

Contraception is expensive, Dr. Shanthi Ramesh, a fellow of family planning at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, explained over the phone.

She argued that women should be able to choose contraception based on effectiveness and lifestyle fit, instead of thinking, How much is this going to cost me out of pocket?'

There is no lack of evidence that women faced barriers to accessing birth control before the enactment of the ACA, wrote Dr. Diana Greene Foster, director of research atAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, in an email.A study of over 500 women seeking abortions before the ACA from five clinics across the country showed that 12 percent had unprotected sex because they could not afford birth control or their insurance wouldnt cover it. Another 20 percent reported that they ran out of supplies, a problem greatly alleviated by insurance coverage and a one-year supply.

Beyond citing the practical issues, Ramesh also objected to the inherent sexism of the arguments against contraception coverage. She pointedout that a wide range of preventive services, such as vaccines and cancer screenings, are covered by ACA guidelines andinclude men and children as well as women.

Contraception, she said, shouldnt be this additional service that gets flagged separately and highlighted as different. Its a part of being a healthy, productive member of our country, and we really owe it to women to provide them the service.

Ather press conference, Black was accompanied by Lila Rose,who runs the anti-choice organization Live Action and has along history of scare-mongering about the evils of contraception and premarital sex. In 2012 Roseparticipated in an anti-contraception documentary Birth Control: How Did We Get Here? where she took a stance against all forms of non-procreative sex, saying, There was a time when birth control was unthinkable,when contraception was unthinkable, because people who got married a beautiful part of marriage was the hope for children together. She also decried contraception for encouraging sexual activity and experimentation in unmarried people.

When I asked Ramesh about the value of sexual abstinence, the rights preferred method of contraception for someonenot ready to become pregnant, she was skeptical. She noted that she advises women of all their options, including abstinence, but its very few and far between that would like to rely on abstinence as their primary form of contraception, she said.

Of course, this battleis about the largerstrugglebetween what women want for themselves and what right-wing zealots want for them.Its just that in Trumps America, conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom are feeling a lot less shy about their desire to drive women back into subservience.

Continue reading here:

A new front in the assault on women's freedom: Anti-choice activists now going after birth control - Salon

Advertisement

Ellen M. Gilmer, E&E News reporter

The waters of Lake Oahe are at the center of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's religious freedom argument against the Dakota Access pipeline. Photo by Ellen M. Gilmer.

Opponents of the Dakota Access pipeline are taking a new approach in the courtroom: religious freedom claims.

Following news last night that the Trump administration had granted the final easement needed for Energy Transfer Partners to construct the oil pipeline beneath Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe submitted a flurry of overnight legal filings seeking to block the project.

According to tribal lawyers, placement of a pipeline beneath the Missouri River would desecrate sacred waters used for religious ceremonies. The Cheyenne River people occupy a sprawling 4,200-square-mile reservation along the river in South Dakota, just south of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The two tribes have been battling the pipeline in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia since last summer.

"The Tribe does not argue that Dakota Access may not have its oil pipeline elsewhere, or that infrastructure projects in Lakota territory must be barred forever; only that this pipeline, sited through these sacred waters, owned in trust by the United States for this Tribe, violate the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's and its members' right to exercise their religion," Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP attorneys representing the tribe told the court.

The argument came in several overnight filings: a revised complaint against the Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the project; a request for a preliminary injunction that would block construction while the core claims are pending before the court; and a request for a temporary restraining order that would block construction immediately, without a court hearing.

Advertisement

Without a construction freeze, tribal members near the construction site in North Dakota face imminent harm from confrontations with law enforcement and private security, the lawyers said.

They noted that they would have raised the religious freedom claims sooner, but they were under the impression they would be able to discuss the issue during an in-depth environmental review process promised by the Obama administration.

The Trump administration scuttled that review this week, opting to instead rely on a less detailed environmental assessment completed last year, which found no significant impact from the pipeline (E&E News PM, Feb. 7).

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has taken the lead on many previous legal actions in the case, has not yet filed a challenge to the easement approval.

The Cheyenne River Sioux's new claims center on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that says the federal government cannot "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it has a compelling interest and uses the "least restrictive means."

While previous claims focused on the tribal consultation process and potential environmental harms, the latest briefs say the presence of the pipeline with or without a rupture would sully their sacred waters.

"The Lakota people believe that the mere existence of a crude oil pipeline under the waters of Lake Oahe will desecrate those waters and render them unsuitable for use in their religious sacraments," the brief said, noting a Lakota prophesy that a "black snake" will destroy the people's homeland. Lakota people make up the Cheyenne River tribe.

But RFRA's "substantial burden" test is a tough one.

In a 2009 decision, for example, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a group of American Indian tribes making similar claims. The Navajo Nation, Havasupai Tribe and others argued that a Forest Service plan to use artificial snow for skiing on a northern Arizona mountain violated their religious freedom rights because the artificial snow would contain trace amounts of human waste, desecrating an area tribal members use for worship. The court found that the government's action did not represent a substantial burden.

"That is, the presence of the artificial snow on the Peaks is offensive to the Plaintiffs' feelings about their religion and will decrease the spiritual fulfillment Plaintiffs get from practicing their religion on the mountain," the opinion said. "Nevertheless, a government action that decreases the spirituality, the fervor, or the satisfaction with which a believer practices his religion is not what Congress has labeled a 'substantial burden' ... on the free exercise of religion."

The Cheyenne River Sioux's claim could be viewed similarly, as the tribe has expressed opposition to the "mere existence" of the pipeline beneath the river.

Pipeline proponents have also repeatedly pointed to an existing natural gas pipeline that runs beneath the river as evidence that current opposition to construction is unfounded. Cheyenne River lawyers addressed the issue briefly in the restraining order request, arguing that Dakota Access' transport of oil would specifically fulfill the tribe's "black snake" prophesy.

"Indeed the Tribe has tolerated the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines under Lake Oahe because these natural gas pipelines are not the Black Snake of Lakota prophecy and do not burden Tribal religious practice," the brief said.

Some court watchers have already given the tribe's new legal strategy long odds. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Brandon Barnes said the tribe has an uphill battle because RFRA was intended for narrower application.

"They have a tough road ahead of them," said Barnes, who is a lawyer. "Using [RFRA] in this way to stop a pipeline from being built is probably not the way it was intended to be used."

Barnes noted that Judge James Boasberg may be reluctant to consider new claims after the tribe had the length of the litigation and the earlier environmental assessment process to voice their concerns. But, he added, constitutional claims do tend to catch extra attention from judges.

"He is a very reasonable judge, so I think he will consider everything that comes in front of him with the due deference it deserves," he said. "Legally, the RFRA argument seems weak compared to an environmental argument, but from an optics perspective, you don't want to impinge on someone's constitutional right."

Advertisement

With two top energy staffers expected to soon start work in the Trump White House, attention is now turning to another critical environmental post, chairmanship of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

See the original post:

Pipeline foes pivot to religious freedom - E&E News

President Trump is making good on campaign promises one after the other, but he's getting some pushback on one of them.

Fairly consistently on the campaign trail, and as recently as last week, President Trump made a pledge that certainly encouraged evangelicals:

"... I want to express clearly today to the American people that my administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty in our land."

Someone in the White House leaked a draft of an executive order that would do just that, and in no uncertain terms. It specifically states that people and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom while earning a living or seeking a job effectively protecting Christian bakers, florists, photographers, and the like.

The leaker, however, made sure a copy got to the militant homosexual lobby and the result, says the president of the American Family Association, is that that group is bringing all its firepower to bear on Mr. Trump.

"Hell hath no fury like the LGBT community scorned," says Tim Wildmon. "He's getting pushback from [his daughter] Ivanka Trump and her husband [Jared Kushner]. They're telling President Trump Don't sign anything like this because it will hurt you."

The executive order has never been more needed, Wildmon adds.

"A lot of these LGBTQ communities ... want to force Christians into submission," he tells OneNewsNow. "The stories are ample across the country: if [for example] you don't participate in their wedding ceremony with your business, then they want the government to drive you out of business."

The American Family Association has launched an online petition asking President Trump to sign the executive order on religious liberty (see video below). Wildmon says he will personally deliver it to the White House.

Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates OneNewsNow.com.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Read the original post:

AFA: Time is now for EO on religious freedom - OneNewsNow

A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found that a majority of Americans oppose denying service to LGBT individuals for religious reasons, and this held true across most major religious groups other than evangelicals.

In aSalon piece this morning, columnist Nico Lang used the poll to argue against religious-freedom legislation such as the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which was introduced last Congress by Utah senator Mike Lee and Idaho congressman Raul Labrador to protect religious Americans who believe in heterosexual marriage.

But, like most culture writers who attempt to debunk religious liberty as a disguise for legalized discrimination, Lang fundamentally misunderstands or, more likely, maliciously mischaracterizes FADA and other religious-freedom protections. The first and most obvious red flag is the fact that he puts religious freedom in scare quotes in the title of his piece.

It only gets worse. The piece praises Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner for opposing what Lang calls a four-page document that would have granted broad allowances to religious groups, federal agencies and virtually anyone who wishes to discriminate against the LGBT community.

In fact, the document in question like all religious-freedom protections would have permitted religious organizations to operate based on their religious principles and hire according to mission. The essential details of the draft executive order were outlined well by Ryan T. Anderson at the Daily Signal late last week.

Langs piece and the countless others like it are insidious precisely because their misinformation is difficult for the average American to pinpoint and understand. The lies about religious freedom are so widespread that it is nearly impossible to accurately understand the goal of FADA and other such legislation.

This obfuscation of the truth has been orchestrated by the left in order to portray religious Americans as bigoted and repressive, and sway public opinion in favor of silencing religious voices and driving them out of the public square. Thats why these supposed social-justice warriors will never admit the truth: that there isnt a single U.S. law permitting discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation.

Rather, the laws being debated have to do with marriage. Because many religious groups believe that marriage is properly understood as a union between one man and one woman and because the Supreme Court unilaterally determined the law of the land on marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges without allowing for the resolution of public debate on the subject religious-liberty legislation offers First Amendment protections to those Americans who hold a different view of marriage from that of the government.

In practice, this means that a business owner can lawfully refuse to craft flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony, but she cannot refuse to sell a bouquet of flowers to a man simply because she is aware that the man is gay. The latter is not protected by U.S. law anywhere, and no court would rule in favor of a business owner who behaved in that way.

But Lang doesnt want you to know that. Instead, progressive activists continue their malicious campaign to convince the public that religious freedom was invented by hateful Christians who want to justify their ill treatment of LGBT individuals. And as this latest poll shows, those left-wing arguments seem to be succeeding.

The rest is here:

Religious-Freedom BIlls Don't Permit Bigotry - National Review

See game highlights of Luxemburg-Casco's girls' basketball win over Freedom Tuesday night at Fteedom High School. Feb. 7, 2017

Freedoms Morgan Witt, center, is defended by Luxemburg-Cascos Carli Kollross, left, and Jenna Jorgensen during a North Eastern Conference girls basketball game Tuesday in Freedom.(Photo: Wm. Glasheen/USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin)Buy Photo

FREEDOM - Few leads are safe when Cassie Schiltz is wearing an opposing uniform and in shooting rhythm.

Thats the painful lesson the Freedom Irish learned Tuesday night.

Schiltz, Luxemburg Cascos highly skilled sophomore, scorched the Irish for 40 points to trigger an inspired Spartans comeback in a 77-71 North Eastern Conference girls basketball overtime win.

It was a devastating loss for the Irish, who dropped into second place in the conference behind 14-1 Wrightstown. Freedom (16-3, 13-2) led by as many as 12 points in the second half and was up by seven heading into the final two minutes of regulation.

However, the stellar play of Schiltz and teammate Jenna Jorgensen along with the absence of Freedom starting point guard Jada Helms, who left the game with a wrist injury with six minutes remaining proved to be too much for the Irish to overcome.

Helms was injured following a collision with a driving Schiltz.

We were up by seven and in a double bonus, said Freedom coach Mike Vander Loop. If we handle the ball a little bit, we win. Jada is our point guard and our top perimeter defender, so losing her hurt. It could be either a fractured wrist or a strained wrist, so right now her injury is our biggest concern.

With Helms on the bench, the third-place Spartans (16-3, 12-3) scored the final seven points in regulation five by Schiltz to wipe out a 64-57 Freedom lead and send the game into overtime tied 64-64.

Luxemburg-Casco seized control in the extra period, opening overtime with eight straight points to complete a 15-0 run and take a 72-64 lead.

A 3-pointer by Brooke Garrett and two free throws by Makenna Haase helped Freedom close the gap to 74-71, but Schiltz sealed the Spartans win with four straight free throws to complete her extraordinary night.

The 5-foot-11 Schiltz, who is considered a legitimate Division I prospect, drained seven 3-pointers and also made plays off the dribble.

The thing with her is that shes so strong from the outside, but when you go step out a little tight on her, she gets to the basket, said Vander Loop. Shes a multi-faceted player, she can hurt you from both the inside and outside.

The 40-point outburst marked a career high for Schiltz, who scored 39 points in another game this season. She entered the contest averaging 21.0 points per game.

I dont know, I wasnt very hot in warmups, said Schiltz. I only made a couple shots. And then in the game, I hit a couple shots and I guess I was just feeling it.

Schiltzs monster game, along with the Spartans impressive comeback, overshadowed a huge night by Haase, who poured in 30 points. Garrett, a junior, added 18 for Freedom.

Jorgensen, who is also a sophomore, gave the Irish additional trouble, scoring 23 points.

Jenna and I have been playing together since we were little, said Schiltz. She stepped up tonight. Everyone stepped up tonight. Were a never-give-up kind of team. This win was huge for us.

With Haase scoring 16 first-half points, Freedom led 38-27 at the intermission and pushed its lead to 48-26 on a Garrett 3-pointer with 12 minutes left. But Schiltz drilled three consecutive 3-pointers to drive the Spartans back and Luxemburg-Casco outplayed the Irish down the stretch.

Give Luxemburg-Casco a lot of credit, said Vander Loop. They made big shots. And it wasnt just Schiltz. Jorgensen hit some big shots, too.

Luxemburg-Casco

27

37 13

77

Freedom

38

26 7

71

Luxemburg-Casco: Jorgensen 23, Tebon 2, Schiltz 40, Bukouricz 6, Dorner 6. Totals 27 14-17 77. Three-pointers: Schiltz 7, Jorgensen 2. Fouls: 18. Fouled out: Dorner.

Freedom: Garrett 18, Peters 5, M. Haase 30, T. Haase 3, Kempen 6, Witt 3, Evers 6. Totals 25 16-23 71. Three-pointers: Garrett 4, Peters. Fouls: 15.

Tim Froberg: 920-993-7183 or tfroberg@postcrescent.com; on Twitter @twfroberg

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

See the original post:

Freedom can't hold off Spartans in overtime loss - Appleton Post Crescent

Residents living in the transit deserts of Brooklyn and southeast Queens are about to get a new commuting option.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will launch a pilot this fall that will bridge bus, subway and Long Island Rail Road service within New York City under one ticket, according to Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and two MTA board members, who will announce the news on Wednesday.

The test of the Freedom Ticket, as its been called by transit advocates, will be implemented along select LIRR stations, mostly along the Atlantic Branch, including Brooklyns Atlantic Terminal, East New York and Nostrand Avenue stations, as well as Queens Laurelton, Locust Manor, Rosedale and St. Albans stations.

I thank the MTA for stepping up their commitment to underserved riders in central and eastern Brooklyn, said Adams, an early proponent of the pilot, in a statement. The Freedom Ticket promises a greater freedom of movement and a more intelligent use of our transit system, prioritizing the needs of commuters in need of a break. I look forward to seeing the results of this pilot program.

By allowing riders to transfer seamlessly between the Long Island Railroad and the citys bus and subway system, the Freedom Ticket could drastically cut hours from residents commutes every week while also tapping into underutilized LIRR service, according to the New York City Transit Riders Council (NYCTRC), which introduced the proposal in 2015.

There is wonderful rail infrastructure running through Brooklyn and southeast Queens, but unfortunately its priced beyond the reach of many neighborhoods, said Andrew Albert, an MTA board member and chair of the NYCTRC. This will allow for a more direct ride for commuters while significantly cutting travel times.

Under the pilot, riders will be able to buy single one-way tickets, weekly or monthly passes valid for both subway and LIRR trains. Fares will be more expensive than MetroCard rates, but likely significantly cheaper than the cost of purchasing both a MetroCard and LIRR ticket, according to estimates from the NYCTRC.

Tom Prendergast, former MTA chairman, announced at his last board meeting, in January, that the agency will undertake a field study for the Freedom Ticket to get a sense of its impacts on service and pricing for fares.

Using more of our capacity and giving people travel options, which is at the core of the Freedom Ticket, is something that we can and should look at more closely, said Prendergast. This limited-duration field study will help MTA understand customer demand for Atlantic Terminal and any impacts on service and operations such a plan would have.

An MTA spokeswoman said that the Freedom Ticket was still being studied by the agency and no timeline is set.

But Albert, who said that MTA board members were briefed on the plans last month, assured that details on the pilot will be unveiled in the spring. Once implemented, the test will be reviewed over the course of six months, according to Albert.

We have the LIRR seats, lets sell them, Albert said.

Read the rest here:

Freedom Ticket pilot launching in Brooklyn, Queens this fall, Borough President Adams says - amNY

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina told reporters the proposal currently being drafted takes much of the language from a 2015 GOP measure to dismantle the health care law that Congress passed but was vetoed by then-President Barack Obama. "It echoes a repeal and a replacement at the same time."

Hill Republicans have struggled in recent weeks to get on the same page for how they plan to roll back Obamacare and create a new system, while still addressing concerns from voters about disruptions in insurance coverage during a transition period.

This latest effort will add pressure on leaders from those on the right, who have expressed frustration with the lack of more immediate action on a central 2016 campaign promise. President Donald Trump added to the confusion over the weekend when he told Fox News that his effort to get rid of the law and stand up a new health care system could spill into next year.

"We're going to be putting it in fairly soon, I think that -- yes, I would like to say by the end of the year at least the rudiments but we should have something within the year and the following year," Trump said.

South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford is taking the lead on the new legislation, taking input from Freedom Caucus members and others and putting them into legislative language. The group met Monday evening to go over the framework and is likely to endorse the measure. It will take some elements of a proposal already introduced by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has argued that both efforts -- rolling back the law and creating a new system -- need to happen simultaneously.

Meadows stressed that the measure will protect coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and said another focus was "making sure costs go down."

Conservatives plan to push for a vote on their bill alongside the Republican leadership's reconciliation package that is being constructed now by key committees. Meadows said action on both doesn't necessarily need to be simultaneous, but "certainly needs to be the same week."

The North Carolina Republican suggested that because states are split on how to address those getting coverage through the Medicaid program that the new legislation would likely propose allocating funds through block grants and letting states administer the programs on their own.

Vice President Mike Pence attended a lunch in the Capitol Tuesday with another group of House conservatives, the Republican Study Committee, to reassure members that the Administration was in fact on the same page with moving swiftly ahead with its top legislative priority.

RSC Chairman Mark Walker, who introduced the first GOP health care bill last month, told CNN that Pence reiterated to members in that meeting that "regardless of how it was articulated on O'Reilly or over the weekend, that they are committed to moving quickly with this."

Walker, a former pastor who is in his second term in Congress, downplayed any mixed messages on the process from the president.

"I think like I did, coming from a background without any kind of political experience or history, there is a procedural part that you have to learn and I want to be a little patient and allow the President some time just to basically figure out the timelines that it takes just to get some of this done."

See the original post:

House Freedom Caucus set to unveil their own Obamacare repeal ... - CNN

South Dakota State Capitol Photo: Jim Bowen, via Wikimedia.

South Dakota lawmakers are weighing a proposed bill that would allow agents of adoption and foster care agencies to reject qualified parents based on personal religious or moral objections.

Under the bill, SB 149, child placement agencies are given significant leeway to discriminate against prospective parents based on a wide swath of beliefs. While an agency may not discriminate based on race, ethnicity or national origin, it can refuse to place children in homes based on the parents religious beliefs (or lack of religion), moral beliefs, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or even an adoptive or foster parents accepting attitude toward homosexuality.

The bill also hamstrings the state to be able to respond in any retaliatory way against an agency that chooses to discriminate. The agency cannot be denied state funding, tax breaks, or special contracts, and the state cannot sue to force the agency to stop discriminating. Child advocates are concerned that the measure may result in a backlog of childrenunable to find permanent homesby further limiting the number of eligibleadoptive or foster parents.

Similar bills have been passed in previous years in other states, including Virginia, where lawmakers approved a conscience clause exemption bill that allowed child placement agencies to discriminate based on a host of characteristics. The bill was signed into law by former Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) in 2012.

South Dakota is poised to pass a sweeping discriminatory bill that puts kids at risk, Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. Senate Bill 149 would allow any adoption or foster care agency to reject qualified parents on religious grounds, such as if they are LGBT, of a different faith, or because they are divorced.

This shameful bill resembles the draft of the anti-LGBT, anti-choice executive order [from the White House] making its rounds last week that prompted a public outcry. South Dakota shoudl realize that the public will not accept this type of discrimination, especially when vulnerable kids are at risk.

SB 149 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health & Human Services Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 15.

More:

South Dakota considering religious freedom adoption bill - Metro Weekly

In recognition of Black History Month, the Auburn Alumni Association will host Freedom Riders Bill Harbour and Charles Person in a free public event Feb. 22, from 4-6 p.m., at The Hotel at Auburn University and Dixon Conference Center.

Harbour and Person will offer accounts of their experiences as civil rights activists who rode interstate buses through the segregated southern United States in the early 1960s.

The event will be streamed live on the Auburn Alumni Associations Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/AuburnAlumniAssociation/ for those who are unable to attend.

Harbour and Person endured beatings, bombings, harassment and imprisonmentbut they helped change the Civil Rights Movement and demonstrated the power of individual actions to transform the nation.

In 1961, Civil Rights activists organized by the Congress of Racial Equality rode interstate buses deep into the heart of segregated America to challenge local laws and customs that denied ordinary citizens basic freedoms because of the color of their skin.

The 1960 Supreme Court Decision Boynton v. Virginia granted them the legal right to buy tickets for buses and sit where theyd like, but all were aware they would face violence and vitriol in the fight to end white supremacy.

Harbour was only 19 when he traveled to Rock Hill, S.C., to serve jail time in solidarity with the Rock Hill Nine who were imprisoned for a lunch counter sit-in.

Harbour was the first to exit the Nashville Movement Freedom Ride when it arrived at the Montgomery Greyhound Bus Station. He was met immediately by a mob of more than 200 people wielding lead pipes and baseball bats, but escaped with his life. A native of Piedmont, Ala., Harbour lives in Atlanta and serves as the unofficial archivist of the Freedom Rider Movement.

Person, an Atlanta native, was the youngest member of the inaugural 1961 Freedom Ride at age 18. He was a gifted math and physics student who dreamed of a career as a scientist but who was refused admission to the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Person became active in civil disobedience around Atlanta while attending Morehouse College, serving a 16-day jail sentence for sitting at a segregated lunch counter. Person was one of the most severely beaten of the Freedom Riders at the Birmingham Trailways Bus Station riot on May 14, 1961.

Person enlisted in the Marines in late 1961 and retired after two decades of military service. He now works in the Atlanta public school system as a technology supervisor.

On Jan. 12, 2017, then-President Barack Obama approved three Civil Rights monuments, including 5.6 acres of parkland in Alabama on the site of the historic Greyhound Bus Station in Anniston as the Freedom Riders National Monument, an official part of the National Park Service.

The park will be developed at the bus station where an angry mob attacked a Greyhound bus carrying seven Freedom Riders on Mothers Day, 1961, to the grocery store grounds where their bus was famously set on fire, strengthening the Freedom Riders resolve in the process. Planning and design for the Freedom Riders National Monument are now under way.

Jessica King is an employee of Auburn University.

See more here:

Former Freedom Riders to be speak at upcoming AU event - Opelika Auburn News

The head of the organization behind the Oscar awards called for diversity and freedom of expression, saying the United States should not put barriers in the way of artists from around the world.

Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, told the 165 Oscar-nominated actors and film makers there was a "struggle globally today over artistic freedom that feels more urgent than at any time since the 1950s," an apparent reference to the anti-communist blacklists of some in the movie industry at the time.

Speaking at a luncheon in Beverly Hills for the 2017 nominees on Monday, Isaacs noted that there were "some empty chairs in this room, which has made Academy artists activists."

Iranian director Asghar Farhadi and actress Taraneh Alidoosti, who stars in his foreign-language nominated film "The Salesman," said last week they would boycott the Feb. 26 Academy Awards to protest President Donald Trump's travel restrictions on Iranians and six other Muslim-majority countries. The executive order was being reviewedby a federal appeals court on Feb. 7.

Other Oscar nominees who expect to find difficulty traveling to Los Angeles for the ceremony include those behind documentary "The White Helmets" about civilian Syrian rescue workers.

Isaacs did not directly mention the travel restrictions, but she said, "America should always be not a barrier but a beacon. ... We stand up to those who would try and limit our freedom of expression."

"When we speak out against those who try and put up barriers, we reinforce this important truth - that all artists around the world are connected by a powerful bond, one that speaks to our creativity and common humanity," she said, to loud applause.

Isaacs' address followed fiery speeches at recent awards shows and rallies by celebrities ranging from Meryl Streep to Madonna and Ellen DeGeneres condemning the travel ban, supporting civil and women's rights, and criticizing Trump's behavior.

Isaacs, who is African-American, also cited the Academy's efforts to improve diversity in its ranks. After two straight years in which all 20 acting nominees were white, this year there are seven actors of color among the Oscar nominees.

"Wow! What a difference a year makes," she said.

Some 683 new members - many of them women or people of color - have joined the Academy in the past 12 months in a bid to make the body that chooses the Oscar winners more representative.

"When we reach out to be inclusive, we set a shining example," said Isaacs.

Read the original here:

Oscars organizer calls for diversity, freedom following Trump travel ban - amNY

Washginton-based NGO Freedom House made headlines recently with its 2017 Freedom in the World report that downgraded Venezuela to the dreaded category of Not Free.

Venezuelan president Nicols Maduros combination of strong-arm rule and dire economic mismanagement pushed his country to a status of Not Free for the first time in 2016, the organization warned.

In particular, Freedom House justified its move claiming that the Maduro government allegedly responded to an opposition victory in recent legislative elections by stripping the legislature of meaningful power and blocking a presidential recall referendum, effectively cutting off the only route to an orderly change of leadership.

For the moment, lets bracket the well-documented evidence that the recall referendum was sabotaged by the Venezuelan oppositionsown internecine divisions(including53,658 illegitimate signatures) and that the opposition-controlled parliament has shown more interest inousting Madurovia constitutionally dubious means than in actually governing the country.

What we find buried in Freedom Houses statement is an extremely important, if inconvenient acknowledgement: Venezuela held elections in December 2015, which were overwhelmingly won by the opposition, yet the Maduro regimeimmediately recognized the results.

However, recognizing the outcome of free and fair elections is apparently not enough for Freedom House.

Or perhaps these stringent standards only apply to certain countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. These left-wing governments are the only democratic problem children deserving of rebuke in the eyes of the NGO.

Yet strangely missing from the reports list of trend arrows for 2017 is Brazil.

The NGO seems largely unconcerned about theparliamentary coupthat ousted elected center-left Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, which in no way altered the countrys ranking as free with a high score of 79 out of 100.

However history may judge the impeachment itself, the process impeded government functions by absorbing executive and legislative attention for months, and it did little to resolve a broader corruption crisis, reads the reports description of thelikely US-backedregime change operation.

Indeed, Freedom House is silent regarding the Temer regimescriminalization of social movementsand its 20-year freezing of social spending, which has been widely decried as adeclaration of war on the poor.

Interestingly, both Honduras (46) and Haiti (39) are likewise ranked higher than Venezuela (30), despite widespread allegations of corruption, electoral fraud, and grave human rights violations under both theHernndezandMartelly-Privertgovernments.

Of course, Freedom Houses glaring double standards make perfect sense when you consider that the independent watchdog organization is itselffinancedvia grants from USAID [US Agency for International Development] and U.S. State Department.

In other words, behind its seemingly complex methodology, the NGO is little more than a US government front that annually decides which non-Western countries should be banished to the sub-ontological hell of the Not Free based entirely on US geopolitical interests.

Temer, Martelly, and Hernndez are, after all, close US allies, while Venezuela and other leftist Latin American governments have long beentargeted for regime change by Washington.

Most recently, the outgoing Obama administration renewed for the second timean executive order labeling Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security. Organizations like Freedom House are hardly indifferent to such moves by their financial benefactor.

Moreover, Freedom House is far from a passive recipient of US funding, but is itself an important player in USAID-financed democracy promotion projects across the region. Between 2012 and 2015, the NGO received $2,160,000 in USAID grants for its activities in Venezuela alone, as revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request.

Leaked US State Department cables spell out what democracy promotion means in practice. In a 2006cable, then US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield outlined the USAID agenda in the country:

The strategy's focus is: 1) Strengthening Democratic Institutions, 2) Penetrating Chavez' Political Base, 3) Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital US business, and 5) Isolating Chavez internationally.

In anothercablefrom 2009 concerning violent anti-government protests held that year, a USAID contractor admitted, all these people (organizing the protests) are our grantees.

Freedom House Latin America Regional Director Carlos Ponce is himself no stranger to this world of Washington-backed democracy promotion.

Ponce is the former president of the Latin American and Caribbean Network for Democracy Inc., which in 2015 received$115,000from the National Endowment for Democracy, another US entity with a pernicious record of financing regime change operations inVenezuelaand across the continent. The Venezuelan nationalpreviouslyworked as a consultant for the private military contractor DynCorp in addition to serving as CEO of the shadowy Massachusetts-based CIAF International, which claims to provide environmental, social, political, regulatory and economic technical assistance to at least 25 national and international nonprofits, government agencies and private companies throughout the Americas, despite absolutely no information being available online.

All in all, Freedom House is poorly placed to objectively assess the state of freedom and democracy in Venezuela, or anywhere else for that matter, given that it is funded by thegreatest purveyorof coups againstdemocratically electedgovernments worldwide.

The NGO should instead consider taking its democracy promotion agenda back home wheremass deportations,systemic police killings, wholesalevoter disenfranchisement, and trickle upbank bailoutshave cast large swaths of the US population among the Not Free.

See the original post here:

Freedom House Brands Venezuela Not Free, Whitewashes Brazilian Coup - Venezuelanalysis.com

IrishCentral

Obamas to get Freedom of the City of Dublin BBC News Former US President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are to be granted the Freedom of the City of Dublin. Dublin City councillors voted to award the honour in recognition of Mr Obama's "moderating and progressive" influence on the world stage. Barack and Michelle Obama to be honored with Freedom of Dublin CityIrishCentral Barack and Michelle Obama to be awarded freedom of DublinIrish Times Dublin councillors pass motion to give Obamas Freedom of CityRTE.ie JOE -The Irish Sun -Lovin Dublin all 30 news articles »

The rest is here:

Obamas to get Freedom of the City of Dublin - BBC News

A steer made a run for its life after a escaping abutcherin the Parker County town of Weatherford, Texas -- the Cutting Horse Capital of the World.

The bovine escaped from the Hamilton Meats Butcher Shop last Thursday and roamed busy streets and evaded capture from police andanimalcontrol services for nearly two hours. Police say it even rammed a patrol car.

The steer almost made it home free until it ran into a couple of cowboys on horseback. Blake Davies and Justin Farber managed to rope down the steer in the middle of a busy street nearTacoBell and returned it to the butcher.

I just did what I had to do,Davies told the Weatherford Democrat.I justrunup there and thank God everybody stopped and seen me coming. I come blowing out that intersection right there towards at Walmart ... I was going fast and so was that cow.

The Weatherford Police Department posted the dashcamvideoof the determined bovine onFacebook and has gotten more than 6.2 million views.

No injuries were reported.

Story first appeared on FOX 4 NEWS.

See the original post:

Steer gets a taste of freedom after escaping butcher shop - Fox News

After years of trying, Congress may, finally be set to update the laws surrounding the privacy of emails to the 21st Century. For the second consecutive Congress, the House has passed the Email Privacy Act by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority. After constant and inexplicable delays, perhaps this can be the year that basic due process protections for our online emails and files can make it into law.

The Email Privacy Act addresses a basic flaw in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). Ironically, ECPA was designed, as its name indicates, to strengthen legal due process with respect to electronic data and communications. The goal, of course, was to bring legal protections up to date with modern technology at the time. But the law was more protective of communications in transit than of data at rest, especially with respect to third-party data storage.

The actual text of ECPA (18 U.S. Code 2703) provides the means for government agencies to demand that any remote computing service cough up the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days via administrative subpoena. In English, this means that your communications and data stored external to your computer, like in Gmail, Dropbox, or any other cloud service, can be demanded by the feds without a warrant (and without you being notified), so long as the requested files are over 180 days old.

In 1986, this provision wasnt a huge deal because the modern web didnt exist. Data storage was expensive, so most computer users stored their email and other files on their own hard drives. In the present day, tens of millions of people routinely store years worth of their communications and personal files alike on third-party cloud servers. The lack of a basic warrant requirement to access these is an insane breach of privacy.

The need to reform ECPA is so completely self-evident, in fact, that the House of Representatives passed the Email Privacy Act by a vote of 412-0 in 2016. Yet it went nowhere in a Senate preoccupied by the upcoming election, despite bi-partisan support for ECPA reform in that chamber.

Part of the hesitancy in passing ECPA reform has been protests from executive agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that they need the ability to quickly grab documents as part of their investigations into various regulatory and criminal offenses. But there is a simple reply: Get a warrant. Court orders dont take a ton of time to get if there is probable cause. Outside of emergency situations, the system isnt supposed to make violating the privacy of peoples files and communications easy or convenient.

But a new Congress means a fresh start, and the Email Privacy Act has not only already been reintroduced by original sponsors Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan. (D, 65%) and Rep. Jared Polis, R-Colo. (F, 20%), but has already passed the House again, by an easy voice vote.

A great start. Now, in the spirit of better late than never, the Senate should take up the bill as soon as the major nomination crunch is over and send it to President Trumps desk.

Josh Withrow is an Associate Editor for Conservative Review and Director of Public Policy at Free the People. You can follow him on Twitter at @jgwithrow.

See the original post here:

Congressional tech forecast: Clouds with a chance of freedom - Conservative Review

That's not how any of this works! Bil Browning

As Donald Trump and the GOP are trying to sell legal protections for discrimination with religious freedom language, heres a reminder that they dont care about freedom of religion at all. A person who wants to ban Muslims from entering the US does not care about religious freedom.

It really is that simple.

Donald Trump campaigned on a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. He called for this repeatedly. He won the election because a lot of Republicans want to keep Islam out of the US.

If it wasnt enough for Trump to advocate a ban on immigrants who practice Islam, hes working to make it a reality. His recent executive order is a first step to that end. Republicans arent even hiding it. Rudy Giuliani told Fox News, When he first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up. He said, Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' And this is the result.

Someone who cares about freedom of religion does not advocate discriminating against those who practice one religion. Thats the opposite of religious freedom.

Look at the issues they hold up as examples of religious freedom being violated. The Hobby Lobby case was about an employer that didnt want its employees to be able to get contraception in the health care those employees earned and that the government subsidized. The Little Sisters case went one step further and argued that even filling out a form saying that an employer doesnt want to include contraception in health care their employees earn is too big of a burden.

No one is forcing employers to use contraception, and these employers are specifically saying that they want to be able to prevent others from using it because of their religious beliefs.

Thats not religious freedom.

The right wants adoption agencies to be able to discriminate against single parents and same-sex couples when placing children. No one is forcing those adoption agency workers to be gay or single, they just want to be able to discriminate against parents who dont follow the agencys religions tenets, no matter the religious practices of those parents.

Thats not religious freedom.

They say federal contractors religious rights are being violated by making them treat LGBT employees as they do other employees, by providing marriage benefits for same-sex couples and for allowing transgender employees to use an appropriate bathroom. No one is forcing the contractors to marry someone of the same sex or to use any bathroom, but the contractors religious freedom is being violated because they cant discriminate against LGBT employees.

Thats not religious freedom.

The rights definition of freedom of religion is Conservative Christians ability to impose their political beliefs on others, especially when it comes to how other people have sex. Thats not what religious freedom is.

Religious freedom cannot be unfettered because people have different religions and we have to get along. At some point there will be conflict between various freedoms, freedom of religion included, and we have ways of dealing with that.

In the US, people get a lot of freedom to practice their religion in the private sphere, and then we evaluate the burdens placed on them in the public sphere to see if those burdens are outweighed by other goals.

This is why encouraging Muslims convert to Christianity before studying, working, vacationing, visiting, or living in the US is so repulsive; the government should not be telling anyone how to pray, believe, or identify themselves.

Someone who cares about freedom of religion does not say that people of all religions are free to follow Christianity. Thats the joke definition of freedom of religion. If its your definition, then you dont believe in religious freedom.

Religious freedom is important, real religious freedom. We have centuries of history to look at what happens when we allow governments to spread one religion and squelch others.

Trump doesnt care about religious freedom. Religious freedom sounds nicer than freedom to impose ones beliefs on another persons private life if you follow the right religion.

Thats what makes it a good marketing tool, but youre a sucker if you actually believe it.

Read this article:

Reality check: Donald Trump does not care about your 'religious freedom' - LGBTQ Nation

Have fun with this, McConnell and Ryan. Campaign Action

The problem children of the House, the maniacs in the Freedom Caucus, are having a tantrum. They don't care if millions of people lose their insurance and health care. They don't care if it's complicated to unwind a law this complex. They don't care if there are consequences. They just don't care. They were promised Obamacare and they want it now.

Mr. Meadows said the Freedom Caucus planned to discuss Monday night whether to adopt an official stance in favor of immediate repeal of the law, which would require the support of 80% of their members. []

In the Senate, Republicans say they are working on fixing the health-laws failing components. We will repair the damage that Obamacare has caused millions of Americans, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) wrote in a statement Sunday. We will do that by replacing Obamacare with better, lower-cost alternatives and repealing the parts of Obamacare that have caused the damage.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), another conservative leader, said conservatives are alarmed about the talk from centrist Republicans of stopping short of a full repeal of the ACA. That causes greater concern, he said.

What all this means is that there is still no replacement plan, which is nothing new. It also means there's no hope of getting a Republican replacement plan because the divisions in the party are just too huge. That is also not new. There's also no chance Democrats step up to help, because why would they? It's too satisfying to watch them continue to flounder. So Meadows' bright idea of getting Democrats to "negotiate in earnest" (or more plainly, bail them out) is just super pathetic.

Read this article:

Freedom Caucus hissy fit: But we want Obamacare repeal right nooooooowwwww! - Daily Kos