Merry Christmas
The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Religious freedom and the defense spending bill:
What will happen next?
by Kelsey Dallas
.
Top Headlines
Anything to delegitimize Trump's election! Now 40 electors demanding intelligence briefing on Russia hacks. (Hot Air)
Stein spent nearly $1 million of recount funds on consultants, staff, administrative expenses. Sorry liar-Hillary. (Washington Free Beacon)
Trump has companies rethinking plans to move U.S. jobs abroad. (Bloomberg)
New York City offering workers therapy to cope with Trump-induced stress. (New York Post)
Despite an already extravagant vacation price tag on taxpayers' dime, liar-nObama looks forward to a "decent vacation." (Washington Examiner)
Settled bureaucracy: Energy Dept. refuses to name staffers who worked on climate. (The Hill)
Congress moves to strengthen authority of inspector general. Time for accountability? (The Washington Times)
Fed set to hike rates, policy outlook now hinges on Trump presidency. (Reuters)
Gov. John Kasich vetoes Heartbeat Bill, signs 20-week abortion ban. (The Columbus Dispatch)
Google releases small batch of national security letters to the public — a small win for transparency. (Reason)
Policy: A how-to guide for rolling back liar-nObama's regulatory state. (National Review)
Policy: The Middle East won't miss liar-nObama (Hudson Institute)
~The Patriot Post
.
.
Trey Gowdy: ‘liar-nObama Is No Longer
MY President, We Will CHARGE liar-Hillary’
by William Smith
{jewsnews.co.il} ~ Trey Gowdy has proven that he intends to be relentless in his pursuit for justice for liar-Hillary Clinton. If anyone is going to hold her accountable for the many crimes she’s committed, it’s him... Unfortunately, it’s a waiting game for now. Many are frustrated that liar-Clinton seems to have walked away as a criminal, facing little consequence for her cheating, scheming, and more. Worst of all, she seems to think the election was stolen from her. liar-Clinton’s team has been urging the Benghazi Select Committee be shut down—but Gowdy isn’t having hit. He recently sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, claiming that he “intentionally mischaracterizes both the nature of the Committee’s investigation and its interaction with the Department of Defense.” “It is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, which not only does a disservice to the public but also does a disservice to the women and men who work for the Department of Defense,” he continued. “Your staff is welcome to waste taxpayer dollars writing partisan, factually deficient letters to our Committee, coordinate the language with House Democrats, and then leak it to the media. That is your prerogative.” Gowdy has also gone after liar-nObama for his gross “unacceptable abuse of power.” http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2016/12/15/trey-gowdy-obama-is-no-longer-my-president-we-will-charge-hillary.html
.
The Blood of Aleppo is on liar-nObama’s Hands
by Cliff Kincaid
{aim.org} ~ It’s amazing how CNN’s talking heads can devote so much time to the “scandal” of Donald J. Trump’s sons participating in interviews of cabinet picks, but can’t connect the dots between the bloody tragedy in Aleppo and President Barack liar-nObama’s pro-terrorist policy in the Middle East... During the day on Wednesday, we saw CNN repeatedly air gruesome film footage of the massacre of civilians in Aleppo by the Russians and their Iranian and Syrian puppets. Not once did any CNN talking head bother to point out that liar-nObama’s policy of intervention, through support of terrorist groups in Syria who are losing the war, may have had a role in the unfolding massacre. In a scandal that makes the alleged Russian hacking of Democratic emails appear minor by comparison, a Democratic member of the U.S. House has taken to the House floor to say that liar-nObama’s CIA has been aiding the Islamic terrorist groups ISIS and al-Qaeda for the purpose of overthrowing the Syrian regime... http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-blood-of-aleppo-is-on-obamas-hands/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email120616&utm_medium=email
.
Sheriff's investigation finds
liar-nObama birth certificate 'fake'
by Bob Unruh
{wnd.com} ~ A years-long forensics investigation into the computer image of the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate image that Barack liar-nObama released during a White House news conference during his first term... and presented to the American people as an official government document reveals it is “fake.” It also confirms those who were subjected to the derogatory “birther” label from many media outlets and Democrats for badgering liar-nObama with lawsuits, petitions to the Supreme Court, and more, were right – at least in the dispute that the document was manufactured and the questions about liar-nObama’s birth and legitimacy to be president under the Constitution’s requirements still are unanswered. The issue was, and is for future presidents, that the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural-born citizen” but does not define the term. Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth, born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country... http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investigators-find-source-for-obamas-online-birth-certification-image/
.
UN Internet Summit Run by Beijing
Pushes “Global Governance”
by Alex Newman
{thenewamerican.com} ~ Under the leadership of various Communist Chinese agents within the United Nations, the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) met in Mexico last week and concluded with calls for greater international controls and more “global governance” of the World Wide Web... Another key item on the agenda was exploiting the Internet to promote the UN's deeply controversial “Agenda 2030” Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), essentially a UN road-map toward global totalitarianism that Beijing played a “crucial role” in developing. The controversial UN IGF gathering was the first annual summit of governments, dictators, tax-funded “civil society” outfits, academics, and tech companies since liar-nObama surrendered U.S. oversight over crucial components of the Internet's architecture such as ICANN. It was also the first IGF summit since the mass-murdering dictatorship in China, which censors the Web and savagely persecutes dissidents, boldly announced last month its intent to subordinate the free and open Internet to its draconian vision of “global governance.”...
.
Source Of WikiLeaks Docs Comes Forward,
Not Putin, Not Even Russian
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, is a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He says he knows where the WikiLeaks documents came from and, as Mr. Assange has insisted, it had nothing to do with the Russians... He has firsthand knowledge because he is the individual who received the documents in a clandestine handoff from disgruntled DNC insiders. In September Mr. Murray flew to Washington DC in order to receive the documents, which were given to him in a wooded area near American University in the northwest part of the city. The person he met with was not the original person who obtained them but an intermediary. Murray is described by the Daily Mail in their report as a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was later cleared of those allegations but opted to leave the diplomatic service due to the animosity that had been created... http://rickwells.us/source-wikileaks-docs-comes-forward-putin-russian/
..
Religious freedom and the defense spending bill:
What will happen next?
by Kelsey Dallas
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act is expected to pass the House and Senate now that the "controversial" Russell Amendment has been removed
Republican congressional leaders agreed this week to remove controversial religious freedom protections from the 2017 defense spending bill, angering many conscience rights advocates as opponents of the provision cheered the move as a victory for LGBT rights.
"Because Congress ducked this important issue, more service providers will be unable to continue offering their critical services, services that are sometimes only offered by religious groups," said Kristina Arriaga, executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in a press release.
The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act, produced by members of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, does not include the Russell Amendment, which would have ensured that religiously affiliated nonprofits contracting with the federal government could hire on the basis of religious belief, even if that meant excluding LGBT job applicants.
This provision, introduced by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma, in April and included in the version of the NDAA passed by the House in May, was criticized by Democratic leaders and LGBT rights activists, who labeled it discriminatory. The White House had threatened to veto the bill, at least in part because of the Russell Amendment, if it passed in its House form.
Some observers worry that the compromise version of the NDAA signals further deterioration of religious liberty in the U.S., but Republican aides familiar with the Senate and House Armed Service committees' work argue that President-elect Donald Trump's leadership will create opportunities to accomplish what the Russell Amendment aimed to do.
"Subsequent to the election, new paths have opened up to address those issues. It's still a very important issue for members, and they intend to pursue those other paths," an unnamed aide told the Washington Blade earlier this week.
WHY WAS THE RUSSELL AMENDMENT INTRODUCED?
In July 2014, liar-nObama signed Executive Order 13672, "adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories in the existing executive order covering federal contractors," according to a White House press release.
liar-nObama's order kept in place an exemption allowing religiously affiliated contractors to apply a religious test for employing people with explicitly religious roles, such as a minister. However, critics argued that protections needed to be broader in order to ensure that these organizations didn't have to compromise on their beliefs in order to work with the government, Politico reported at the time.
Introduced to the House version of the NDAA in April, the Russell Amendment sought to shore up the rights of not-for-profit religious organizations. It wouldn't have applied to all federal contractors, as some media reports have claimed.
"Neither for-profit organizations nor secular organizations have ever qualified or ever could," wrote Douglas Laycock a recognized religious liberty expert and law professor at the University of Virginia, in The Hill on Nov. 17.
He argued that the Russell Amendment was a reiteration of long-standing religious protections, rather than an effort to give religious employers free reign to discriminate against the LGBT community.
"The Russell Amendment says simply that not-for-profit religious organizations with government contracts get the protection of both the language from the Civil Rights Act the right to hire persons of a particular religion and the clarifying language of the Disabilities Act, that this includes adherence to the religion's tenet," Laycock said.
WHAT MADE IT 'CONTROVERSIAL'?
The Russell Amendment emerged as a key roadblock stalling the NDAA for a variety of reasons, including disagreements about what it sought to do and ongoing battles over how to balance religious freedom protections and non-discrimination law.
Supporters argued that few contractors would be eligible for the religious exemptions, while also noting that the provision was necessary to ensure that government could continue working with the best service providers.
"There are not that many religious organizations with government contracts, but there are some, and they do important work. They should not be forced to choose between abandoning their cooperation with government programs or abandoning their religious identities," Laycock wrote.
Religiously affiliated contractors "are awarded government contracts and grants because they are the best and most cost-efficient at meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, and they do not discriminate in providing services," the Becket Fund press release noted.
Senate Democrats and other opponents argued that the provision would put millions of members of the LGBT community at risk of losing their jobs. These critics mobilized against the Russell Amendment, writing letters of protest and calling Republican characterizations of it into question.
A group of 40 Senate Democrats and two independents released a letter in October arguing that the Russell Amendment would 'vastly expand religious exemptions' provided by the Civil Rights and Disabilities acts, the Associated Press reported.
Opponents, including the Human Rights Campaign and ACLU, released petitions with similar arguments this month, News OK reported.
"The Russell Amendment is one of the most significant threats to LGBT people, women, religious minorities and others we have seen in Congress in years," the groups stated.
As Senate and House leaders worked to craft a final version of the NDAA, disagreements over the Russell Amendment ballooned into a larger debate about the status of religious freedom law in the U.S.
Democrats increasingly support LGBT rights at the expense of religious liberty protections, while Republicans do the opposite, as the Deseret News reported last month. Compromise is becoming more and more elusive.
This spirit helped turn discussions on the Russell Amendment into a standoff, rather than a negotiation.
"Critics will not be satisfied until their assaults of intolerance on people of faith in this country has produced an elimination of God in public life in America," said Congressman Russell in a speech from the House floor in May, according to NewsOK.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The NDAA posed a unique challenge for Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. People on both sides of the Russell Amendment debates risked being viewed as ineffective and anti-military if they couldn't get the NDAA deal done, the AP reported, characterizing the bill as "must-pass."
Republican leaders who agreed to remove the provision are facing a backlash from within their own party. High-profile Republican supporters of the Russell Amendment included Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who wrote an editorial for The Washington Times last month criticizing efforts to mischaracterize it.
"There's been a great deal of misinformation spread about the Russell Amendment and what it does and does not do," he wrote. "We must reject the idea that religious freedom and equality are enemies."
However, those who agreed to drop the provision may be able to defend their move by pointing toward the future. Even Hatch has presented the loss of the Russell Amendment as an opportunity for Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress to act.
"Because Congress was unwilling to enact this language, addressing the ambiguity in the 2014 executive order now falls to President-elect Trump and the next Congress," he wrote in a Thursday op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
The Washington Blade speculated on how a new Congress or administration could respond.
The Russell Amendment situation should serve as a reminder for LGBT rights activists that a my-way-or-the-highway mentality won't work moving forward, Laycock wrote.
"The LGBT community faces an uphill battle getting gay-rights legislation through Congress and red-state legislatures. It will not happen without religious exemptions," he said.
The House passed the new version of the NDAA last week, and the Senate will consider it next week.
Republican congressional leaders agreed this week to remove controversial religious freedom protections from the 2017 defense spending bill, angering many conscience rights advocates as opponents of the provision cheered the move as a victory for LGBT rights.
"Because Congress ducked this important issue, more service providers will be unable to continue offering their critical services, services that are sometimes only offered by religious groups," said Kristina Arriaga, executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in a press release.
The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act, produced by members of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, does not include the Russell Amendment, which would have ensured that religiously affiliated nonprofits contracting with the federal government could hire on the basis of religious belief, even if that meant excluding LGBT job applicants.
This provision, introduced by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma, in April and included in the version of the NDAA passed by the House in May, was criticized by Democratic leaders and LGBT rights activists, who labeled it discriminatory. The White House had threatened to veto the bill, at least in part because of the Russell Amendment, if it passed in its House form.
Some observers worry that the compromise version of the NDAA signals further deterioration of religious liberty in the U.S., but Republican aides familiar with the Senate and House Armed Service committees' work argue that President-elect Donald Trump's leadership will create opportunities to accomplish what the Russell Amendment aimed to do.
"Subsequent to the election, new paths have opened up to address those issues. It's still a very important issue for members, and they intend to pursue those other paths," an unnamed aide told the Washington Blade earlier this week.
WHY WAS THE RUSSELL AMENDMENT INTRODUCED?
In July 2014, liar-nObama signed Executive Order 13672, "adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories in the existing executive order covering federal contractors," according to a White House press release.
liar-nObama's order kept in place an exemption allowing religiously affiliated contractors to apply a religious test for employing people with explicitly religious roles, such as a minister. However, critics argued that protections needed to be broader in order to ensure that these organizations didn't have to compromise on their beliefs in order to work with the government, Politico reported at the time.
Introduced to the House version of the NDAA in April, the Russell Amendment sought to shore up the rights of not-for-profit religious organizations. It wouldn't have applied to all federal contractors, as some media reports have claimed.
"Neither for-profit organizations nor secular organizations have ever qualified or ever could," wrote Douglas Laycock a recognized religious liberty expert and law professor at the University of Virginia, in The Hill on Nov. 17.
He argued that the Russell Amendment was a reiteration of long-standing religious protections, rather than an effort to give religious employers free reign to discriminate against the LGBT community.
"The Russell Amendment says simply that not-for-profit religious organizations with government contracts get the protection of both the language from the Civil Rights Act the right to hire persons of a particular religion and the clarifying language of the Disabilities Act, that this includes adherence to the religion's tenet," Laycock said.
WHAT MADE IT 'CONTROVERSIAL'?
The Russell Amendment emerged as a key roadblock stalling the NDAA for a variety of reasons, including disagreements about what it sought to do and ongoing battles over how to balance religious freedom protections and non-discrimination law.
Supporters argued that few contractors would be eligible for the religious exemptions, while also noting that the provision was necessary to ensure that government could continue working with the best service providers.
"There are not that many religious organizations with government contracts, but there are some, and they do important work. They should not be forced to choose between abandoning their cooperation with government programs or abandoning their religious identities," Laycock wrote.
Religiously affiliated contractors "are awarded government contracts and grants because they are the best and most cost-efficient at meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, and they do not discriminate in providing services," the Becket Fund press release noted.
Senate Democrats and other opponents argued that the provision would put millions of members of the LGBT community at risk of losing their jobs. These critics mobilized against the Russell Amendment, writing letters of protest and calling Republican characterizations of it into question.
A group of 40 Senate Democrats and two independents released a letter in October arguing that the Russell Amendment would 'vastly expand religious exemptions' provided by the Civil Rights and Disabilities acts, the Associated Press reported.
Opponents, including the Human Rights Campaign and ACLU, released petitions with similar arguments this month, News OK reported.
"The Russell Amendment is one of the most significant threats to LGBT people, women, religious minorities and others we have seen in Congress in years," the groups stated.
As Senate and House leaders worked to craft a final version of the NDAA, disagreements over the Russell Amendment ballooned into a larger debate about the status of religious freedom law in the U.S.
Democrats increasingly support LGBT rights at the expense of religious liberty protections, while Republicans do the opposite, as the Deseret News reported last month. Compromise is becoming more and more elusive.
This spirit helped turn discussions on the Russell Amendment into a standoff, rather than a negotiation.
"Critics will not be satisfied until their assaults of intolerance on people of faith in this country has produced an elimination of God in public life in America," said Congressman Russell in a speech from the House floor in May, according to NewsOK.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The NDAA posed a unique challenge for Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. People on both sides of the Russell Amendment debates risked being viewed as ineffective and anti-military if they couldn't get the NDAA deal done, the AP reported, characterizing the bill as "must-pass."
Republican leaders who agreed to remove the provision are facing a backlash from within their own party. High-profile Republican supporters of the Russell Amendment included Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who wrote an editorial for The Washington Times last month criticizing efforts to mischaracterize it.
"There's been a great deal of misinformation spread about the Russell Amendment and what it does and does not do," he wrote. "We must reject the idea that religious freedom and equality are enemies."
However, those who agreed to drop the provision may be able to defend their move by pointing toward the future. Even Hatch has presented the loss of the Russell Amendment as an opportunity for Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress to act.
"Because Congress was unwilling to enact this language, addressing the ambiguity in the 2014 executive order now falls to President-elect Trump and the next Congress," he wrote in a Thursday op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
The Washington Blade speculated on how a new Congress or administration could respond.
The Russell Amendment situation should serve as a reminder for LGBT rights activists that a my-way-or-the-highway mentality won't work moving forward, Laycock wrote.
"The LGBT community faces an uphill battle getting gay-rights legislation through Congress and red-state legislatures. It will not happen without religious exemptions," he said.
The House passed the new version of the NDAA last week, and the Senate will consider it next week.
Comments