Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant Signs Religious Freedom Bill HB 1523 Into Law – ACLU Hardest Hit

Mississippi Passes Religious Freedom Bill, ACLU Livid – WorldNetDaily

.

.
Mississippi’s faith-based communities were given a legal victory on Tuesday when the state’s new religious freedom bill passed.

Gov. Phil Bryant’s signature on HB 1523 provides legal cover to individuals who refuse to provide services when their religious principles are jeopardized.

“I have signed HB 1523 into law to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government or its political subdivisions, which would include counties, cities and institutions of higher learning,” Bryant said in a statement released Tuesday. “This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The governor went on to say the bill does not limit constitutionally protected rights of any citizen under federal or state laws. The legislation takes effect July 1.

Kellie Fiedorek, legal counsel for the religious rights organization Alliance Defending Freedom, cheered the bill’s passage.

“We commend the governor for signing into law protections for schools, churches, businesses, and public employees so that they won’t face government discrimination. After all, you’re not free if your beliefs are confined to your mind. What makes America unique is our freedom to peacefully live out those beliefs, and the Constitution protects that freedom,” Fiedorek said.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant issued a statement after the passage of the state’s religious freedom bill, April 5, 2016 (Photo: Facebook, Phil Bryant)

The ACLU did not share Fiedorek’s joy, saying on Twitter that HB 1523 “just made discrimination a part of state law.”

Some companies that denounced the law include MGM Resorts International, Nissan, Toyota, Tyson Foods, AT&T, IBM and Levi Strauss & Co., CNN reported Tuesday.

Mississippi’s business community merely needs to look at North Carolina to gauge the kind of economic consequences that are likely to follow. The Tar Heel State passed the North Carolina Public Facilities and Security Act on March 23 and was immediately threatened with financial repercussions.

North Carolina’s law prohibits local governments from passing ‘anti-discrimination’ ordinances and requires transgender people to use the public restrooms that align with their biological gender, WND reported Jan. 31.

PayPal, which vowed to cancel plans to open a facility in the state, followed through on its threat Tuesday.

“Becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable,” PayPal CEO Dan Schulman said in a statement, CNN Money reported. “The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.”

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing religious liberties, says otherwise.

“Those who criticize this law probably have either failed to read and understand it, or they intentionally misrepresent it,” Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement released Tuesday.

Liberty Counsel has volunteered to defend the state’s law at no charge since N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper has refused to issue a defense.

“I think the attorney general is a national embarrassment, quite frankly,” Staver told WND on Jan. 31. “Does Mr. Cooper really, honestly, want to open up women’s public bathrooms and showers to men and put the privacy of women and young girls at risk? Is that really what he wants?”

The nonprofit organization called the bill a “commonsense law” that protects the privacy and safety of women and girls in a statement released Tuesday.

“Bathroom bills that allow men to use the women’s restrooms and locker rooms are nonsense. A biological man should use the men’s restroom. How simple can that concept be?” Staver said. “The North Carolina law did not address employment in the private sector. The relationship between private employers and employees remains free of local government interference, and remains regulated by the state. If private companies want to provide additional policies, they are free to do so. People should read the law and stop the histrionics.”

.

.

Tens Of Thousands Of People Demand Bill Clinton Be Arrested And Prosecuted For Violating Massachusetts Election Law

Thousands Demand Bill Clinton Be Arrested And Prosecuted – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
Thousands are demanding that the Massachusetts attorney general arrest and prosecute Bill Clinton following reports that he may have violated state election laws.

An online petition on Change.org, which has accumulated more than 88,000 signatures, calls for the “immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for clear, knowing, and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election in a significant way.” The petition is directed to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat.

The petition was created after video emerged of Clinton shaking hands with election clerks inside a Massachusetts polling station on Super Tuesday. Critics have argued that the video is evidence of Clinton campaigning for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, inside a polling location, which is forbidden.

Clinton was also seen holding a rally close to the entrance of a polling site, thanking people for voting for his wife.

“Thank you all for participating. I especially thank those of you who are supporting Hillary,” Clinton said through a megaphone outside a polling location in New Bedford, according to the Boston Globe.

The website for William Gavin, the secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, indicates that the “solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party or position on a ballot question” is forbidden inside or within 150 feet of polling places on Election Day.

Galvin’s office reached out to Clinton’s campaign to remind them of the Election Day rules.

“He had the right to go into the polling locations, and say ‘Hello’ to workers who were there. The issue is, you can’t go inside and say, ‘Vote for my wife,’ or ‘Vote for Hillary,’” Galvin told the Globe in an interview Wednesday.

“Photos and video show him clearly greeting and talking up election workers inside,” the petition alleges. “After being told to refrain from this activity, which is a 3rd degree Voter Violation Felony, for which Clinton indeed must have known the law and chose to violate it, Bill Clinton does not vote in Massachusetts, and would have no other business in a polling station on election day besides campaigning for his wife.”

Galvin also said that is office was “annoyed” by Clinton’s speech outside the New Bedford polling place but that he did not interrupt voting.

Clinton narrowly beat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in Massachusetts on Tuesday, winning 50 percent of the vote to his 49 percent.

.

.

Bill Clinton Repeatedely Violates Massachusetts Election Law By Campaigning For Hillary At Polling Stations (Video)

Bill Clinton Just Violated Election Laws at Polling Locations Across Massachusetts – U.S. Uncut

In Massachusetts, it’s illegal to campaign for any candidate more than 150 feet from a polling place while voting is taking place. But Bill Clinton not only campaigned for his wife outside polling locations within that legal requirement, he also stepped inside the polling location itself, which some thought would unduly influence voters even if he did follow the letter of the law.

The National Association of Secretaries of State compiled a state-by-state list of electioneering laws at polling places. The Massachusetts law explicitly states:
.

Within 150 feet of a polling place… no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building.

.
Here is video of Bill Clinton campaigning outside the Buttonwood Park Warming House, a polling location in New Bedford, MA, clearly within the 150 feet limit.
.

.
The 42nd President of the United States was warned of the rules by local election officials before he toured at four different locations today.

He was also told that he couldn’t urge voters to support Hillary Clinton in the gymnasium of the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, where he went inside and shook hands with voters – which is technically not a violation of the law, as long as he did not approach voters or actively solicit votes or campaign inside the building. Clinton also went inside the Newton Free Library in Newton, MA with Boston mayor Marty Walsh in tow. Both are prominent, well-known Hillary Clinton supporters.

————————————————————————————————–

Newton Free Library
@NewtonFreeLib

President Clinton walking into Newton Free Library on Super Tuesday ’16!

12:12 PM – 1 Mar 2016
————————————————————————————————–

“Even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place,” Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin told the New York Times. “He can go in, but he can’t approach voters… We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence.

“You don’t usually get a president doing this,” he noted.

Some commentators even questioned whether the ex-President’s very presence inside a polling place defied the law for “campaign materials,” due to the pull such a figure commands. However, despite some misquoting of the Boston Globe by some sources, it does not appear that he actively campaigned inside the polling stations themselves.

It was after his West Roxbury and Newton stops that Clinton went on to the Buttonwood Park Warming House in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to campaign for the former First Lady with New Bedford mayor Jon Mitchell. While a video circulating on Youtube claims that Clinton’s Secret Service detail shut down the voting precinct for several hours, the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office told US Uncut that while traffic was heavy in New Bedford, polling stations remained open.

Massachusetts polls close at 8 PM Eastern. As of this writing, the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the Bay State is neck-and-neck.

.

.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Verbally Bitchslaps PC-Nazis On College Campuses (Video)

Pro-Israel Alan Dershowitz Needs Armed Guards When Speaking On College Campuses – Moonbattery

Even Alan Dershowitz – a liberal lawyer who moves in the same criminally degenerate social circles as Bill Clinton – has had enough of the totalitarian political correctness that prevails on college campuses:
.

.
Political correctness (a.k.a. cultural Marxism) is a poisonous ideology explicitly intended to degrade and destroy our culture. The only way to maintain it as the prevailing ideology is through thuggery. Unfortunately, most people are weak enough to submit to intellectual intimidation, rather than thinking for themselves.

.

.

Group Of Female ISIS Supporters Infiltrated In London: ‘We Do Not Submit To The Law Of Any Country’

Undercover British TV Show Reports U.K. Muslim Moms Recruiting Girls For Islamic State: ‘We Do Not Submit To The Law Of Any Country’ – The Blaze

A British television network went undercover for a year among female supporters of the Islamic State group in London and reportedly found British mothers preaching that Allah will destroy Western militaries, that the “man-made” laws of Britain are to be rejected and that Muslims must travel to Syria to join the jihadist group.

In the program, “ISIS: The British Women Supporters Unveiled,” Britain’s Channel 4 reported that its investigation spanned the past year until about four weeks before the Paris attacks, which killed 129 people.

.

.
The undercover reporter, dressed in full Islamic garb, including covering her face, penetrated the closely guarded group by first setting up fake social media accounts that she used to communicate with three leading female Islamic State supporters in the U.K. who go by the names Umm Usmaan, Umm Saalihah, and Umm L, whom Channel 4 said it could not name for legal reasons.

The reporter, who presented herself as a woman named “Aisha,” said she is a Muslim who grew up in London and was willing to undertake personal risk in order to discover what has motivated an estimated 700 British Muslims to travel to Syria to fight for the jihadist group – among them 100 girls.

“Aisha” attended secret lectures in London, during which women preached the evils of the U.K. and democracy and described Jews as “filthy,” often with teenage and younger girls present.

The women pushed the notion that man-made laws are not to be followed, only the laws of Islam; therefore, democracy should be rejected.

“We do not submit to the law of any country, any nation,” said one of the women.

One of the women tweeted against wearing the traditional poppy on one’s lapel in honor of servicemen killed in war, describing a person who wears the red flower as an “apostate.”

Accusing Israel of killing Muslim children, the radical female activist Umm L said, “The amount of Muslim children – I won’t even use the word ‘Palestinian’ – Muslim children that are in custody of those filthy Jews.”

On the videos, Umm Usmaan frequently quoted Islamic religious texts to encourage people to travel to Syria, while Umm Saalihah told Muslims online to go work for the caliphate, the documentary reported.

Repeatedly, the British women attacked Britain for allegedly waging a war against them.

“Allah, one by one, he will destroy them,” one female preacher said regarding coalition fighters targeting jihadists.

Those launching air strikes on the Islamic State group in Syria were described as “cowards” and engaged in “killing innocent people.”

“Aisha” the undercover reporter saw online messages encouraging girls to travel to Syria.

“Start saving for a plane ticket and don’t tell anyone,” social media activists told the impressionable young Muslim women.

The documentary can be viewed at Channel 4.

.

.

Harvard Law Students OUTRAGED That School Was Built With Slaveowner’s Money… Just Not Enough To Quit Harvard

Harvard Law School Was Built Using A ‘Brutal’ Slaveowner’s Money, And Students Are Starting To Protest – Business Insider

.
…………….

.
Slave owner Isaac Royall Jr.’s gift to Harvard college upon his death in 1781 allowed the formation of Harvard Law School.

Now, students at the law school are calling for the removal of the law school’s seal, which is the Royall family’s coat of arms, The Harvard Crimson reported.

The movement is being called “Royall Must Fall” and formally began on campus at the end of October with a rally of about 25 people.

“These symbols set the tone for the rest of the school and the fact that we hold up the Harvard crest as something to be proud of when it represents something so ugly is a profound disappointment and should be a source of shame for the whole school,” Alexander J. Clayborne, one of the law students involved, told The Crimson.

More largely, the students aims seem to draw attention to and correct the legacy of slave-owning on Harvard’s campus.

“We demand the removal of the Harvard family crest as the crest of the law school and we demand that the Royall Chair of Law be renamed as well,” Students for Inclusion, a student group on campus, wrote on its Tumblr page.

“We also demand that systemic oppression be recognized as pervasive and endemic to the law school and we demand that it be addressed by the faculty and by the student body at large.”

However, there are dissenting opinions on whether the school should change its seal.

Visiting law school professor, Daniel R. Coquillette, recently published a book called “The Saga of Harvard Law School,” which details the relationship between the Royall family and Harvard.

While he calls Royall “a coward, and a brutal slaveholder,” he doesn’t believe Harvard should change its seal.

“As a historian… you just deal with the fact that this guy founded the school and tell the truth about it,” he said. “To change things is to act like [they] didn’t happen, and that’s a mistake.”

.

.

Senior U.S. Officials Conclude That Obama’s Nuclear Deal With Iran Violates Federal Law

U.S. Officials Conclude Iran Deal Violates Federal Law – Fox News

.

.
Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall… license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.

Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo… We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from… engaging in most commercial activities.”

Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced… U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using… to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.

.

.