Andrew Klavan on the Newest Threat on College Cam…: http://youtu.be/XjmUgjWle5w
Judicial Watch announced today that it received from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughnindex” detailing records about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The index was forced out of the Obama administration thanks to JW’s June 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequentSeptember 2012 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)). A federal court had ordered the production over the objections of the Obama Justice Department.
The document details the Attorney General Holder’s personal involvement in managing the Justice Department’s strategy on media and Congressional investigations into the Fast and Furious scandal. Notably, the document discloses that emails between Attorney General Holder and his wife Sharon Malone – as well as his mother – are being withheld under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act. The “First Lady of the Justice Department” is a physician and not a government employee.
This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided a detailed listing of all records being withheld from Congress and the American people about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal. The 1307-page “draft” Vaughn index was emailed to Judicial Watch at 8:34 p.m. last night, a few hours before a federal court-ordered deadline. In its cover letter, the Department of Justice asserts that all of the responsive records described in the index are “subject to the assertion of executive privilege.”
The Vaughn index explains 15,662 documents. Typically, a Vaughn index must: (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption. The Vaughn index arguably fails to provide all of this required information but does provide plenty of interesting information for a public kept in the dark for years about the Fast and Furious scandal.
Based on a preliminary review of the massive document, Judicial Watch can disclose that the Vaughn index reveals:
- Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
- President Obama has asserted executive privilege over nearly 20 email communications between Holder and his spouse Sharon Malone. The administration also claims that the records are also subject to withholding under the “deliberative process” exemption. This exemption ordinarily exempts from public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.
- Numerous entries detail DOJ’s communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
- The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about the Fast and Furious matter are also described.
- Many of the records are already publicly available such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical agency communications. Ordinarily, these records would, in whole or part, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton criticized President Obama and his disgraced Attorney General in a statement today:
This document provides key information about the cover-up of Fast and Furious by Attorney General Eric Holder and other high-level officials of the Obama administration. Obama’s executive privilege claims over these records are a fraud and an abuse of his office. There is no precedent for President Obama’s Nixonian assertion of executive privilege over these ordinary government agency records. Americans will be astonished that Obama asserted executive privilege over Eric Holder’s emails to his wife about Fast and Furious.
Once again, Judicial Watch has proven itself more effective than Congress and the establishment media in providing basic oversight of this out-of-control Administration. This Fast and Furious document provides dozens of leads for further congressional, media, and even criminal investigations.
On June 28, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records explaining why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and refused for months to disclose the truth about the gun running operation. It marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress.
A week before the contempt finding, to protect Holder from criminal prosecution and stave off the contempt vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious records the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier. Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request two days later. Holder’s Justice Department wouldn’t budge (or follow the law), so JW filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 12, 2012.
But then the Justice Department convinced U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to stay our lawsuit, in part to allow ongoing settlement discussions between the Holder’s government lawyers and the House Committee to continue. Unsurprisingly, the “negotiations” between politicians running the House and the Justice Department went nowhere.
Fed up with the interminable delay caused Holder’s gamesmanship and stonewalling, JW renewed its request to the Court to allow our transparency lawsuit to continue. Thankfully, this past July, Judge John D. Bates ended the 16-month delay and ordered the Obama administration to produce a Vaughn index of the alleged “executive privilege” records by October 1. Judge Bates noted that no court has ever “expressly recognized” President Obama’s unprecedented executive privilege claims in the Fast and Furious matter.
Unhappy with having to produce the records prior to the elections, Justice lawyers asked the judge to give them one extra month, until November 3 (the day before Election Day!) to produce the info. Judge Bates rejected this gambit, suggested that the Holder’s agency did not take court order seriously. Rather than a month, Judge Bates gave Justice until yesterday to cough up the Vaughn index. Judge Bates issued his smack down on September 23.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation two days later.
Many share our opinion it was “no coincidence” that Holder’s resignation came “on the heels of another court ruling that the Justice Department must finally cough up information about how Holder’s Justice Department lied to Congress and the American people about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, for which Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives.”
On September 9, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, citing Judicial Watch’s success, ordered the Justice Department to produce information to Congress by November 3.
Fast and Furious was a DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun running” operation in which the Obama administration reportedly allowed guns to go to Mexican drug cartels hoping they would end up at crime scenes, advancing gun-control policies. Fast and Furious weapons have been implicated in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of other innocents in Mexico. Guns from the Fast and Furious scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years to come.
Guns from the Fast and Furious scandal continue to be used in crimes. Just last week, Judicial Watch disclosed that a Fast and Furious gun was used in gang -style assault on a Phoenix apartment building that left two people wounded. We figured this out from information we uncovered through another public records lawsuit against the City of Phoenix.
Congress officially confirmed the AK-47 was used in the assault that terrorized residents in Phoenix. In an October 16 letter sent from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) to Deputy Attorney General James Cole discloses that “we have learned of another crime gun connected to Fast and Furious. The [Justice] Department did not provide any notice to the Congress or the public about this gun….This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny.”
We have many other active lawsuits over the Fast and Furious scandal:
On October 11, 2011, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ and the ATF to obtain all Fast and Furious records submitted to the House Committee on Oversight.
On June 6, 2012, Judicial Watch sued the ATF seeking access to records detailing communications between ATF officials and Kevin O’Reilly, former Obama White House Director of North American Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council.
On September 5, 2013, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ seeking access to all records of communications between DOJ and the Oversight Committee relating to settlement discussions in the Committee’s 2012 contempt of Congress lawsuit against Holder. The contempt citation stemmed from Holder’s refusal to turn over documents to Congress related to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.
On May 28, 2014, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ on behalf of ATF Special Agent John Dodson, who blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious and was then subjected to an alleged smear campaign designed to destroy his reputation.
Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.
“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’
He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
“Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
“There has been no warming over 18 years.”
The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.
US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, “are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data.”
Mr Coleman’s comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State’s energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President’s pledges to decrease it.
President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.
Despite this, the Energy Information Administration’s Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.
He added: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”
In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
Originally posted on ROWAN OATH KEEPERS:
Gunmen open fire at Canadian Parliament building; soldier down, 1 shooter possibly on loose
Multiple gunmen opened fire at the Canadian Parliament complex, shooting at least one soldier and spraying as many as 30 shots inside the government building just two days after a terror attack in Quebec shook the nation, officials said.
The shots rang out just before 10 a.m., and were quickly followed by reports of “several shooting incidents in downtown Ottawa,” according to a tweet from police. The shooting at the government complex came after witnesses said they saw one and possibly two men jump out of a Toyota Corolla and run toward the National War Memorial, where one man opened fire on a soldier, officials told the Ottawa Sun. The gunmen then ran to the Parliament building, where witnesses later said they saw one man – possibly a gunman, down near the library. Bernard…
View original 543 more words
Michelle Obama’s Skimpy School Lunches Suck
Lunch meat, a couple of crackers, a slice of cheese and two pieces of cauliflower recently was deemed “good enough” and served for lunch in Chickasha, Oklahoma public schools.
It complied with the newly lunch regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama and implemented by the USDA that severely restricts calories in public school lunches. But let’s be honest, growing kids need both calories and exercise.
Student Kaytlin Shelton was so disgusted by her skimpy lunch that she took a photo of it showed it to her parents. Her father, Vince Holton, to say the least was extremely displeased.
“I can go pay a dollar for a Lunchable and get more food in it. Schools are responsible for children while they’re at school. They’re responsible for feeding the children.”
And Kaytlin had this to say about her ever so healthy and school supplied lunch.
“It makes me want to take that and take it to the Superintendent and tell him to eat it for lunch.”
Chickasha superintendent David Cash, when questioned about what his schools are serving hungry children for lunch, agreed that the skimpy lunches need to be addressed.
“You’ve got in some cases little kids that their only two meals are breakfast and lunch at school and they’re getting you know a grand total of 1100 calories. That’s not enough.” He went on to state, “My own kid comes home and the first thing he does is raid the refrigerator. The regulations are one-size-fits-all and don’t provide wiggle room for athletes or those that are pregnant.”
Asst. State Superintendent for Child Nutrition Joanie Hildenbrand half-heartedly tried to mount a defense when confronted with a picture of Kaytlin Shelton’s now famous lunch. “We have a meat-meat alternate, we have a bread grain, we have vegetable. It’s the student’s choice of what they want to take.” Hildenbrand then added, “These regulations were put into effect two years ago and we’re still struggling with them.”
Sadly, schools cannot serve seconds, and they cannot save leftover food for the next day. So it is thrown away even as hungry kids aren’t getting enough to eat to begin with. What a waste and just another example that Michelle Obama’s ‘war on obesity’ one size fits all lunch program is just another bad idea.
Meanwhile, far from the peasants, the Obama children are eating fairly well at the Sidwell Friends School. Here are a couple of sample lunch menus from around the same time period.
October 16, 2014
Cauliflower Masala Soup
Roasted Vegetable & Israeli Couscous Salad
A Taste of India
Mixed Greens with Avocado & Sunflower Seeds
All-natural Chicken Curry
Vegetable Tikka Masala
Turmeric Roasted Carrots
October 17, 2014
Soup du Jour
Basque Tomato Salad
Classic Caesar Salad
All-natural Meatball Subs
Vegetarian Meatball Subs
Steamed Fresh Broccoli
Baked Sweet Potato Wedges
The ‘old timers’ tell me that school lunches used to be both filling and balanced. A lunch always contained meat, two vegetables, and a dessert. And the kids could go back for seconds if they wanted. But it hasn’t been that way in decades, and the more we have embraced the centralized, socialistic nanny-state the more we see things like this poor excuse of a lunch. And it’s only continuing to get worse. The government almost invariably makes things worse when it tried to make things better and moves the decision-making from the locals to the First Lady and bureaucrats in D.C.
RICK NOTE: I attended school in the 60s and 70s. We had locally shopped and locally prepared lunches. We could go back for seconds after the line was finished. We had burgers, pizza, vegetable soup and the always lurking mystery meat surprise! We did NOT have a problem with obesity. Yes, there were a few chunky monkeys but they were not the norm. So, what is different? We were Forced (shock, gasp) to participate in physical education. This was NOT the PE of today.
I taught in public high school after retiring from the USAF. The kids who did actually participate in the PE class often looked like slugs crawling across the basketball court. You could NOT force a kid to participate and those that did participate were not forced to excel. When we ran track, I outrun the majority of students and I was in my late 40s with a bad back. 75% or better walked and walked so slow I often thought about checking their pulse.
For the most part, Kids today are NOT fat because of their diet. Kids today are fat because they do not move their ass more than they run their mouths.
If the government is going to insist on ‘playing parent’ to our kids, it should at least feed them decently while it does so. Meanwhile, I encourage parents to quit relying on the state to take care of our children. At minimum, go buy a loaf of bread, some peanut butter or lunch meat and personally start making sure they get a decent lunch each day.
Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.
Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.
The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs.
After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.
What Can Be Done
At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.
Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs.
Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.
States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.
Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.
Protecting Religious Liberty
It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.
States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”
Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.
Vatican City (AFP) – Roman Catholic bishops on Saturday failed to reach a consensus on opening the Church’s doors to remarried divorcees and gays after a special synod on the family, in a blow to Pope Francis.
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said participants had approved a “re-balanced” final report that took into account the concerns of the most conservative members.
In a final vote after two weeks of fierce debate, three paragraphs touching on the hot-button issues of a more welcome stance towards gays, and allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, did not get the two-thirds majority needed from the 183 bishops present.
The vote closed a synod of bishops from around the world which has seen conservatives clash publicly with liberals over a drive spearheaded by the pope to soften the Church’s approach to sinners.
Addressing the synod, Francis, 77, said he was confident the coming year would allow for ideas to mature and “find concrete solutions” to the many challenges facing the Church.
The full document, including the contentious paragraphs, was published at the pope’s request.
The spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics had earlier called for the Church to take a more merciful approach to unmarried mothers, remarried divorcees and gays, famously saying of homosexuals, “Who am I to judge?”
Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn told reporters that the adopted text was “much more reserved” than the draft document, reflecting opposition from bishops from “very different cultural situations”.
A preliminary report on Monday, widely reported in Italian media, made waves around the world by suggesting that the Church should reach out to homosexuals, who have “gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”, outraging traditionalists who had to be reminded by the Vatican that it was a work in progress.
In the media glare, the synod took on the proportions of a referendum on the pope’s audacious line, and observers said the early reports may have backfired on progressives seeking to steal a march on conservatives.
Another report Thursday summed up the reactions of 10 working groups of bishops, which mixed declarations of respect for homosexuals with fierce insistence that any opening up to sinners would imply the Church condoned their behaviour.
The vote’s outcome reflects the attitude of the top echelons of the Church towards reform — and ultimately towards Francis’s rule, which has been coloured since his election in March 2013 by a determination to show the more humane side of the centuries-old institution.
- ‘Beautiful miracle’ -
The fallout from the ideological clashes has already caused at least one head to roll.
Outspoken American cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, currently head of the Vatican’s top canon law court, confirmed to Buzzfeed late on Friday that he is being removed from the job to be made patron to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, an honorary post.
He told the US news website: “The pope is not free to change the Church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”
In a message to families earlier on Saturday, the synod said “conjugal love, which is unique and indissoluble, endures despite many difficulties. It is one of the most beautiful of all miracles and the most common.”
It referred to marital infidelity as a “great challenge”, adding: “There are often crises in marriage, often confronted in haste and without the courage to have patience and to reflect, to make sacrifices and to forgive one another.”
Speaking of the family home, it painted an image of “the evening light behind the windowpanes in the houses of the cities, in modest suburban and village residences, and even in mere shacks (shining) from the encounter between spouses.”
This synod will be followed by a year of consultations, and a follow-up questionnaire will be sent out to dioceses around the world. A second, larger synod will then be held in October 2015.
After that, the results will be handed to the Argentinian pope, who will have the final say in outlining the Church’s stance on family matters.
Adolfo Nicolas, superior general of the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits — to which Francis belongs — told the I.Media religious news agency to watch for a possible “revolution” a year from now.
Originally posted on Rowan TEA Party Patriots:
Party of the rich: In Congress, it’s the Democrats
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It’s a label that has stuck for decades, and you’re hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP support for tax breaks that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan’s Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney’s district is $75,479. That’s more than $75,000 a year for every…
View original 348 more words
Originally posted on Rowan TEA Party Patriots:
Bully pulpit: Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons, then backs off amidst outcry
After calling church sermons “fair game” for subpoena, Houston Mayor Annise Parker backed down Wednesday from the city’s effort to force local pastors to turn over speeches and papers related to a hotly contested transgender rights ordinance.
The city had asked five pastors for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons” on a variety of topics, including the mayor, and “gender identity.”
The subpoena prompted a storm of criticism when it became public Tuesday. The pastors are involved in legal efforts to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, also known as the “bathroom bill.”
The pastors and their allies called the city’s broad demand a threat to religious freedom and proof that gay and transgender rights bills can be used as weapons to demonize Christianity.
“The government has no business asking pastors to turn over their sermons,” said Sen. Ted…
View original 939 more words