EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Chip Roy Introduces Amendment To Protect Religious Objectors To Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Republicans in the House of Representatives are trying another path to protect religious liberty from assault by introducing an amendment to the deceptively named Respect For Marriage Act (RFMA) that would add legal protections for those who believe in traditional marriage.

The amendment, introduced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, mirrors word for word the protections that Republican Sen. Mike Lee tried to add to the Senate’s version of the bill.

The current RFMA reaches beyond the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision to make a private right of action for anyone who wants to sue Americans opposed to same-sex marriage. It also allows the Department of Justice, which faces severe scrutiny for politicization under Attorney General Merrick Garland, to go after religious Americans for their beliefs about marriage.

If Roy’s amendment passes the House, it will explicitly prohibit the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction” that marriage is between one man and woman. The amendment also would give Americans’ who are targeted by the government for their beliefs about marriage a right to sue.

While Lee’s amendment failed to meet the 60-vote threshold his colleagues set, the amendment from Roy and his Republican cosponsors Reps. Byron Donalds and Doug Lamborn will serve as a litmus test for conservative legislators who say they prioritize Americans’ First Amendment rights.

“The United States Senate failed to protect Americans of faith when they voted down my friend Senator Lee’s common-sense amendment to protect religious liberty. Unless amended, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act will fundamentally alter the relationship between faithful Americans and the federal government,” Roy told The Federalist. “Luckily, we have one last chance to amend this legislation when it comes back to the House; that’s why I am introducing Senator Lee’s amendment to the House Rules committee. This amendment should be a no-brainer for every single House Republican, and every American should know whether their representative believes they should be punished for a religious belief.”

Despite the RFMA’s flaws, 47 Republican representatives voted to pass the legislation when it made its way through the House in July.

When the bill arrived in the Senate, Roy, along with legal scholar Ryan T. Anderson, penned an opinion editorial warning Republican senators that the RFMA’s “lip service to religious liberty and conscience rights” does nothing to stop vindictive leftists from “dragging good people through the court system and a public tarring and feathering in the media for those simply living their lives in fidelity to God.”

Those “good people” include wedding vendorsadoption agenciesbakeries, and any other business run by people of faith who refuse to offer services condoning same-sex marriage based on religious convictions.

Together, Roy and Anderson urged at least three of the 12 Republicans who voted to advance the bill to reconsider supporting it in its final passage. But to no avail.

Despite problems raised by Republican voters, legal organizations, churches, and religious liberty groups, the RFMA passed the upper chamber with the support of those same 12 GOP senators.

Shortly after that vote, Roy took to Twitter to urge his House GOP colleagues to vote no “on a bill that demonstrably exposes Americans to persecution for closely held religious beliefs, in addition to attacking marriage.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who will likely assume the position of House speaker in January, already signaled his belief that this legislation should not be passed as is.

McCarthy told reporters early on Tuesday that he agrees with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) which says that the RFMA would “betray our country’s commitment to the fundamental right of religious liberty.”

“Catholic Bishops say religious protections in the Respect For Marriage Act are insufficient and far from comprehensive and treat religious liberty as a second-class right. As you know, that’s currently in the Senate. Do you agree with that assessment by the Catholic Bishops?” one reporter asked.

“I agree with them, yes,” McCarthy confirmed.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

CHD’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola, Ty and Charlene Bollinger Move to Intervene in Missouri v. Biden First Amendment Case

November 30, 2022

For Immediate Release

Washington, D.C. — On Nov. 17, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola and Ty and Charlene Bollinger moved to intervene in the Missouri v. Biden First Amendment case on behalf of the public interest, themselves and their respective organizations — Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Mercola.com, The Truth About Vaccines (TTAV) and The Truth About Cancer (TTAC). The intervention will allow them — and the public at large — to gain access to specific discovery and depositions — including that of Dr. Anthony Fauci from Nov. 23 — for use in pending litigation against social media platforms.

The intervenors are among the 12 specifically disfavored speakers the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has labeled the “Disinformation Dozen” due to content shared on social media and websites regarding vaccines. In actuality, they are prominent publishers of factual, alternative online news and criticism — including Big Pharma, all aspects of COVID-19 and the government’s response.

The motion to intervene explains that these free speech advocates and their organizations have been censored and de-platformed by major social media platforms that are working with — and taking orders from — the federal government. The intervenors seek open public access to critical sworn depositions and documents already produced by the federal defendants. These materials are expected to capture top-level communications between the federal branch and social media tech executives to censor and suppress a wide swath of online COVID-19 news, criticism of the government’s vaccine mandates and lockdowns, and discussion of the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin.

“If the Biden Administration has instructed Big Tech to censor Bobby Kennedy, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Mercola and the Bollingers, we need to see what they’ve said, and it must stop,” said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland. “The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring its critics — full stop. This is what our democracy requires as the bedrock of all other freedoms.”

Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Biden Administration in Louisiana Federal Court in May 2022. District Judge Terry Doughty has fast-tracked the case toward a hearing to stop in its tracks and enjoin the government-directed social media giants’ version of a “Ministry of Truth.”

“We were censored, shadowbanned, deplatformed for sharing stats, facts and scientific data taken from the government’s own websites about COVID-19 — the same facts the current director of the CDC, Fauci and others are now saying are true after two plus years of denying these facts. We were right all along,” said founder & CEO of The Truth About Cancer & Vaccines Charlene Bollinger. “We should never have been censored. The world needs to hear our voices in order to make informed decisions about their health. What has happened to RFK, Jr., Dr. Mercola, to us and many others should never have happened. Our government has colluded to hide the truth about COVID, and we need the truth to ensure this never happens again. Lives are on the line. Informed consent and real science will save countless lives. It is our mission to reach everyone with the truth to support life.”

“It’s neither beneficial to democracy nor public health that the audio-visual recordings of key depositions describing the secret communications between key government actors and social media executives remain hidden from the American people. Social media platforms continue to muzzle dissenters for exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize government policies while the proof of this illegal collaboration with government officials remains sealed,” said CHD chairman and chief litigation counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Judge Doughty has allowed the state’s attorneys general to take depositions of the critical federal censors, all of whom are well-known to the American public for their politically-motivated views about COVID-19: Dr. Anthony Fauci, ex-White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly and FBI Agent Elvis Chan.

“Our federal government must be transparent to maintain trust, yet officials are violating our fundamental rights behind closed doors. The biggest threat to the First Amendment comes from the government’s censorship enterprise in collusion with social media tech giants,” said Dr. Joseph Mercola.

The Plaintiff States and the Federal Defendants’ Oppositions to the motion to intervene are due Dec. 1. The reply from Kennedy, Mercola and the Bollingers is due Dec. 8. Judge Doughty is expected to rule quickly thereafter.

“Possibly the most important First Amendment case of our lifetime, the outcome of which will determine whether we continue in the Orwellian/Huxley dystopian world that our federal and state bureaucracies have foisted upon us over the last decade and which has been exacerbated and accelerated over the COVID pandemic — or, whether we take back our God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution,” said G. Shelly Maturin, II, counsel for intervenors.

# # #

Children’s Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. For more information or to donate to CHD, visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org.


Notes:

From the motion: “These Defendants have colluded with private actors (1) to curb the Applicants’ criticism of government response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (2) to silence the Applicants’ disfavored facts and opinions concerning a variety of subjects, including Covid-19’s possible lab-leak origin, the comparative benefits of early treatment and natural immunity, and the risks or inefficacy of Covid-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use.”

The biggest threat to the First Amendment in this country — and to the public’s ever getting to the truth about COVID-19 — does not come from free speech advocates but from the government’s own censorship enterprise in collusion with social media tech giants.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Source

Sen. Mike Lee: Religious Liberty Amendment Rejection ‘A Discouraging Development’

Sen. Mike Lee: Religious Liberty Amendment Rejection ‘A Discouraging Development’

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) lamented the passage of the “Respect for Marriage Act” without his religious liberty amendment Tuesday night, calling the move a “discouraging development in our country’s storied history of protecting the free exercise of religion.”

Lee said in a statement following the vote.

Despite the support of every voting Republican but one, and even a Democrat, the Respect for Marriage Act just passed without my amendment, which would have prevented the government from retaliating against religious individuals and institutions for their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding marriage.

This is a discouraging development in our country’s storied history of protecting the free exercise of religion. While I’m disappointed that my amendment was not included, I remain committed to preserving the religious liberties enshrined in our Constitution.

The same-sex marriage bill passed 61-36 with the help of the same 12 Senate Republicans who initially voted with Democrats to advance the bill. The legislation will now go back to the House for a vote as early as next Tuesday, where it was first passed over the summer with the help of 47 Republicans.

Before the main vote, the Senate rejected Sen. Lee’s amendment 48-49, although 12 GOP senators who voted with Democrats to advance the bill voted in favor it.

Lee’s amendment was conservatives’ greatest hope of shoring up religious liberty protections in the bill, and would have prohibited the federal government from punishing individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc.

“Who wouldn’t want to deny the federal government the authority to retaliate against religious individuals and institutions in a way that is categorically abusive,” Lee queried before the vote.

Religious liberty amendments from Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) were also rejected 45-52 in simple majority votes.

“The Respect for Marriage Act isn’t about equality,” Lankford said after the final vote. “It’s about making some people’s rights more important than others. I voted against this bill because it will lead to violations of Americans’ constitutional right to live their faith.”

In stark contrast, Democrats celebrated their victory, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeting that “no one should be discriminated against because of who they love.”

President Joe Biden also praised Senate Democrats’ win and promised to sign the bill into law if the it passes the House.

“With today’s bipartisan Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the United States is on the brink of reaffirming a fundamental truth: love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” Biden’s statement reads in part. It continued:

…Importantly, the Senate’s passage of the Respect for Marriage Act is a bipartisan achievement. I’m grateful to the determined Members of Congress — especially Senators Baldwin, Collins, Portman, Sinema, Tillis, and Feinstein — whose leadership has underscored that Republicans and Democrats together support the essential right of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples to marry,” he continued. “I look forward to welcoming them at the White House after the House passes this legislation and sends it to my desk, where I will promptly and proudly sign it into law.

Source

Senate Rejects Lee Religious Liberty Amendment, Passes So-Called ‘Respect for Marriage Act’

Senate Rejects Lee Religious Liberty Amendment, Passes So-Called ‘Respect for Marriage Act’

The Senate rejected Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) religious liberty amendment, as well as amendments from Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl), and passed the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) on Tuesday evening.

The same-sex marriage bill passed 61-36 with the help of the same 12 Senate Republicans who initially voted with Democrats to advance the bill. The legislation will now go back to the House for a vote as early as next Tuesday, where it was first passed over the summer with the help of 47 Republicans.

The House GOP will have to decide whether they want to pass the RFMA with the newly added “No Impact on Religious Liberty and Conscience” amendment created by a bipartisan group of senators who say the text protects religious liberty. Critics of the added amendment, brought by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Thom Tillis (R-NC), say it will “provide nothing that is not already guaranteed” and is an “unnecessary piece of legislation that provides for lawsuits against those who simply hold a different view on marriage.”

Lee’s amendment was conservatives’ greatest hope of shoring up religious liberty protections in the bill, and would have prohibited the federal government from punishing individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc.

“Who wouldn’t want to deny the federal government the authority to retaliate against religious individuals and institutions in a way that is categorically abusive,” Lee queried before the vote.

His amendment needed 60 votes and failed 48-49, though several of the 12 GOP senators who voted with Democrats to advance the bill voted in favor it. Lankford’s amendment, which needed a simple majority vote, was also rejected, 45-52, as was Rubio’s.

The RFMA was introduced following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, due to Democrats’ unfounded concerns that the Supreme Court could use the Dobbs decision to overrule the Court’s Obergefell gay marriage decisionOverall, the RFMA would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and would require the federal government to recognize any marriage that was “valid in the place where entered into.” The bill would additionally require every state to recognize every same-sex marriage that “is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”

The bill also has a “private right of action” clause, which would allow “any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (b)…[to] bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States against the person who violated such a subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.” Likewise, attorneys general would be able to bring civil action against any person who violates the law.

Source

Cancel Culture’s War on History, Heritage & the Freedom to Think for Yourself



Cancel Culture’s War on History, Heritage and the Freedom to Think for Yourself

By: John & Nisha Whitehead

All the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible… In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”—C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

There will come a time in the not-so-distant future when the very act of thinking for ourselves is not just outlawed but unthinkable.

We are being shunted down the road to that dystopian future right now, propelled along by politically correct forces that, while they may have started out with the best of intentions, have fallen prey to the authoritarian siren song of the Nanny State, which has promised to save the populace from evils that only a select few are wise enough to recognize as such.

As a result, we are being infantilized ad nauseum, dictated to incessantly, and forcefully insulated from “dangerous” sights and sounds and ideas that we are supposedly too fragile, too vulnerable, too susceptible, or too ignorant to be exposed to without protection from the so-called elite.

Having concluded that “we the people” cannot be trusted to think for ourselves, the powers-that-be have taken it upon themselves to re-order our world into one in which they do the thinking for us, and all we have to do is fall is line.

Those who do not fall in line with this government-sanctioned group think—who resist, who dare to think for themselves, who dare to adopt views that are different, or possibly wrong or hateful—are branded as extremists, belligerents, and deplorables, and shunned, censored and silenced.

The fallout is as one would expect.

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day—race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom (of religion, speech, assembly, press, redress, privacy, bodily integrity, etc.) but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

The latest victim of this rigid re-ordering of the world into one in which vestiges of past mistakes are scrubbed from existence comes from the New York Department of Education, which has ordered schools to stop using Native American references in mascots, team names and logos by the end of the current school year or face penalties including a loss of state aid.

Citing concerns about racism and a need to comply with the state’s Dignity for All Students Act, which requires schools to create environments free of harassment or discrimination, New York officials are telling communities—many of which are named after Native American tribes—that longstanding cultural associations with their towns’ Indian namesakes are offensive and shameful.

More than 100 schools in 60 school districts across New York State have nicknames or mascots that reference Native Americans. The cost to divest their communities of such branded names and images will be significant. One school district estimates that the cost to remove its Indians imagery from the gym floor alone will be upwards of $60,000.

This drive to sanitize New York schools of “offensive” Native American logos and imagery comes on the heels of iconoclastic campaigns to rid the country of anything and anyone that may offend modern-day sensibilities.

Monuments have been torn down, schools and streets have been renamed, and the names of benefactors stripped from prominent signage in the quest for a more enlightened age.

These are not new tactics.

Since the days of the Byzantine Empire, when “Emperor Leo III ordered the destruction of all Christian images on the grounds that they represented idolatry and were heretical,” political movements have resorted to destroying monuments, statues and imagery of the day as a visual means of exerting their power and vanquishing their enemies.

We have been caught in this intolerant, self-righteous, destructive, mob-driven cycle of book-burning, statue-toppling, history-erasing iconoclasm ever since.

As art critic Alexander Adams explains:

Iconoclasm is an activity evenly distributed between both left and right of the political spectrum, mainly at the extreme ends… The intolerant ideology, which refuses to accept the co-existence of alternative views, takes the stance that…the ideals within the art are no longer utterable or supportable: they are actually injurious and dangerous to the vulnerable… The political activist reserves to himself the right to retrospectively edit our history for his satisfaction by removing monuments, those fixtures of civic life, embedded in the memories of generations… Iconoclasm is an expression of domination and a demonstration of willingness to act—illegally and unethically—to impose the will of one group over an entire population. It asserts control over all aspects of society… The campaigner argues that public art, accumulated piecemeal over 1,000 years of history, must reflect our society and values today—even if that means altering or erasing stories of the values our past society expressed via its monuments, or suppressing evidence of how we arrived at our current situation… The iconoclast believes that it is only the values of today that count—that it is only her values that count. She takes it upon herself to correct history through monstrous acts of egotism. That correction, when it involves destruction, permanently alters the cultural legacy. It shrinks the breadth of human experience available to the generations which follow ours.”

In such a world, there can be no debate, no journey to understanding, no chance to learn from one’s mistakes or even make mistakes that are uniquely your own; there is only obedience and compliance to the government, its corporate overlords and the prevailing mob mindset.

Censorship, cancel culture, political correctness, woke-ism, hate speech, intolerance: whatever label you assign to this overzealous drive to sanitize the culture of anything that might be deemed offensive or disturbing or challenging, be assured they are sign posts on a one-way road to graver dangers marked by “suppression, persecution, expulsion and the massacring of people.”

Whether those smashing monuments and erasing history are doing so for noble purposes or more diabolical reasons, the end results are the same: criminalization, confiscation, imprisonment, exile and genocide.

Look at mobs which gather to smash monuments,” says Adams. “These monuments may be the statues of deposed dictators who terrorized populations, causing untold death and suffering. They may be monuments to fallen soldiers who died defending causes that are no longer fashionable. The mob’s anger is the same. The viciousness and triumphant celebrations are the same. Only the causes differ in seriousness, topicality and justification.”

Adams continues:

The Civil War statue destroyers think they are assaulting the posterity of slave owners, but they themselves are in the grip of ideological fervor. They are unaware that they are running a biological code, hardwired in their brains by evolution and activated by political extremists. The activists of today heedlessly erase history they haven’t yet learned to read. They act as the hammer that extremists use to deface the cathedrals and museums our ancestors built.”

What’s different about this present age, however, is the use of technology to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” demonize and destroy those whose viewpoints run counter to the cultural elite.

In the last few years,” writes Nina Powers for Art Review, “what is understood to be contentious has become increasingly broadly defined… The range of what counts as acceptable gets smaller and smaller… [W]e thus find ourselves… in the midst of a new culture war in which the freedom to think, feel and express ourselves comes at the risk of economic impoverishment, social ostracism and mob justice.”

Where this leads is the stuff of dystopian nightmares: societies that value conformity and group-think over individuality; a populace so adept at self-censorship and compliance that they are capable only of obeying the government’s dictates without the ability to parse out whether those dictates should be obeyed; and a language limited to government-speak.

This is what happens when the voices of the majority are allowed to eliminate those in the minority, and it is exactly why James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

Freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society.

The alternative, as depicted in Ayn Rand’s novella Anthem, is a world in which individuality and the ability to think for oneself independent of the government and the populace are eradicated, where even the word “I” has been eliminated from the vocabulary, replaced by the collective “we.”

As Anthem’s narrator Equality 7-2521 explains, “It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. . . . And well we know that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone.”

As I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are not merely losing the ability to think critically for ourselves and, in turn, to govern our inner and outer worlds, we are also in danger of losing the right to do so.

The government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers is just the beginning.

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

12 Senate Republicans Vote With Democrats for Far-Left ‘Respect for Marriage Act’

12 Senate Republicans Vote With Democrats for Far-Left ‘Respect for Marriage Act’

Twelve Senate Republicans voted with Democrats on Wednesday for the far-left “Respect for Marriage Act,” which is reportedly designed to provide federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Lawmakers voted for the measure 62-37 after a bipartisan group of senators made changes to the bill to include a clause about religious liberty. With the amendment agreed upon, the bill will go back to the House before going to President Joe Biden. The White House has expressed support for the measure.

The 12 Republicans who voted for the bill include Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN).

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was introduced following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, due to Democrats’ unfounded concerns that the Supreme Court could use the Dobbs decision to overrule the Court’s Obergefell gay marriage decision. The measure passed the House in July with the help of 47 Republicans, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) agreed to postpone a vote until after the midterms so that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle could attempt to address religious liberty concerns. 

RFMA would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and would require the federal government to recognize any marriage that was “valid in the place where entered into.” The bill would also require every state to recognize every same-sex marriage that “is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”

As a report from Slate noted, the bill “does not go as far as Obergefell. In that decision, the Supreme Court directed every state to license same-sex marriages—that is, to issue a marriage certificate to same-sex couples. The RFMA does not codify this component of Obergefell.” According to the report:

So the RFMA does not force Texas to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple. But it does force Texas to recognize a marriage certificate issued to a same-sex couple by New Mexico. In a post-Obergefell world, a same-sex couple in Texas could drive to New Mexico, obtain a certificate, and force Texas to respect their marriage like any other.

The bill does have a “private right of action” clause, which would allow “any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (b)…[to] bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States against the person who violated such a subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.” The law would also allow an attorney general to bring civil action against any person who violates the law. 

Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Source

Within Minutes of Arizona Gov Election Call, Twitter, DHS and Big Tech Begin Blocking Discussion of Difference Between “Ballots and Votes”

Within Minutes of Arizona Gov Election Call, Twitter, DHS and Big Tech Begin Blocking Discussion of Difference Between “Ballots and Votes”

I’m going to skip noting that Elon Musk Twitter is essentially unchanged, regarding the relationship between Twitter, the Dept of Homeland Security and the disinformation police, as many keep saying Musk Twitter has not had time to reformat.

That said, five days after our post-election review of the difference between ballots and votes, and within minutes of the controversial Arizona governor contest being announced by DHS media outlets, suddenly any discussion about “Ballots -vs- Votes” is considered a risk to democracy. [LINK}

The need for control is a reaction to fear.

Twitter specifically, and Big Tech writ large, has now placed a warning on the CTH article where we draw attention to the general difference between ballots and votes. The timing of the intervention, as related to the content discussed, is transparent. Sunlight is a great disinfectant and must be controlled at all costs.

In one sense this effort to block discussion is irrelevant, the discussion is now taking place; attentions are being paid; the horse is out of the barn; millions are now expanding the discussion and applying Occam’s Razor to the simple reality. This is why information providers and independent researchers must work with urgency and diligence to control their own platforms.

CTH is never going to stop discussing the uncomfortable stuff because Truth Has No Agenda, regardless of our personal feelings or opinions on the matter.

Yes, in this discussion there is a clear difference between two electioneering priorities, one focused on ballot assembly and the other focused on winning votes.  However, in the broader sense this censorship effort to control discussion of these distinctions shows just how far and fast we are collapsing into a totalitarian and Orwellian nightmare.

You can read or re-read the article HERE.

Find me something malicious, violent or even ::gasp:: untrue about the subject of Ballots vs Votes as written.

If truth is viewed by Twitter/DHS control mechanisms as an issue that could lead to “real world harm,” well, what does that tell us about how they are defining the “threat to our democracy” as applied from the mindset of the decisionmakers.

Beyond the annoyances, downstream at a granular level these types of information controls have consequences most information consumers do not consider.

These labels created by Big Tech are used against content providers like CTH to block people from reading.  Paths on the internet are controlled by a host of technology systems that use these “malicious” tags as a justification to divert viewers and control the scale of information distribution.  We call this “Techfiltration“.

Techfiltration is the threat to free speech and truthful -even controversial- discussion. Therefore ‘techfiltration’ is really the threat to democracy, not the speech itself. GO DEEP to understand the prior discussion of how your internet provider, cell phone carrier and browser control your internet travel.

…”If you cannot reach a website, see an image, view a page, or navigate a system, it’s likely not anything you are doing wrong; most often it’s the result of a tech control system designed to keep you away from the data.  Additionally, valid information like emails or text messages are increasingly identified as malicious, spam or blocked completely by the email or cell phone service you have subscribed to.” (more)

CTH has one long standing position about discussion and research, The Truth Has No Agenda.

While the Twitter/DHS targeting operation may be intended to shut down discussion and research, we at CTH will not flinch.

It may seem like a small thing to many, but what these censorship examples represent are dangerous when left unchallenged.   Once again, CTH will challenge these self-appointed arbiters and we will not stop providing information that challenges the orthodoxy of ‘approved’ collective thought.

Their need for control is a reaction to fear.

Our small yet formidable beacon will remain lit, and people will find it.  We will continue asking the uncomfortable questions and presenting the logical conclusions, even if the DHS information control officers despise us in the reading of it.

Steadfast as always, determined as ever, and even more resolute with each annoyance.

~ Sundance

Source

Eagle’s Eye Report: From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!!

Eagle’s Eye Report: From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!!


Eagle’s Eye Report: From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!! (Archived)

Host: Roger Landry (TLB) – Co-Host & Producer: Stephen Roberts

Brought to you by: TLBTalk.com – Where Freedom Roars

Live Broadcast platform: ShakeAndWake Radio Network

Also on PSN Radio and SoFloRadio live.

Listen to Show below intro article

See appropriate links below Show

••••

Intro by: Roger Landry (TLB)

Welcome again to Episode #26 of the Eagle’s Eye Report. This episode is Hosted by myself with Co-Host and Producer Stephen Roberts. The title of today’s show is … From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!! The intent of this weekly show is to be a mechanism for communicating the truth and facts in a country increasingly forbidding of these very concepts.

No, as I say weekly, this not a pleasant way to introduce a show … but today reality is blatant and not very pleasant in many aspects. Thus the reason, and intent behind the Eagle’s Eye Report.

Our mission is to keep you armed with the vital truth, as well as to present you with a platform where you can discuss these vital issues without fear of censorship or exclusion, that being the sponsor of this show … TLBTalk.com.

Now it’s down to business …

••••

From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!!

Show Discussion Lead-in Points …

Let’s talk about the things on most of our troubled minds … Let’s talk about executive incompetence. Let’s talk about executive tyranny. Let’s talk about the damage of inflation and the lies it is presented with. Let’s talk about America waking up to the massive COVID crimes committed against us … and those who wish amnesty. Let’s talk about what Republicans can and can’t do once retaking the majority in congress.

Let’s Talk …

The Hill published an op-ed questioning whether President Joe Biden will be removed from office under the 25th Amendment, which can be invoked when a president is considered unable to carry out his duties as commander-in-chief.

After acknowledging that Democrats and the media questioned former President Donald Trump’s mental fitness for office, opinion contributor Merrill Matthews wrote Tuesday that “Biden’s issues are substantively different.”

At times he’s lucid and in control, but at other times he seems baffled and confused,” wrote Matthews, who is a resident scholar with the pro-limited government think tank, the Institute for Policy Innovation. “It’s not unusual to see this behavior in older people.”

Listen to the show for more …

White House Fact Checked After Absurd Social Security Claim 

The Biden Administration’s latest attempt to re-brand terrible economic news as good news was so blatant that even CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale called them out.

In a Tuesday tweet, the White House claimed that “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”

Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.

The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 1, 2022

Except, that’s only because it’s tied to inflation – which has skyrocketed.

That’s quite the spin,” Dale responded, adding “The size of Social Security checks is linked, by law, to inflation. This year’s increase is unusually big because the inflation rate is unusually big.

Listen to the show for more …

In other news with a POP …

In other news, Joe Biden said that inflation is a problem because of the “war in Iraq… excuse me, the war in Ukraine,” adding “I’m thinking about Iraq because that’s where my son died.”

Biden’s son was never in Iraq and died on US soil of brain cancer.

And what did the regime media call Biden’s lie about his son? … ‘Verbal fumbles

Listen to the show for more …

Democrats want to avoid responsibility for COVID crimes

Democrats are beginning to figure out that their power spree during the first two years of COVID was wrong in every single way, and that Americans suffered terribly because of these manifestly wrong decisions. Moreover, it’s becoming obvious that, at all times, they should have known better. For that reason, Democrats are getting excited about a concept The Atlantic is proposing: a “pandemic amnesty.” It’s to be hoped that the millions of ordinary Americans damaged by the Democrats’ COVID policies won’t buy this proposal.

One of the things that’s become apparent almost three years after COVID first hit America is that everything the left said and did was wrong. As was apparent from the cruise ships that had COVID outbreaks in the first half of 2020, we knew from the get-go that COVID victimized old people and people with compromised immune systems, while leaving children and healthy adults almost untouched.

Listen to the show for more …

Will the Midterms Change Anything?

Many experts expect public anger over inflation to enable Republicans to regain a majority in the US House of Representatives and maybe the Senate in next week’s midterm elections. However, even if every close Senate race broke in Republicans’ favor, and the new Republican majority was determined to pass a pro-liberty agenda, there still would not be the votes to override President Biden’s vetoes, or Chuck Schumer’s filibusters. Pro-liberty legislation cutting spending, or protecting our First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights, or shutting down the Department of Education, or auditing the Federal Reserve, would not become law.

One hoped-for benefit of having Congress in Republican hands is that the Republican desire to deny President Biden any major legislative victories going into the 2024 election means the American people will be safe from more big spending legislation like the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act that will lead to more inflation. It is also hoped that our liberty and prosperity will be safe from attempts to expand government’s role in healthcare and implement the Green New Deal.

Listen to the show for more …

••••

Eagle’s Eye Report: From Truth to Trust … Or NOT !!! (Archived)

(Click on image below to listen to show)

When those we need to depend on to keep us safe, free, and prosperous … are not up to the task … but it is of no consequence to the elite establishment (puppet masters) … What is the reality of actual freedom in America ???

••••

Show partially based on the following articles:

The Hill: Biden might be removed by the 25th Amendment

White House Fact Checked After Absurd Social Security Claim

Dems Looking to Avoid Responsibility for COVID Crimes

So … Will the Midterms Change Anything?

••••

More Episodes of Eagle’s Eye Report (click on image below)

••••

About the Articles Author Roger Landry (TLB) spent about three decades of his adult life either in, or working for the military, with about two decades working directly for the Military Industrial Complex facilitating DOD contracts. His awakening to Political, Economic, and Health realities was about fifteen short years ago. Since that time he has founded The Liberty Beacon Project (TLB) consisting of a half dozen proprietary global websites, media projects and partner websites across the planet. He contributes regularly to multiple forums both in and outside of TLB Project. Most of his work can be found on the TLB Flagship website TheLibertyBeacon.com

••••

Checkout TLBTalk.com:

Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site

••••

Welcome to the TLB Project Neighborhood

TLBTalkRepublic Broadcasting NetworkThe Liberty BeaconThe Butcher Shop

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)