Maryland, Carroll County Commissioner Violates Federal Judge’s Order, Mentions Jesus at Meeting

HotAir.com:

Can a public official mention Jesus at an official meeting? According to a federal judge in Maryland, the answer is no. According to Carroll County commissioner Robin Frazier, it’s yes — and she’s willing to go to jail to defend what she sees is her right to free speech and religious expression:

“Out of respect for my colleagues — I’m not sure how strongly they feel about it. I’m willing to go to jail over it,” Frazier said during the meeting, referring to Jesus Christ twice despite the ruling.

“(Let) the Lord Jesus Christ to admit me to render these deserved thanks and praises for thy manifold mercies extended toward me. Let thy blessings guide this day, and forever, through Jesus Christ and his blessed form of prayer, I conclude my weak petitions,” she said during the meeting.

After receiving complaints, some Carroll County residents and a group called American Humanist Association issued a warning to the board about “sectarian prayer” during meetings in 2012 and then followed up with a lawsuit in April 2013.

“After the judge has already agreed with us that that’s what’s going on, I think it’s particularly troubling that one of the council members saw fit to violate not only the Constitution but the judge’s very specifically ruling that they can’t be doing this,” said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association.

This fellow seemed to have the best take on the situation:

“My concern is, really, who cares? If they say Jesus, I mean, does it really offend anybody?” questioned resident Brian Resch.

The question is really this: do people have a right to be free from offense at board meetings? After all, Carroll County isn’t establishing a “county religion” by having one of its members pray openly. No one else’s rights to faith or lack thereof have been infringed; the local government isn’t taking roll at the local church to make sure everyone attends. The imposition of silence on religious expression by the judiciary, fueled by those who simply cannot abide the expression of faith, causes more egregious damage toward liberty than a prayer at a board meeting or school graduation does.

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill. However, isn’t the remedy at hand the next election, rather than a gag order from the federal government?

RELATED: MI union contract gives “special consideration” to “non-Christian” teachers

Bill O'Reilly (Rightfully) Calls Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Lee A 'Race Hustler'

Anyone who really thinks there's a single, black, Democrat politician out there who truly cares about the needs of Black people in this country is either lying to themselves or a fool:

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly brought Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday to discuss charges of racism made by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) against the former vice presidential candidate.

In recent remarks on poverty, Ryan referred to the "tailspin of culture in our inner cities." Lee in turn called Ryan's comments a "thinly veiled racial attack."

“Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says, 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black,'" Lee said in a statement.

On O'Reilly's show, Ryan said he has no bad feelings toward Lee, noting he's "a big boy" and understands that "if you challenge the status quo, sometimes you'll be misinterpreted." 

O'Reilly fervently disagreed, saying "race hustlers" such as Lee don't want to have a conversation and that they "get voted into office by portraying their constituents as victims."

"And it's all your fault and it's my fault and it's rich people's fault and the Republicans' fault," O'Reilly said. "It's everybody's fault except what's going on ... The race hustlers don't want to solve the problem."

Watch the full exchange above.

UPDATE: 12:58 p.m. -- Lee released the following statement in response to O'Reilly's remarks: 

Unfortunately we’ve come to expect language like “welfare queens,” “food stamp president,” and now “race hustlers” from the right wing and Mr. O’Reilly. It is disgusting and divisive and should never be accepted in our national discourse. 

For us to achieve the American dream for all, we must engage in this conversation that has been sparked about race and poverty, even if it is difficult for some. Racial discrimination, poverty, and income inequality remain issues that must be debated and addressed, and these kinds of ‘code words’ only get in the way of solving the real problems.

As members of Congress, we must come together to present a budget and funding priorities that create opportunity for all. We must make critical investments in job creation, education, and job training. Among many issues, we must address extending unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage, enacting criminal justice reform, and securing voting rights for communities of color, so that we can truly find solutions to these critical issues.

RELATED: The Left’s Laughable Effort to Label Paul Ryan ‘Racist’ Crumbles

Illegal Immigrant Supporting Dream Act Fails in New York; Opposed By 56% of Voters

Townhall.com:

A new poll shows a majority of New York voters oppose tuition assistance for illegal immigrants. The data, collected by the Siena College Research Institute, comes days after a version of the Dream Act, doing just that, failed to pass the New York Senate. The bill provides an estimated $20 million through TAP (Tuition Assistance Program) to undocumented students:

OSC estimates that TAP awards to undocumented students would have cost $20 million if the New York State DREAM Act were in effect in the current year based on the conservative assumptions that all full-time students would apply for TAP and receive the maximum award.

The poll itself shows that, of the 56% that oppose the Dream Act, a majority of moderates, 18 to 34 year olds, and people in an "other" party also oppose the bill. 

This revelation should signal to serious lawmakers that the time has come to oppose laws that favor law-breaking over legal, tax-paying citizens. When 76% of legal New York State college students do not have access to tuition assistance, does it make sense to spend more money on "undocumented" students? The tide of discontent among U.S. taxpayers should send a signal to idealistic, left-wing politicians that think the rights of undocumented immigrants should supersede those of the American citizen. 

RELATED:  DHS giving illegal immigrant ‘petty’ criminals second chance in waiver application process

New York Times Editorial Distorts, Misleads, and Lies to Readers on HHS Mandate

HotAir.com:

With many political debates, I try to give opponents the benefit of the doubt on intentions. Sure, raising taxes is a bad thing, but some politicians and pundits believe higher taxes will benefit society. Some people think we need to spend more, and others really fear climate change.

When it comes to the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate, however, I’ve almost stopped being that generous with the left’s media and thought leaders. This New York Times Magazine editorial is a prime example as to why. Almost from start to finish, the piece misleads and misdirects readers about the mandate, its opponents, and religious freedom.

Here are several examples:

First, the editorial says “for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees” by not providing contraception coverage as required by the mandate. This is a falsehood for at least two reasons: For one, the individual insurance market is an option for coverage, and colleges, high schools, Wal-Marts, and many other organizations provide birth control for free or very low prices.

Furthermore, most employees are “at-will” employees, meaning they can leave anytime they wish. If they want employer-covered contraception, plenty of companies will provide it.

In other words, many options exists for employees — and I haven’t even mentioned abstinence yet, which is 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

Next, the editorial says exemptions from the mandate “would significantly harm other people.” This is clearly not true, as pointed out above, because options abound.

Third, the editorial makes the claim that a Supreme Court decision against the mandate “would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another — or over nonbelievers.” In fact, the mandate gives special treatment to those who believe contraception, abortion drugs, and sterilization, and puts those who disagree with the mandate at a distinct First Amendment disadvantage with regards to speech and religion.

The editorial also argues that the mandate does not include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs:

The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions.

It has been proven time and time again that the mandate covers abortion drugs. For just two examples of this, check out what Live Action’s Drew Belsky and I wrote a couple of months ago, or check out this incredibly thorough analysis of that question by Just Facts.

Finally, the editorial states that “the government plainly has a “compelling” interest in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and in furthering women’s health and equality.” Actually, women’s health would benefit from fewer contraceptives, and contraception use only lowers the abortion rate after increasing it dramatically. And if the editorial board wants fewer “unintended pregnancies,” it should start with encouraging abstinence. Pregnancy is a fairly common result of engaging in sexual relations, after all.

There are other statements in the editorial that need to be debunked, but this is just a sampling of the misleading and outright falsehoods it possesses.

RELATED:  Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/24/14

Source: Flight 370's Altitude Dropped After Sharp Turn

Mary Landrieu Is Paying—and Getting Paid Big—for Her Stance on Global Warming

Obama's Destruction Of The Military Is By Design

Dad Who Fathered 98 Kids Offers Free Sex 

Cruz: GOP Should ‘Continue to Defend Life’ and ‘Defend Traditional Marriage’ 
 
Giuliani: de Blasio Turning New York City in Wrong Direction
 
If It's Sunday, The Washington Post Is Promoting Fellatio In the Movie 'Nymphomaniac'
 
Nate Silver: GOP Has 60 Percent Chance to Take Senate in 2014

Colorado House To Consider Controversial Vaccination Law 

Jimmy Carter Thinks The NSA Monitors His Emails
 
Drudge, White House in Twitter Spat over Obamacare Mandate Payment