Ted Cruz: ‘Religious Liberty’s Never Been More Under Assault’ in America

Mediaite.com:

Ted Cruz spoke at Liberty University today and talked at some length about how big the threat against religious freedom is in the United States. He railed against the IRS and spoke up in support of Hobby Lobby, declaring that “religious liberty’s never been more under assault.”
\
Cruz brought up an Air Force chaplain who got in trouble for saying there are no atheists in foxholes. Cruz laughingly asked if it’s not supposed to be the job of a chaplain “to be insensitive to atheists.”

He railed against the government forcing groups like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor to “violate their religious beliefs,” which he found especially ironic because of how Pilgrims came to the U.S. to begin with to flee religious persecution. He told the audience that there needs to be a call to action where people of faith should “stand and speak, no matter what the consequence.”

RELATED:  Kindergartner Allegedly Told to Stop Praying at Lunch

Victory for Academic Freedom: Jury Rules UNC-Wilmington Retaliated Against Conservative Professor

Townhall.com:

A jury in North Carolina on Thursday found that the University of North Carolina-Wilmington retaliated against criminology professor Dr. Mike Adams for his political and social views. 

Adams, a Townhall columnist, explained last year that despite his track record of success at the university in terms of teaching, research and service, he was denied a promotion to full professor because of the views he advanced in his opinion columns. He described the promotion process as being “replete with procedural irregularities and with direct criticism of [his] columns and [his] beliefs.” 

The ACLJ, who represented Adams along with Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Travis Barham, explains further: 

When Dr. Adams submitted his application for full professor, university officials rejected it through the use of a completely-fabricated promotion standard, passed along false and misleading information about his academic record, explicitly considered the content of his protected speech in promotion documents, and – incredibly – allowed a professor who’d filed a false criminal complaint against Dr. Adams to cast a vote against his application.


“[N]o individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit wrote in 2011. “Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern.” 

The university hired Adams, a former atheist, in 1993 as an assistant professor, and promoted him to associate professor in 1998. The “campaign of academic persecution that culminated in his denial of promotion to full professor” began when he converted to Christianity in 2000, which greatly influenced his views on social and political issues. 

“We are grateful that the jury today reaffirmed the fundamental principle that universities are a marketplace of ideas, not a place where professors face retaliation for having a different view than university officials,” Barham said. 

“The jury saw what we have long known to be true about the wrong done to Dr. Adams,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “The verdict is a powerful message for academic freedom and free speech at America’s public universities.” 

Update: According to the ACLJ, the verdict was only for liability. The judge will later decide Adams' relief. 

RELATED:  Teachers Union Contract Gave "Special Consideration" to Non-Christians

Ugandan President Calls Homosexuality 'Disgusting', Correctly Calls Being Gay "Unnatural" And Not A Human Right

Isn't it always funny when a morally-bankrupt, sex-obsessed, pedophile-enabling, deviance-loving country being taken over by Godless, white liberals tells other people how they should live?

President Yoweri Museveni, who made anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda much tougher Monday, told CNN in an exclusive interview that sexual behavior is a matter of choice and gay people are "disgusting."

After signing the bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, Museveni told CNN's Zain Verjee that, in his view, being homosexual is "unnatural" and not a human right.

"They're disgusting. What sort of people are they?" he said. "I never knew what they were doing. I've been told recently that what they do is terrible. Disgusting. But I was ready to ignore that if there was proof that that's how he is born, abnormal. But now the proof is not there."

Museveni had commissioned a group of Ugandan government scientists to study whether homosexuality is "learned," concluding that it is a matter of choice.

"I was regarding it as an inborn problem," he said. "Genetic distortion -- that was my argument. But now our scientists have knocked this one out."

Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, wrote an open letter to the Ugandan scientists in the New York Times last week urging them to reconsider and revise their report. Among his responses to their conclusions: "There is no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a learned behavior any more than is heterosexual orientation."

Museveni, whose public position on the measure changed several times, signed the bill into law at a public event Monday. The bill was introduced in 2009 and originally included a death penalty clause for some homosexual acts.

The nation's Parliament passed the bill in December, replacing the death penalty provision with a proposal of life in prison for "aggravated homosexuality." This includes acts in which one person is infected with HIV, "serial offenders" and sex with minors, according to Amnesty International.

The new law also includes punishment -- up to seven years in prison -- for people and institutions who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, language that was not in the 2009 version of the bill.

Lawmakers in the conservative nation said the influence of Western lifestyles risked destroying family units.

The bill also proposed prison terms for anyone who counsels or reaches out to gays and lesbians, a provision that could ensnare rights groups and others providing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The White House issued a statement Monday: "Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice, and equal rights for its people, today, regrettably, Ugandan President Museveni took Uganda a step backward by signing into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality."

The statement continued: "As President Obama has said, this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay community in Uganda, it reflects poorly on the country's commitment to protecting the human rights of its people and will undermine public health, including efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. We will continue to urge the Ugandan government to repeal this abhorrent law and to advocate for the protection of the universal human rights of LGBT persons in Uganda and around the world."

RELATED:  Uganda 11th African state to tighten gay laws

Former Planned Parenthood Worker Marianne Anderson: “Money-Grubbing, Evil, Very Sad, Sad Place to Work”

Archindy.org:

Marianne Anderson recently drove with her mother past the Planned Parenthood facility at 86th Street and Georgetown Road in Indianapolis, the state’s largest provider of abortions.

“I told my mom, ‘To think that that building exists for no other reason than to kill unborn babies.’ I still get a knot in my stomach when I drive by there.”

The knot returns despite the fact that Anderson hasn’t worked at the Planned Parenthood facility since July of 2012. Prior to that, she worked for two-and-a-half years as a nurse at the abortion center.

The mother of two and grandmother of one has begun to talk about her experiences at the abortion facility.
Anderson, who now works as a nurse at Community North Hospital, shared her story at two recent events sponsored by the Great Lakes Gabriel Project, which offers help and support to women in crisis pregnancies. Many Catholics across central and southern Indiana are involved in this pro-life initiative.


The following are excerpts from a recent interview she had with The Criterion, during which Anderson revealed her experiences at the Planned Parenthood facility and the support she received from members of the Great Lakes Gabriel Project in her efforts to leave.
 
Q. When and why did you start working for Planned Parenthood?
A. “I started working for Planned Parenthood in 2010 to start up their conscious sedation program [which allowed clients to purchase mild to moderate sedatives to be given intravenously before an abortion]. Plus the job was very close to my house.”
 
Q. Did you know what they were about, what they did?
A. “I did. And I must admit I was kind of on the fence about abortion. I think a lot of it came from working at Wishard [Hospital], and seeing girls that had attempted abortion themselves and ended up with hysterectomies, or boyfriends beating them because they were pregnant. My thought was, ‘Well, you need a safe place [for an abortion]. People shouldn’t be doing it on their own. And people are going to be doing it anyway, so why not provide them a safe place to do it?’ ”
 
Q. When did you start having qualms or misgivings about working for Planned Parenthood?
A. “I started feeling uneasy working there when people came from [the] national [office] in New York City to teach us the conscious sedation process. It was disgusting. These two ladies had this chant they would do: ‘Abortion all the time!’ I thought, ‘I’ve got to get out of here.’ That was about six to eight months after I started.

“Those women from New York acted like an abortion was a rite of passage. They were like, ‘How can you not offer abortion to women? It’s their body. They should be able to do whatever they want. How can you force them to have a baby? Abortion should be free to anybody, anytime.’ ”
 
Q. How many abortions are done at the Georgetown facility per day?
A. “In the upper 20s to low 30s, including medical abortion by pill. Abortions are done there every Tuesday and Friday, and then they alternate between Thursday and Saturday.”
 
Q. Were there ever any difficulties with the abortion procedures?
A. “Several times, there were difficulties with abortions while I worked there, where they had to call the hospital to come pick the woman up.

“One girl almost bled out. She was passing clots, her blood pressure was dropping.

“A lot of the cases we had were from excessive bleeding or reactions to the sedation.

“When we had to call 911 for an ambulance, we were told never to say the word ‘abortion’ because they don’t want that broadcast. They knew that the calls were recorded, and could be made public.”
 
Q. What was it like working there?
A. “It was a money-grubbing, evil, very sad, sad place to work.

“We would get yelled at if we didn’t answer the phone by the third ring. They would tell us we’d be fired [if we didn’t] because they needed the money.

“They would remind us in our weekly staff meeting that we need to tell everyone [who called to schedule an appointment] to avoid ‘those people’ [the sidewalk counselors] because we need the money. We were to tell them, ‘Don’t make eye contact with them, and don’t stop in the driveway. If you make eye contact with them or if you stop and roll down your window, they’re going to try their darnedest to talk you out of it.’

“You have to have so many [abortions] a month to stay open. In our meetings they’d tell us, ‘If abortions are down, you could get sent home early and not get as many hours.’

“They would allow girls to have ultrasounds that were obviously way too far along [the legal limit for having an abortion in Indiana is 13 weeks and six days]. They said, ‘If they want to be seen, you just put them through, no problem,’ just taking advantage to make money.

“I was always getting in trouble for talking too long to the girls, asking if they were sure they wanted to do this.

“It was absolutely miserable going in there.”
 
Q. What experiences stick with you?
A. “One young girl came in with her mom. She was about 16. Her mom had made the appointment. That’s not supposed to be how it works. It’s supposed to only be the patient who makes the appointment. I checked her in, and she thought she was there for a prenatal checkup. The mom was pushing it. She blindsided her own daughter.

“This guy brought in a Korean girl. I had no doubt in my mind this girl was a sex slave. This guy would not leave her side. They could barely communicate. He wanted to make all the arrangements.

“During the ultrasound, she told one of the nurses that there were lots of girls in the house, and that the man hits them. She never came back for the abortion. I always wondered what happened to her. One of my co-workers said, ‘You’re better off to just let it go.’

“These girls would start crying on the table, and Dr. [Michael] King [the abortion doctor for whom Anderson worked] would say, ‘Now you chose to be here. Sit still. I don’t have time for this.’

“One doctor, when he was in the POC [products of conception] room, would talk to the aborted baby while looking for all the parts. ‘Come on, little arm, I know you’re here! Now you stop hiding from me!’ It just made me sick to my stomach.

“The sound the suction machine made when it turned on still haunts me.”
 
Q. Did you ever interact with the sidewalk counselors?
A. “One day I was coming in, and I’d written out a note to one of the [sidewalk counselors] that said, ‘I’ve worked here for a little over two years. I’m actively looking for something else. Please pray for me. I don’t want to be here.’ All I could do was hand it to her. She tried to give me a pamphlet, but I told her no, I had to go because there are cameras that watch the drive.”

RELATED: Obama boosts budgets for Planned Parenthood, other assistants of health care enrollment

Youth Rights: A Trojan Horse for the Left’s Sexual Agenda

TheFederalist.com:

Once again, a liberal promoting the Democrat education agenda has asserted that, “[t]he children,” as in yours and mine, “belong to all of us.” This time it was Professor Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education, who recently defended the controversial Common Core Curriculum with an appeal to shared concern for ‘our’ children. Awhile back, it was MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry who urged more education spending because “kids belong to whole communities,” not to their parents. 

Such talk raises the hackles—and the suspicions—of conservatives. They see progressives as hell-bent on an agenda to restructure the American family. And they worry that liberal activists will mold the next generation in tolerance, autonomy, and moral relativism, while teaching them to reject parental authority and religious values. 

There’s reason to worry. 

But the real threat comes not from pundits and their puffery over ‘who owns the kids,’ but from the Trojan horse of ‘youth rights’— an agenda that’s already influencing schools, medical care, and the law. Under the guise of promoting children’s “rights” to make their own choices, progressives are relentlessly fencing parents out of the crucial, value-laden decisions in their children’s lives.

Pediatricians Vs. Parents

Consider an ordinary aspect of family life: a trip to the pediatrician’s office.

Parents of 12- and 13-year-olds may find themselves unceremoniously ejected from the pediatrician’s examining room so that the doctor can speak privately with their child. It used to be that parents stepped out discreetly for a moment during the physical exam of an opposite-sex child, out of respect for the child’s developing body and desire for modesty. 

But that’s not why parents are shown the door these days. 

Willing or not, today’s pediatrician is a field agent in the campaign for ‘youth rights,’ a global movement that insists children have the capacity—and the right—to make their own decisions about issues that concern them, particularly questions of sexual identity, sexual behavior, and reproductive health. In reality, the demand for ‘youth rights’ is simply cover for the left’s aggressive promotion of its radical sexual agenda. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) seems to have embraced its part in the youth rights campaign. In recent policy statements on emergency contraception and the care of LGBTQ youth, the AAP urges pediatricians to “counsel,” educate, and support young people in the exercise of their sexual and reproductive rights. 

The AAP tells its physicians that, “regardless” of the adolescent’s “current intentions for sexual behavior,” the pediatrician should discuss “sexual safety and family planning,” as a matter of “routine anticipatory guidance.” In addition, the conscientious pediatrician will go even further, offering to “supply” both boys and girls with emergency contraception to “have on hand in case of future need.”

Pediatricians Secretly Assisting With … Sexual Identity?

The progressive powers-that-be have decided that providing emergency contraception is part of the new script for adolescent care— even if the teen doesn’t request it. ‘Let’s check your height, listen to your lungs, and send you home with some emergency contraception.’ With no judgment, shame, or stigma, of course. (And no regard either for family concerns about the health, emotional, and moral implications of teen sex and emergency contraception.)

Similarly, the AAP statement on LGBTQ youth envisions that pediatricians will play “a role in helping teenagers sort through their [sexual] feelings and behaviors…pediatricians should assist adolescents as they develop their identities and to avoid the consequences of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), regardless of sexual orientation.”

In a blatantly political move, the AAP policy also condemns “heterosexism” (the idea that “heterosexuality is the expected norm and that somehow LGBTQ teens are ‘abnormal’”) and recommends that pediatricians display pictures of same-sex couples in order to be more welcoming to “sexual minority” youth. And lest children miss the inclusive message, the AAP tells pediatricians to ask adolescents (even those who are not yet sexually active) if they are attracted to or having sex with “males, females, or both.”  

RELATED: Facebook offers 50 new terms for gender designation

Barack Obama Tells French President Hollande, 'As a President, I Can Do Whatever I Want'

Breitbart.com:

During a visit to Thomas Jefferson’s estate Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia on Monday, President Obama joked to French President Hollande that he can "do whatever I want."

Tangi Quemener, the White House Correspondent for Agence France Presse, sent a message to Peter Velz, a press assistant at The White House, telling of Barack Obama and French President Hollande’s tour of Monticello. 

According to Quemener, the two men strolled in front of the pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. From the report:

Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he'd like to take a look and seemed delighted to "break the protocol.”  "That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want" he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman.

Jefferson would be so proud of his successor.  

RELATED:  Lawless: Obamacare and the Imperial Government

Jon Stewart Laughs in Nancy Pelosi’s Face After She Admits She Doesn’t Know Why Obamacare Site Failed

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Mediaite.com:

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sat down with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart on Thursday for a contentious interview. The interview became tense when Stewart attempted to get Pelosi to explain why government appears to function so poorly to the outside observer. When Pelosi attempted to explain why this was the case, Stewart became even more agitated.


“Right now, we have a school of thought in the House Republican caucus that is anti-government, anti-science, anti-Obama,” Pelosi said when asked about the nature of governance in Washington. “They have a trifecta that just enables them to vote against everything.”

Stewart said that Democrats are then required to make a stronger case. He said that Democratic governance now appears “chaotic” and their execution of legislation appears to “lack efficiency.” When Pelosi again blamed Republicans for this condition, Stewart became even more agitated.

When he asked why it was so difficult to get a company to execute the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange website “competently,” Pelosi replied, “I don’t know.” 

“What do you mean you don’t know? How do you not know?” Stewart asked laughing. 

Pelosi called the failed website “shameful,” but noted that it is improving. 

Stewart circled back to a philosophical pro-government argument that Democrats espouse but at the same time have been unable to demonstrate competency. He cited President Barack Obama’s campaign which had an efficient online process, but noted that it was impossible for that team to work on the ACA.

“Doesn’t matter,” Pelosi said. “What matters is it should have been prepared for.”

“Do we have a foundational problem? Is there a corruption in the system that needs to be addressed?” 

Stewart asked. Pelosi went on to detail the issues with bureaucracy and the failure of departments to communicate with each other. “Okay, do something about it,” Pelosi said. 

“I was actually going to say that to you,” Stewart interjected. 

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi Pushed By Progressives To Block Obama's Trade Deal

Andrew Cuomo: Pro-life People Have “No Place in the State of New York”

Hopefully, this smug speech comes back to bite him if he ever decides to run for POTUS, much less re-election as governor of New York:

Forty-eight percent of Americans and all priests and nuns are no longer welcome in the Empire State, according to its governor. Delivering a monologue on Republicans with all the hyperbole of an MSNBC anchor and none of the charm, Cuomo offered this:

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

He at least uses the liberal pejoratives for those who are pro-2nd Amendment and oppose gay marriage. “Right to life” he uses as if it’s offensive on its face. As Life News notes, he leans heavily on the President Barack tactic to simply declare everyone who disagrees with your positions in the slightest “extreme,” even if many of those people are your constituents. But how extreme is the pro-life position, even in a blue state like New York? Unlike, say, gay marriage, the polling on abortion restrictions, particularly second and third trimesters, regularly and overwhelmingly favors the more conservative position.

Cuomo spent much of 2013 trying to pass a Reproductive Health Act that moved the opposite direction of abortion legislation in states like Texas and North Carolina. He took from the Dr. Gosnell’s House of Horrors story that, hey, who shouldn’t be able to perform abortions, huh? The legislation, which was stuck into a broader Women’s Equality Act, stalled in the Senate because of its abortion provisions and under strong fire from the state’s bishops, who apparently are also no longer welcome in New York.

One 2013 poll, commissioned by the Chiaroscuro Foundation found, just as in the rest of the country, though many consider themselves pro-choice, they are very open to restrictions to abortion in the second and third trimesters and think abortions are already accessible enough in their state. A few of the questions lean on the prejudicial, but the bent of the electorate is clear:

The findings conclude that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers support sensible restrictions on abortions, with eighty percent (80%) opposing unlimited abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy and seventy-five percent (75%) opposing changes in current law so that someone other than a doctor can perform an abortion.”

RELATED:  No Place for Dissent in Andrew Cuomo's New York

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Obama's Disputed NLRB Appointments

WashingtonExaminer.com:

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to hear a bitter dispute between Republicans and the White House over whether President Obama exceeded his authority when appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board during a congressional recess. 

The justices' decision could cast a legal cloud over hundreds of rulings by the board, which resolves complaints of unfair labor practices and conducts elections for labor union representation. 

The case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, centers around recess appointments Obama made to the labor board. In January 2012, Obama appointed three members to the board when the Senate was on break. Presidents can circumvent required Senate approval if the chamber is on recess, a move Obama deemed necessary because of repeated GOP blocks of his nominations to the panel. 

Republicans worried the Obama appointees had a pro-union bias. But the White House said the GOP block was done solely for political reasons. 

Then in February 2012 the NLRB ruled against Noel Canning (part of Noel Corp.), of Yakima, Wash., in a dispute with the Teamsters union. The company, aided by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged the decision, arguing that the president's January appointments to the NLRB were invalid and thus the board didn't have the necessary quorum to resolve its dispute. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of Canning, saying Obama violated the law when he bypassed the Senate. The court said recess appointments are constitutional only if the vacancies and appointments occur in between official sessions of Congress. 

The NLRB appealed, and the Supreme Court took up the case. 

If the high court rules against the labor board, a minimum of 100 NRLB decisions -- and possibly more -- made by the recess-appointed members could be deemed invalid.

RELATED: Supreme Court justices call into question Obama's recess appointment power

Bill De Blasio Draws All Godless Liberal Eyes to New York City

NYTimes.com:

Liberals across the country are looking to Bill de Blasio, who was sworn in as mayor early Wednesday, to morph New York City’s municipal machinery into a closely watched laboratory for populist theories of government that have never before been enacted on such a large scale. 

The elevation of an assertive, tax-the-rich liberal to the nation’s most prominent municipal office has fanned hopes that hot-button causes like universal prekindergarten and low-wage worker benefits — versions of which have been passed in smaller cities — could be aided by the imprimatur of being proved workable in New York. 

“The mayor has a remarkable opportunity to make real many progressive policies and prove their merit,” said Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor of California, who as mayor of San Francisco introduced a form of universal health care and allowed same-sex couples to wed. 

“De Blasio matters,” Mr. Newsom said. “A lot of us are counting on his success.” 

New York has long been a lodestar for urban governments the world over. The avant-garde policing pioneered by former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani transformed the way major municipalities fight crime. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s corporate-minded approach to education and feats of social engineering, like the ban on smoking in bars, quickly gained global traction. 

In Mr. de Blasio, a wily, image-conscious strategist who had lagged far behind in polls just weeks before the Democratic primary, advocates on the left see a unique aligning of the stars: a champion of their values who is also a shrewd and cunning practitioner, stepping into office at a time when the national debate over inequality and social justice has reached a fever pitch. 

His administration could be a redemptive moment for a national left whose policies were often blamed for the crumbling of urban centers in the 1960s and 1970s, yet has now started to reassert itself in smaller jurisdictions with bold new approaches on issues like income equality and poverty. 

But Mr. de Blasio must also grapple with the restraints placed on local executives: He is barred from unilaterally setting income tax policy, meaning he must persuade legislators in Albany and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to approve his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy. And he has never experienced the day-to-day demands and compromises of managing an enterprise anywhere near the size of the city he will now lead. 

RELATED: Clinton Blasts ‘Inequality’ and ‘Climate Change’ Before Inaugurating NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio

A&E Does The Right Thing And Reverses Decision to ‘Suspend’ Phil Robertson For Christian Comments

Smart conservatives know that "homophobia" does not exist and is nothing but a word made up gays and their advocates on the Left to portray anyone opposing the homosexual lifestyle as a "bigot". It's a well-known fear tactic and more conservatives need to speak up about it. That being said, Phil Robertson should've never been suspended for expressing his Christian beliefs publicly in a magazine article, especially when you consider that A&E long knew what they were getting into when they put "Duck Dynasty" on their network in the first place. This is a victory for conservatives and a victory for free speech: 

The A&E network has decided not to suspendDuck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, after saying they were putting him on indefinite hiatus following his controversial comments about homosexual sex.

In a statement, the network attempted to explain why they “reacted so quickly” to Robertson’s interview with GQ magazine but also confirmed that they plan to resume filming with the entire Robertson family as scheduled later this spring.

Read the full statement from A&E below:

As a global media content company, A+E Networks’ core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people’s home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principals.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man’s views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.

The Robertson family has been on a contractually-stipulated hiatus for duck hunting season since the story broke on December 18th, so with the news that the show will resume filming on schedule, it does not appear that the “suspension” affected the network’s ability to deliver the show on time.

RELATED: Thanks, Duck Dynasty, for the Christmas gift

New York City Charter Schools Worry About Mayor-elect Bill De Blasio's Plans

Townhall.com:

Operators of New York City's publicly financed, privately run charter schools are bracing for changes promised by Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio — including the possibility of having to pay rent — that they worry could reverse 12 years of growth enjoyed under Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

De Blasio has pledged to charge rent to "well-resourced" charter schools and has called for a moratorium on allowing new charters to share buildings with traditional schools, taking aim at a Bloomberg policy that helped the schools grow from 17 to 183 during his time in office. The policy has also led to complaints that the charters draw an unfair amount of resources.

"It is insult to injury to give them free rent," de Blasio said last summer, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination.

Charter school backers around the country are watching to see what happens in New York — which they consider an incubator for the charter school movement — while de Blasio supporters hope that the changes help fulfill his campaign promise to improve educational access for all children. De Blasio takes office on Jan. 1.

"The nation as a whole has always looked to New York City in this area," said Nina Rees, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. "The climate in New York City is a healthy one because of the co-location arrangements."

A majority of the nation's charter schools either pay rent or are paying off a loan or bond issue for their buildings, according to Rees' group, but New York City real estate pressures make that a challenge. She said that many charter schools wouldn't have been able to open if they had to find their own building and start from scratch.

It's unclear how much New York's charters would pay. De Blasio has said he would use a sliding scale, with deep-pocketed charter operators forced to pay more, while some schools would continue to pay nothing. A spokeswoman said that de Blasio would work out the plan with his schools chancellor.

RELATED:  Daughter of NYC mayor-elect reveals depression, substance abuse

Canada High Court Strikes Down Laws Against Prostitution

LATimes.com:

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down three laws against prostitution in a landmark ruling Friday, deeming the bans on visiting brothels, living off a prostitute's proceeds and public solicitation "overly broad" and potentially dangerous for sex workers.

While prostitution is legal in Canada, the laws aimed at preventing its practice went far beyond protecting communities from public nuisances associated with the sex trade, the nine justices decided.

"Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin.

Laws that made it a crime to be found in a brothel, to live off of a prostitute's income and to solicit sex for pay in public were all deemed "grossly disproportionate" to the social ills they were meant to address, McLaughlin's opinion said.

While the measure against profiting from a prostitute's income was aimed at criminalizing pimping, it also made it illegal for prostitutes to hire those who can increase the safety of their trade, such as drivers, managers and bodyguards, the decision noted.

The court gave the Canadian federal government a year to amend the laws so that they conform with the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or let them expire in December 2014.

Three sex workers who brought the lawsuit alleging discrimination that exposes them to danger were jubilant over the court's ruling.

"Great day for Canada, Canadian women from coast to coast," said Terri Jean Bedford, the lead plaintiff who challenged the prostitution laws in Ontario Superior Court in 2009, according to the Calgary Herald. Bedford appeared on the snowy steps of the high court in Ottawa bedecked in dominatrix black leather and carrying a whip.

RELATED: Toronto mayor: Bad boy Rob Ford puts Canada in global spotlight

Phil Robertson's Family Issues Statement on Duck Dynasty’s Future on A&E

Mediaite.com:

The night after A&E decided to suspend Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson over comments he made in an interview about homosexual sex, the Robertson family posted a statement to its website about the future of the show.

Read the full statement below:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

RELATED:  GLAAD: Lethal Enforcers of the Left's Tolerance Mob

Reddit Bans Comments From Global Warming Skeptics

No surprise here. Nothing scares liberals more than facts:

A content editor on Reddit’s science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven’t done the same.

“About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers,” Reddit content editor Nathan Allen wrote in grist. “When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.”

Allen explains that climate change became an ironically heated topic among commenters on Reddit’s science forum, /r/science, which he described as “a window into the Ivory Tower” for “non-scientists” to connect with experts like himself.

Climate-change believers accused skeptics of being bought out by “big oil,” while the skeptics accused believers of being on the take from “big green.”

Despite the provocative comments on both sides described by Allen, and Reddit’s reputation as “passionately dedicated to free speech,” the self-described “PhD chemist” decided it was time for the skeptics to go.

“After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor,” Allen said. “As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change.”

As a result, about half a dozen content editors now practice “proactive moderation” on the science forum’s reported 4-million subscribers.

“As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral,” Allen said of the audience he previously described as “mainly academic.”

RELATED: Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Sam McNair, 17-Year-Old High School Student, Suspended for Sexual Harassment After Hugging Teacher

edu
Remember our idiot POTUS giving white, uber-radical feminist Gloria Steinem a "Medal of Freedom" for her "achievements" in supposedly pushing forward "women's rights"? Well, thanks to Steinem and other powerful, white, feminist man-haters like her, kids like 17-year-old Sam McNair can get in trouble just for hugging their teacher:

To Sam McNair, a 17-year-old high school senior in Duluth, Georgia, it was an innocent hug.

"You never know what someone's going through," McNair told CNN affiliate WGCL in Atlanta. "A hug might help."

It didn't in this case because after McNair hugged a teacher, he ended up with a year-long suspension from Duluth High School, putting his college plans in jeopardy.

"He's a senior; he plays football. He was getting ready for lacrosse season, and you are stripping him of the opportunity to even get a full scholarship for athletics for college," April McNair, Sam's mother, told WGCL.

The elder McNair, who says she and her son call themselves huggers, said she was dumbfounded to learn of her son's suspension after hugging a teacher.

Surveillance video captures the hug in question, showing Sam placing his arms around the teacher and giving her a hug. The teacher then pushes him away.

According to a discipline report obtained by WGCL, the teacher said Sam's lips and cheeks touched her neck and that she had warned Sam about hugging in the past.

Asked if he kissed the teacher, Sam told the television reporter he did not. He said he has hugged teachers many times before, including this teacher, and has never been warned.

In a statement, Sloan Roach, a spokesperson for the Gwinnett County Public Schools, told CNN, "Hearing officers consider witness testimony, a review of the known facts, and a student's past disciplinary history -- including long-term suspensions that result in alternative school placement -- when determining consequences."

"If a parent has concerns about the outcome of a panel, he or she is entitled to appeal the decision to the Gwinnett County Board of Education," Roach added.

Since this is a discipline issue, the law prohibits the district from sharing details about the student's situation or the student's past discipline history, said the spokesperson.

Sam told WGCL he does have a discipline record and previous suspensions but not for sexual harassment.

"I have five months left in my senior year. I don't see why they would take that away from me," said Sam.

RELATED:  School drops sexual harassment claim against 6-year-old who kissed girl

Federal Judge Declares Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional

It's what conservatives have long warned all those morally-bankrupt, liberal heathens out there who wish to destroy traditional marriage--the slippery slope aspect that is. And now, a judge with common sense comes out and supports "marriage equality" in it's truest form:

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

Waddoups’ ruling attacks the parts of Utah’s law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments.

Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy — "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages."

Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being "married," Waddoups writes. 

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes. 

Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words "marry" and "purports to marry," meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences.

The Browns could not immediately be reached Friday night, but issued a statement through their lawyer calling the decision humbling and historic.

"While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs," Brown wrote. "Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."

RELATED:  The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

6-Year-Old Boy Suspended From School For Kissing Student on the Cheek

Only in Obama's very, liberal, PC-Obsessed America:

Theirs was a forbidden love.

A 6-year-old Don Juan has been suspended from school in Colorado for kissing a classmate on the cheek because his principal considered it sexual harassment.

Hunter Yelton, of Canon City, gave his “girlfriend” a peck on the cheek at school, leading to his suspension from school on Monday, KRDO in Colorado reported.

"It was during class yeah. We were doing reading group and I leaned over and kissed her,” Hunter told the news station.

“They sent me to the office, fair and square. I did something wrong and I feel sorry.”

But Hunter’s mom, Jennifer Saunders, said the school’s decision to suspend Hunter for a day was an outrageous overreaction and that her son and the girl are “boyfriend and girlfriend.

“This is taking it to an extreme that doesn't need to be met with a 6-year-old,”she told KRDO. “Now my son is asking questions… what is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, ‘sex.’ Not in a sentence with a 6-year -old.”

RELATED: Florida teacher suspended after attempting to shut student’s mouth with tape 

Court: Christian Baker Must Make Wedding Cakes for Homosexuals

This kind of gay mafia tactics/liberal terrorism is happening too much around America and conservatives aren't doing near enough to stop it:

A Colorado judge says a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Friday that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Spencer wrote.

Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. The couple immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

“Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins said in a statement. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado hailed the ruling and said it serves as a warning.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

Phillips was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Attorney Nicolle Martin condemned the judge’s ruling.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” Martin said in a prepared statement. “Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free.”

Martin said this was simply a case of a baker who declined to use his personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony.

“If the government can take aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away,” she said.

RELATED:  New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony

Colorado High School Tells Girls That They Should Avoid Restroom If They’re Bothered by Transgender Boy in the Stalls

LifesiteNews.com:

New details have emerged in the case of a ‘transgender’ boy accused of sexually harassing girls in the women’s restroom of a Colorado high school. While school officials initially denied any harassment took place, new details reported by the Pueblo Chieftain indicate that there may be more truth to the girls’ claims than administrators are willing to admit.

Florence High School was plunged into controversy in October after a male student who says he is “transgender” was permitted to use the girls’ restroom facilities. The boy was subsequently accused of harassment – a claim that has been denied by the school.

On October 10, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) wrote a letter of warning to Florence High School on behalf of an undisclosed number of female students and their families who have alleged harassment.

“This is a nightmare scenario for the teenage girls—some of them freshmen—and their parents at this school,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said in a statement. “This is exactly the kind of horror story we have been warning would accompany the push for radical transgender rights in schools, and it is the type of situation that LGBT activists have been insisting would not happen.”

Last month, school superintendent Rhonda Vendetti denied any harassment had taken place, telling the Transadvocate, “Nothing has actually been verified.”

“This is one parent basically bringing their viewpoint about this situation to the media because they weren’t getting the responses that they hoped they would get from the district, from parents of students at the high school, or from the board and myself,” Vendetti claimed at the time. “We do have a transgender student at the high school and [he] has been using the women’s restroom, [but] there has not been an incident of harassment or anything that would cause any additional concern.”

But according to a report in the Chieftain, the school called police to investigate the possible harassment.
However, they did so only after warning the girls that they could face hate crimes charges for speaking out against the transgender boy.

“[School officials] have…thrown around the notion that hate crimes could be charged against students just for talking about this,” PJI’s McReynolds told National Review last month. He said that the school had warned the girls that state law was on the boy's side – in 2008, Colorado passed a sweeping anti-discrimination law which banned all discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

When administrators summoned local police to the school to take statements from the girls, they refused to talk, leading investigators to close the criminal investigation.

“The case is closed because the detective has no collaboration of evidence or statements from the victims,” police chief Mike DeLaurentis told the Chieftain. “Pending any other victim coming forward, we cannot even confirm any of these allegations.”

Although most school harassment cases are civil, not criminal matters, the school is pointing to the closure of the criminal case as evidence the bathroom harassment never happened.

But the girls themselves never said they wanted to press charges, only that they wanted the boy to stay out of the girls’ restroom.

“As far as harassment is concerned, the presence of a biologically teenage boy in a girl’s bathroom or locker room is inherently harassing,” McReynolds told the Chieftain. “Some comments were made by [the boy] while in the restroom that were directed toward clothing and appearance and that could be considered harassing.”

School administrators have submitted a report of their findings in the case to PJI, along with a proposal that the girls stay out of the women’s restrooms if the boy’s presence bothers them – a proposal McReynolds says is unacceptable.

“What the school officials have told the girls is that in order to maintain their privacy they can use a single restroom at the office which is not always available and is some distance from a lot of classes,” McReynolds told the Chieftain. “We don’t believe this is reasonable accommodation because the other student has full accesses . We think that is backwards.”

McReynolds says he plans to appeal the decision to the school board.

RELATED:  The Growing Battle Over Transgender Student Rights in California