Resisting the New Blacklist

BkYlpjCCQAAxncT

There’s a new blacklist.

Its members are anyone who dares to oppose gay marriage, or gay behavior of any sort. The punishment, even for icons of the tech industry, is to have their careers deep-sixed; all in the name of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance.”

We have reached the point that these very fine words, inclusiveness and tolerance, have become the tools of a new totalitarianism that strikes at freedom of expression, freedom of political action and freedom of religion for every American.

This blacklist is the opposite of freedom. It is absolute intolerance. It is the apogee of exclusiveness.

It is bigoted, biased, hate-filled, discriminatory and totalitarian.

It is the ghost of Jim Crow, the shade of McCarthy, walking alive again among us today.

It has no place in a free society.

I’ve written numerous blog posts decrying it, including this one yesterday. Elizabeth Scalia wrote a post yesterday, calling on the gay community to speak out in support of freedom. Hopefully, at least a few people in that community will have the courage to break ranks and do so.

I deleted Mozilla Firefox from my computer.

I am going to get a lot more active in working for the First Amendment rights of Christians, but I need to pray and think before I decide exactly how. I will do this after session adjourns this year. It will almost certainly mean that I take a few days off from blogging.

I made a small donation to the National Organization for Marriage. It’s the first of a recurring donation.

I urge you to consider how you can take a stand against the blacklisting of people for their religious beliefs and completely legal, private and peaceful political activities. At the very least, take Firefox off your computers and donate a few dollars to the National Organization for Marriage. Even a $10 donation helps, especially if you give it every month.

Thank you copy

 

 

 

National Organization for Marriage Sues the IRS for Disclosure of Tax Returns

IRS

If the government starts breaking its own laws to give out information from our tax returns for the purpose of allowing a favored group to punish their enemies, we are all in trouble.

In March 2012, the Human Rights Campaign, which is a gay rights organization that supports gay marriage, publish the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax returns.

That, my friends, is clear evidence that somebody somewhere committed a felony. Yet, no one has charges have been brought and if there’s an investigation, it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere.

When the Human Rights Campaign published this list of donors, it laid these people open to harassment and reprisals of all sorts.

As I said earlier, when the government starts violating its own laws for the purpose of allowing a favored group to punish their enemies, we are all in trouble.

From The National Catholic Register:

National Organization for Marriage Sues IRS for Disclosure of Tax Returns (2085)

The lawyer for the organization says the measure is ‘in order to discover who committed these felonies against us and then hopefully get them prosecuted as a deterrent to future abuse by IRS officials.’

WASHINGTON — In March 2012, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading homosexual-rights group, posted the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) confidential 2008 tax returns, including the names of donors.

The disclosure of tax returns without permission is a felony, and NOM quickly cited evidence that allegedly pointed to an Internal Revenue Service official as the likely source of the confidential data.

But a year and a half later, after repeated inquiries elicited no satisfactory response from the IRS, NOM has filed a lawsuit demanding answers and damages.

“Our confidential tax returns were disclosed to the Human Rights Campaign, which posted our confidential list of donors (Schedule B of the tax return) on its website as part of its effort to harass and intimidate our donors into silence,” said John Eastman, NOM’s chairman and law professor at Chapman University School of Law, explaining the group’s decision to file the lawsuit on Oct. 3.

“Computer forensics discovered that the document had originated from within the IRS. Disclosure of a confidential tax return is a serious felony, yet no charges have been brought.”

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-national-organization-for-marriage-sues-the-irs-for-disclosure-of-tax-r?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-18%2014:22:01#ixzz2i6cJl7kz

Is an IRS that Targets Religious Groups for Unjust Discrimination Unfit to Make HHS Mandate Decisions?

 Accounting service richardson tx 2

Suppose you were an IRS agent.

  1. Suppose you had been tasked with singling out a group of religiously-based non-profit agencies for audits because they express their religious beliefs about controversial issues in public. They do this on issues that put them at loggerheads with the President of the United States.
  2. Suppose you had also been tasked with ordering those tax payers to cease expressing their religious beliefs about these issues or face the loss of their tax exempt status. 
  3. Suppose that you were also tasked with enforcing a government agency rule that gave you the power to arbitrarily fine the same tax exempt agencies you’d been selectively auditing because of their beliefs. Suppose these fines would put those agencies out of business.

What would you think you were supposed to do in this situation? 

Ashley McGuire of The Catholic Association CNA US Catholic News 5 23 12

Ashley McGuire, photo from  CNA

That is the question raised by Ashley McGuire. Ms McGuire is a senior fellow at the Catholic Association and editor of AltCatholicah, a Catholic women’s web magazine.

“The HHs mandate hinges on what constitutes a religious entity,” she told CNA in a May 10 interview. 

The IRS has “authority in determining what a religious entity is” for purposes of deciding while employers fall under the mandate’s requirements. 

The IRS has now publicly admitted that non-profit organizations have been audited and otherwise harassed by the agency based on whether or not their names indicated they might be opposed to gay marriage, be pro life, or otherwise traditionally Christian. Some of the groups that were subjected to this unfair governmental discrimination and harassment were: Christian Voices for Life, Family Talk Action, National Organization for Marriage and Samaritan’s Purse.

The IRS forced some of these groups to discloses lists of their donors, the contents of their publications and what prayers they said at events. 

Read more at CNA

“So the very enforcers at the IRS, whose own inspector general admits they systematically targeted conservative and religious groups, will now get to decide who is entitled to ladle soup into a bowl for a homeless person without violating his or her conscience,” McGuire wrote in the Weekly Standard.

In the midst of the scandal in which “religious values were indeed scrutinized by bureaucrats,” the IRS will “gain new authority to determine what constitutes religious activity and which religious employers are entitled to conscience rights,” she continued.

“If the case for repealing this unjust intrusion on the free exercise of religion was always strong, in recent weeks it’s gotten stronger still,” she added.

McGuire told CNA that the only way to ensure that the sort of political targeting that has occurred already by the IRS does not result in an infringement on religious freedoms via the contraception mandate is to either “completely repeal the mandate” or give a religious exemption to “anyone who asks for an exemption.”

 

Gay Marriage Bill Stalls in Illinois Legislature

Illinois legislature at work

Evidently, the Illinois legislation to change the legal definition of marriage to allow gay marriages has stalled in the Senate.

According to the story below, the session adjourns Wednesday, January 9. Assuming that the bill stays stalled, the measure will not be heard this year. The story implies that the bill would have passed if all members of the Senate had been present.

I’ve been through more of these legislative throw downs than I can remember. Based on what I’ve experienced I would guess that there was so much pressure on both sides of the question from constituents in the various legislators’ districts that they decided they would lose support, no matter how they voted. So, they worked together to keep the bill from coming to a vote. If that happened, the real action was behind closed doors and between the legislators, who will never tell anyone outside exactly what took place.

As I said, I’m just guessing. But it is an educated guess.

The EWTN story about this situation says in part:

An Illinois bill to redefine marriage came to a halt in the last days of the legislative session, leading marriage advocates to criticize the notion that “gay marriage” is inevitable.

“This is a tremendous victory for the grassroots in Illinois,” said National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown on Jan. 4.

“Thousands of people of faith telephoned, emailed and wrote to Senators to oppose the redefinition of marriage,” he explained. “They overcome the machine that so often rules in Illinois politics, and they showed that nothing is inevitable about same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Brown praised the Illinois Senate for “resisting the push of political activists to redefine marriage and to impose a same-sex ‘marriage’ scheme on the people of Illinois.”

Illinois State Sen. Heather Steans and State Rep. Greg Harris, both Chicago Democrats, tried to pass the “gay marriage” bill before the Jan. 9 end of the legislative session. It passed a Senate committee but lacked support to pass the Senate and was not brought to the floor, the Associated Press reported.

The failure was in part due to the absence of three senators due to family commitments. Supporters of the bill said the votes of the missing lawmakers – Republican Suzi Schmidt and Democrats Jeffrey Schoenberg and James Clayborne – were critical.

Brown said the Republican Senate Caucus “stood firm against redefining marriage” while “several stalwart and principled Democrats” also opposed the bill.

Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6807#ixzz2HRJccZPk


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X