Tag Archives: Alliance Defending Freedom

Training the FBI To Work Against Religious Americans

Posted on by

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about groups targeted as terrorists by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The unfortunate part of the story is that the FBI is getting its information on exactly who is a terrorist from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), long known to be a very left-leaning organization.

The article reports:

The FBI trained personnel on countering extremism with material from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), according to former special agent turned whistleblower Steve Friend.

In an interview with the Tennessee Informer last month, Friend recalled his experience at the FBI Academy in 2014: “We were shown a video that was produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” The film, Friend said, “ranked people who oppose abortion, pro-life activists, as a greater threat than Islamists.”

“I don’t know if they still show that,” Friend added, “but that’s what we were shown.”

The FBI still relies on SPLC material a decade later, leading a pair of top Republican senators to demand the agency sever ties with the leftist hate group that routinely smears right-of-center associations as “hate groups.” SPLC’s false “hate group” designations led to a domestic terrorist attack in 2012 on the offices of a pro-family organization.

The article concludes:

The SPLC also lists the first Amendment legal non-profit, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as a “designated hate group.” ADF has won cases at the Supreme Court 15 times, setting significant precedents in favor of Americans’ constitutional rights.

Friend was asked on the Tennessee Informer whether students at the FBI Academy pushed back at the use of a leftist hate group to train agents that pro-lifers are a worse threat than Islamic terrorists.

“There was some eye rolling,” Friend said, because his peers at the time were a group that “leans more conservative, more libertarian. “It’s probably very different now,” Friend added.

“When you’re at the Academy for the FBI, a lot of people are a little bit older,” Friend said. “Now the FBI is actually recruiting young people so they can indoctrinate them further.”

I don’t think our Founding Fathers ever considered that people who stood up for the unborn would be considered a greater threat to our Republic than Islamic terrorists.

 

It’s About Time

Posted on by

Yesterday Sara Carter posted an article about some comments made during Wednesday’s House subcommittee tech hearing. The exchange was between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

The article reports:

During Wednesday’s House subcommittee tech hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questioned Amazon’s usage of the radical Southern Poverty Law Center to deem eligible charities for donations, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said he would look to alternative options.

Gaetz layed out a list of charities that focus on Christian and Jewish causes as charities unjustly labeled as “extremists” by the SPLC — to which Bezos said he accepts Gaetz’s criticism and “would like a better source if I can get it.”

One of the groups unjustly labeled as a hate group by the SPLC is the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group focused on defending religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and free speech. Their cases have included defending Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker sued for sticking to his religious beliefs.

In case you have forgotten, the Southern Poverty Law Center has not been a sterling influence.

On February 6, 2013, The Washington Examiner reported:

The Family Research Council shooter, who pleaded guilty today to a terrorism charge, picked his target off a “hate map” on the website of the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center which is upset with the conservative group’s opposition to gay rights.

Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three charges including a charge of committing an act of terrorism related to the August 15, 2012 injuring of FRC’s guard. He told the FBI that he wanted to kill anti-gay targets and went to the law center’s website for ideas.

At a court hearing where his comments to the FBI were revealed, he said that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.

Generally speaking, the Southern Poverty Law Center labels any group that stands for traditional values, traditional marriage, and any other ideas that do not fit the liberal agenda as a hate group. Using them as a guide to determine which charities are acceptable is like using the Ku Klux Klan as an arbitrator in a civil rights case.

Reaching For Fairness

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported the following:

On Monday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing teen track star Selina Soule and two other minor female track athletes submitted a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights seeking an investigation into sex discrimination. The complaint specifically challenges the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) policy allowing biological males who identify as female to compete in girls’ athletics, ADF announced in a press release sent to The Daily Wire on Monday.

Per the CIAC policy, Soule was forced to compete against female-identifying biological males in a high-stakes track competition where two transgender sprinters beat the field, taking first and second place by significant margins; Soule landed in 8th place, missing an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places.

“I am very happy for these athletes and I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Soule told host Fox News host Laura Ingraham in February. “But, in athletics, it’s an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cis-gender girls.”

“Throughout the 2018-19 track season, males consistently deprived the female athletes who are part of the complaint of dozens of medals, opportunities to compete at a higher level, and the public recognition critical to college recruiting and scholarship opportunities,” an ADF news release said. “The complaint notes that CIAC’s policy and its results directly violated the requirements of Title IX, a federal regulation designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.”

I will admit that this is a new issue to me. Transgender was not common when my children were in school. It does seem to me that adolescent girls and adolescent boys are different physically. Generally boys have more muscle mass and more upper body strength. That makes competition between the sexes uneven. If a male transitioning to female is allowed to compete against women, he has a physical advantage–he will generally be taller with more muscle mass. That seems unfair to me. The only logical solution is to set up athletic events specifically for transgender students. Otherwise the athletes are not competing on a level playing field.

Sometimes States Get It Right

Posted on by

Townhall is reporting today that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has dropped its lawsuit against cake artist Jack Phillips. The article reports that the move that came after new evidence emerged of the state’s religious bigotry, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative legal-defense group representing him.

The article reports:

The latest chapter in Colorado’s ongoing targeting of Phillips came after the state targeted him for not making a gender transition cake, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in his favor in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2017.

“We’re pleased that the state will be dismissing its case against Jack,” said ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner. “This is the second time the state has launched a failed effort to prosecute him. While it finally appears to be getting the message that its anti-religious hostility has no place in our country, the state’s decision to target Jack has cost him more than six-and-a-half years of his life, forcing him to spend that time tied up in legal proceedings.”

Phillips called the case’s dismissal a “win for freedom” and said he looked forward to serving his customers once again.

“When I set out to build my dream of opening my own cake shop, combining my love for art and baking in a family business, I never imagined this chapter would be part of the Masterpiece Cakeshop story,” he said in a statement. “I have and will always serve everyone who comes into my shop; I simply can’t celebrate events or express messages that conflict with my religious beliefs. The Supreme Court affirmed that government hostility against people of faith is unconstitutional, and that Colorado was hostile to my faith. That hostility cost me 40 percent of my business and the wedding work that I love to do.”

The state was unwise to go after Jack Phillips after the Supreme Court ruling, but I guess they decided they could still make an example of him. I am grateful for the work of the ADF and the fact that they are working to fight religious discrimination.

Do College Organizations Have The Right To Place Requirements On Their Leaders?

Posted on by

Last month Christian Headlines posted an article about a recent lawsuit against the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. The University has demanded that a Christian group must be willing to allow non-Christians and atheists to lead their Bible studies in order to be recognized on campus.

The article reports:

While the school officials declined to comment on the situation, the Alliance Defending Freedom stated that: “The university refused to grant Ratio Christi registered status because it only allows those who share and personally hold beliefs consistent with the group’s mission to serve as its leaders.” 

“As a Christian apologetics organization, Ratio Christi seeks to defend the Christian faith and explain how the Bible applies to various current cultural, ethical, and political issues. Any student can attend its events. Any student of any faith can become a member of Ratio Christi, as long as he supports the group’s purpose. But Ratio Christi requires that those who lead the Christian organization must share its religious beliefs. As a result, the university has denied it registered status, limiting its access to funding, meeting and event space, and administrative support,” said the legal team.

The lawsuit disputes the school’s belief that it can refuse registered status to groups if they choose leaders that agree with the group’s religious outlooks.

Additionally, it notes other biased actions by the school against the Christian group, including that “non-religious groups are allowed to select members who support their purposes. And the university allows fraternities that admit only men and sororities that admit only women to continue as registered student organizations, in contradiction to the university’s policy against ‘discriminating based on sex.’”

Would you allow a member of the Ku Klux Klan to lead a class at the NAACP? Refusing to recognize this group because it requires that leaders support the beliefs of the group is discrimination. I hope the university loses the lawsuit.

Laws Have Consequences

Posted on by

CNS News reported yesterday that a 5-year-old girl was allegedly assaulted in the girls’ bathroom by a boy who identifies as gender-fluid. Is anyone comfortable with that?

The article reports:

According to a legal complaint by Roger G. Brooks of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Vernadette R. Broyles of Georgia Adoption & Family Law Practice, the boy, who was also five years old, reportedly assaulted the girl as she was leaving a bathroom stall at Oakhurst Elementary School in November 2017.

“As [Victim] was emerging from a stall, the Assailant pushed her against a wall, pushed his hand between her legs, and repeatedly felt and poked at her genitals … while she struggled and called out for him to stop,” reads the legal complaint, dated May 22, 2018. “No one came to help.”

The boy had permission to enter the girls’ bathroom under a policy that “required” schools to “admit boys who identify as female into girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas on school premises,” according to the legal complaint.

Prior to the 2016-2017 school year, boys were not permitted to enter restrooms for girls. However, in a July 26, 2016 email, the Superintendent of the City Schools of Decatur, David Dude, told school staff members that students should be permitted to use the restrooms that matched their gender identities.

The lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Vernadette R. Broyles of Georgia Adoption & Family Law Practice have gotten involved in the case.

The article reports:

In the complaint, the lawyers argued that the violation of girls’ privacy was a deliberate aspect of Oakhurst Elementary’s bathroom policy, not just a side effect.

“The Decatur Schools wish to ‘affirm’ boys who in some sense identify as girls by authorizing them to mingle with girls in areas that are reserved to single-sex use precisely because these areas involve some degree of undress, personal hygiene, and proximity that is considered to be inappropriate, intrusive, or potentially embarrassing between individuals of the opposite sex,” Brooks and Broyles wrote in the complaint.

“In other words, the violation of privacy of girls is not an unfortunate side effect of the policy – it is an essential goal of the policy,” the lawyers added.

The lawyers also noted that officials of the Decatur school system did not “make any inquiry” into possible “physical risks to girls” or “psychological stress” for girls, including those who may have been previously abused or assaulted.

How many little girls have to be assaulted before schools recognize the insanity of the idea of letting boys into girls private spaces? Are we ready to allow the high school football team to invade the girls’ locker room? Anyone who has raised a teenager can see the folly in this.

Discrimination Against Conservative Organizations

Posted on by

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that Amazon has barred the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom from taking part in their Amazon Smile program.

The article reports:

Amazon allows the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which groups are and aren’t allowed to take part in Amazon Smile 

The article lists some of the groups who will be participating in the program:

Unlike ADF, hardline Islamic groups are allowed to participate in Amazon Smile. That includes the Islamic Center of Jersey City, whose imam called Jews “apes and pigs” and requested Allah’s help in killing them “down to the very last one,” according to the Anti-Defamation League.

 

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is able to take part in Amazon Smile, despite a 2009 federal court ruling the U.S. government has “ample evidence” of ties between the group and Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.

The similarly named Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is also an Amazon Smile member. ICNA promotes the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group, Jamaat-e-Islami. The ADL has criticized ICNA for giving a platform to extremists.

Amazon’s spokesperson declined to comment to TheDCNF on the eligibility status of individual organizations but stressed the diversity of the more than one million participants in the program.

ISNA is listed as an unindicted co conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial which began in July 2007. The Holy Land Foundation Trial dealt with groups funding money to Islamic terrorists. These are the people Amazon is allowing to participate in their charity programs while keeping Christian organizations out. This is definitely backwards.

Some People’s First Amendment Rights Are Better Than Others

Posted on by

According to Wikipedia:

While the United States Constitution‘s First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others

It is not too much of a stretch to say that this includes the right of a business to do business (or not do business) with whomever they choose (excluding national security issues and things like that). Is that still true in America?

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about a recent poll of students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison regarding the rights of people engaged in business.

The article reports:

Students told ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) that it was okay for a dress designer to turn down Melania Trump for political reasons. “You should be able to control your business in that regard, yeah,” one young man said. “I mean, it’s a free market, that’s what most conservatives want anyway,” another student chimed in. When asked if the dress designer has the right to do that, a young woman replied, “Absolutely.”

ADF also asked students what should happen if a church approached a Muslim singer for an Easter service. Students unanimously said that such a singer has a right to “opt out” of that arrangement. “That seems like such an unusual circumstance that they would want them … like a Christian church would force a Muslim singer to sing at their church if they didn’t want to,” one young woman said. Students agreed that no law should force someone to serve another person against their religious convictions.

But when asked if a Christian has the right to opt out of serving a same-sex wedding, the students hesitated.

The question behind this poll is something that is going to continue to arise in our country as we take in more refugees that choose not to assimilate and as Christianity is no longer respected in our culture. What about the Muslim who refuses to drive a truck that transports beer? What about the Muslim taxi driver that refuses a fare because the man is blind and has a seeing-eye dog? What about the checkout person at the supermarket who refuses to scan bacon? Generally speaking, these are employees–not the business owner. Does the business owner have to allow the limitations on their ability to do their job? If these people are given a pass on the basis of their religious beliefs, should Christians also get a pass?

One of the dangers of bringing people into America with a different culture and no desire to assimilate is that it opens the door for lawfare. Lawfare is the use of frivolous lawsuits to advance a political agenda. It is a primary tool of organizations like CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic-Relations) to bring American laws in compliance with Sharia Law. CAIR will create a situation to be used as a test case to further its agenda.

There was a recent instance of a situation where a person who spoke the language needed probably has prevented a lawsuit that was being planned (here). Please follow the link and read the story. We don’t know exactly what was being planned–whether it was a lawsuit or something more serious–but thanks to a lady who spoke the appropriate language, whatever was planned was stopped in its tracks!

America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Our culture (up until recently) was a Christian culture. Many parts of America still have a Christian culture. To attempt to bring an alien culture into America rather than assimilate as refugees is going to create problems and tension. You can only live in peace with people who choose to live in peace with you. Unfortunately there is an element in Islam that does not want to live in peace with anyone who does not follow the tenets of Islam. That is a problem.

Fighting Back

Posted on by

The Alliance Defending Freedom posted an article on its website about actions it will be taking regarding North Carolina‘s bathroom bill.

The article reports:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing students and parents at North Carolina public schools and universities filed suit Tuesday against the U.S. departments of Justice and Education for making federal student aid and educational funding dependent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex. The suit is similar to one ADF filed against the two agencies on behalf of parents and students in Illinois last week.

The DOJ disregarded student privacy and safety when it issued letters threatening the suspension of federal funding for North Carolina’s schools and university system, as well as federal financial aid for North Carolina’s university students, unless the state government repudiated the law known as House Bill 2. That law ensures that government facilities and public schools protect personal privacy by maintaining sex-specific restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. The DOJ then filed suit against the state on Monday, the same day that the governor and the General Assembly each sued the agency over its illegitimate demands.

“The administration shouldn’t condition the ability of women to receive an education on their willingness to shower with members of the opposite sex,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “On behalf of North Carolina students and families—and by extension all students and families across the nation affected by the DOJ’s and DOE’s overreach—we have filed suit to stop both agencies from bullying schools and universities. The agencies must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance.”

Do you want boys allowed in your high school or college daughter’s locker room?

Before you sign on to support the idea of men in women’s locker rooms, please watch the following video posted on YouTube by the Alliance Defending Freedom:

If the ‘right of privacy‘ is somehow enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, why are we taking that right away from the women of America?

Re-education Training In America?????

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Times posted an article about Cynthia and Robert Gifford. The Giffords own a 100-acre farm in Rensselaer County, New York. In August, a judge ruled that the Giffords were required by law to host a same-sex wedding despite the fact that same-sex marriage was against their religious views. The Giffords were fined $10,000 by the state Division of Human Rights and also ordered to pay the McCarthys $1,500 each in damages for “the emotional injuries they suffered as a result of the discrimination.” Unfortunately, a New York appellate court upheld that ruling yesterday.

I believe that the court’s decision is in conflict with the First Amendment–it is infringing upon the rights of the Giffords to practice their religion, but there is another more disturbing aspect to this case.

The article reports:

The couple was also ordered “to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” according to the ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom).

Re-education? Designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage? What in the world is going on here? How is this not an infringement on their First Amendment rights when the government is going to re-educate them to attempt to remove their religious belief?

Our First and Second Amendments are under attack. If Americans do not quickly wake up and elect people who will uphold our laws rather than rewrite them, we will lose our republic. Judges in most states are appointed by elected officials. Pay attention to whom you elect.

The Internal Revenue Service Continues Its Attack On The First Amendment

Posted on by

On Monday, National Review reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has decided that it has the right to monitor what is said in the pulpits of America‘s churches.

The article reports:

It was bad enough, as I wrote here last August, that the Internal Revenue Service appeared to reach an agreement to monitor the pulpits of ill-favored churches. What’s worse is that the IRS, directly counter to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements, steadfastly has refused to make public key documents pertaining to that decision.
So the IRS, acting with the whole power of government behind it, seems to be saying it can monitor and presumably punish churches for the content of their sermons, but the churches can’t know exactly if, how, and why they are being monitored.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on April 9 requesting the release of the IRS documents.
The article concludes:
Completely apart from the administrative law-breaking, it is that First Amendment right that remains the nub of the underlying case. The public has been bombarded in recent weeks with stories of battles about the limits of private expressions of faith in the business world. What the IRS apparently is doing, at the atheist group’s request, attacks faith at an even more fundamental level than that: inside the churches’ own doors, at their very pulpits.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1808, “I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines, or exercises.”
Surely, if a government agency is monitoring religious institutions in a way that could lead to such intermeddling, the public deserves an explanation of how, why, when, and where such monitoring is taking place. But this is Obama’s IRS. It seems to think it answers to nobody. The courts must disabuse it of that virtually criminal notion, with every power at the courts’ disposal.

If the churches and the organizations affiliated with them do not step up to defend our religious freedom, no one will. This should be a wake-up call to every church to get involved in the political process–not shy away from it. My message to pastors is, “Don’t preach party politics–preach the principals that built this country.

What About The Right To Practice Your Religion?

Posted on by

The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.

The article reports:

Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

I hope the Knapps have good lawyers working on this–it is blatantly unconstitutional.

The article explains the balance that is needed in this case:

States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”

Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

It is not my concern whether or not homosexuals marry. It is my concern when the rights of Americans are violated in order to give special privileges to any group. We need to get back to the place where the rights of all Americans are respected–the rights of religious people and the rights of homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

Freedom Of Viewpoint Upheld

Posted on by

College campuses are not known for their conservative speech. In more than one instance, conservative speakers have been banned from college campuses or shouted down. Conservative professors have also been known to have a hard time.

The American Thinker posted an article today about University of North Carolina Wilmington professor Mike Adams, who sued the school for discrimination.

The article reports:

A federal court Wednesday ordered the University of North Carolina-Wilmington to promote and give $50,000 in back pay to a conservative professor in what is described as a landmark anti-discrimination case.

The restitution was ordered three weeks after a jury found the university guilty of retaliating against criminology professor Mike Adams, a popular conservative columnist on Townhall.com, after denying him a promotion to full professor in 2006.

“This ruling sends a message to public universities: Academic freedom isn’t just for the Left, it’s a constitutional right for all professors — even Christian conservatives,” said David French, senior counsel at the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Mr. Adams.

College campuses used to be known as places where different ideas were debated. In recent years, they have become more interested in promoting a single point of view. It is nice to see at least one university held accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Suit Against Planned Parenthood For Billing Fraud

Posted on by

CBN News is reporting today that a former Planned Parenthood official in Los Angeles is claiming that the abortion provider over-charged the state and federal government by hundreds of millions of dollars.

The article reports:

Victor Gonzalez, former CFO for Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, alleges that Planned Parenthood received fraudulent Medicaid reimbursements in excess of $200 million after illegally billing the federal program for oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices.

…Gonzalez’s accusations support the findings of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, which has charged the abortion organization with abuse, waste, and potential fraud totaling over $100 million in tax funding.

In August 2012, CBN News reported on another Planned Parenthood fraud case in Texas.

We really do need to reconsider how our tax dollars are spent.Enhanced by Zemanta