Latest: Airliner Knew Deranged Pilot Suffered From "Severe Depression"

It's been over a week now since 149 innocent passengers perished aboard Germanwings Flight 9525, all of whom suffered unimaginably and tragically in their final moments. Unsurprisingly, however, we still don't know (and probably cannot know) exactly why the flight’s co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, lost his mind and killed everyone on board.

And while it’s been firmly established that he was a deeply troubled young man (he shredded doctor notes declaring him medically unfit to fly and had, according to his girlfriend, an obsessive and overbearing personality), the latest bombshell is scandalizing: Lufthansa knew about Lubitz’s alarming medical history for years and did nothing.

The New York Times reports:

The co-pilot at the controls of the German jetliner that crashed in the French Alps last week informed Lufthansa in 2009 that he had suffered from severe depression, the company said Tuesday. …

It was the first acknowledgment by Lufthansa that it knew of Mr. Lubitz’s mental health issues before the crash, and raised further questions about why the airline had allowed Mr. Lubitz to complete his training and go on to fly passenger jets.

Why indeed? In fairness to Lufthansa, however, as Dennis Prager notes in his must-read column this week, just because a person is depressed does not necessarily mean he (or she) is capable of great acts of evil.

“We've heard repeatedly that Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz was being treated for depression -- as if that largely explains why he did what he did,” he writes. “Yet, every one of us knows one or two depressed individuals, and it is inconceivable that they would commit mass murder.”

Thus, the airline could not possibly have known the depths of Lubitz's derangement. After all, Prager argues, Lubitz “lacked a properly functioning conscience” that, quite obviously, wasn't readily apparent to most people. And yet while “severe depression” might not necessarily be a medically disqualifying condition for pilots (clearly it wasn't in this particular instance), isn't it alarming that the airline was not more aware of, or concerned with, Lubitz's medical condition?

Meanwhile, this isn't helping matters:

Lufthansa, whose CEO previously said Lubitz was 100% fit to fly, described its statement Tuesday as a "swift and seamless clarification" and said it was sharing the information and documents -- including training and medical records -- with public prosecutors.

Despite his medical record, this false and now-retracted statement suggests that the airline was completely and totally oblivious to how dangerous Lubitz was to the general public.

Surely, then, if this tragedy teaches us anything, it's that Germanwings (and every other airline in operation around the world) needs to do a much better job vetting and monitoring their pilots.

Let's hope that process has already begun.

Newt Gingrich Pulls April Fools' Day Prank on Twitter

Fans of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R) may have been a tad surprised when they saw him tweet early this morning morning that he's had a change of heart and now supports President Obama's foreign policy:

...but never fear, Gingrich was simply getting a (very) early start on this year's April Fools' Day pranks.

Gingrich joins many other politicians who have used April Fools' Day to make a fake announcement. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) teased in a tweet that sounded vaguely like a declaration of a presidential run...that wound up being an announcement of support for the University of Wisconsin's Men's Basketball team in their upcoming game in the NCAA Final Four.

Happy April Fools! Trust nobody.

Indiana Pro-life Site Hacked After it Announces Support of RFRA

The Indiana Right to Life website has been taken offline by hackers after the pro-life group announced its support of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act. While no direct explanation has been confirmed, the timing of the attack is certainly suspicious. The pro-life group sent out this urgent press release Wednesday morning:

Hackers took Indiana Right to Life's website offline Tuesday evening, possibly in retaliation for the organization's support of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). A Twitter user claimed responsibility, using the same hashtag - #Offline - as was used by the apparent hacker who disrupted the state of Indiana's website on Friday, Mar. 27.

Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter responded to the hacking incident with no regrets about his organization’s goals:

"We face bitter opposition to our work protecting the unborn every day, but most who oppose our mission do so in the open," said Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life. "This attack on our website is cowardly. We have been exercising our freedom of speech as we support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is an important safeguard for pro-life Hoosiers against government directives supporting abortion. This attack appears to be in retaliation for that support. It's disappointing that the level of discourse has been lowered by a party wishing to silence our voice."

In a press conference Tuesday, Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) defended RFRA and lambasted the press for their mischaracterization of the important legislation. While many critics decried the bill as a tool to discriminate against homosexuals, Pence rejected that description and insisted it is simply about protecting Hoosiers’ religious freedom.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was about religious liberty, not about discrimination,” he said. “As I said last week, had this law been about legalizing discrimination I would have vetoed it. This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana does not give anyone the right to deny services to anyone.”

Indiana Right to Life’s endorsement of the bill comes as no surprise, considering it would, in part, prevent pro-lifers from being forced to support abortions.

I think the #Offline hacker needs to read the fine print. Hopefully the website is restored and Indiana Right to Life can get back to providing Hoosiers with important pro-life information and resources.

Howard Dean: Yeah, It's Time to Walk Away From the Iran Negotiations


According to some White House defenders'  simplistic and demagogic formulation, skeptics of the Iran deal are beating the drums of war. This ignores a range of alternative options, including the imposition of crippling sanctions, but that's not the point. The point is to pretend that Obama's permissive deal is the only thing standing between the US and a ground war in Iran. Via NRO, say hello to Howard Dean, warmonger:


Dean dutifully gets in his shots at Republicans and the "discredited" Israeli Prime Minister (whose people just handed a smashing victory), but he ultimately confesses that he's "worried about the way these negotiations have gone." He counsels the American delegation to pack up and leave, and perhaps return to the table at a later date when additional pressure has been ratcheted up against the regime.  Here's where things stand at last report: Top negotiators from several countries have departed Switzerland, despite the US' insistence that talks continue past yesterday's deadline.  Because the rate of progress is "slow going," according to the British Foreign Minister, this is the farcical readjustment of expectations bleeding out of the negotiations:

"Negotiators have a tentative agreement on the rough outline of a possible public statement on the progress they have made so far that would also highlight areas of disagreement, diplomats close to the talks said."

Not a dark April Fool's joke, I'm afraid. They've spilled past the twice-delayed deadline, and they might have a "tentative agreement on the rough outline of a possible public statement" to show for their efforts.  Why are people like the French, Howard Dean and Leon Panetta so dubious of the emergence a good deal at this stage?  Because Iran's regime is run by deeply untrustworthy, terrorist-facilitating, anti-Semitic, anti-American fanatics and liars.  And because based on multiple reports, US-led negotiations have thus far surrendered massive concessions to Tehran, possibly with more to come.  Smelling weakness, the Iranians have declared themselves unsatisfied with a legitimized nuclear infrastructure, a recognized right to enrich, and a sunset clause on Western-imposed restrictions (all huge giveaways).  They've tacked on additional demands, several involving a retreat from previously-agreed-to concessions on their part.  Rather than slamming the door on immediate sanctions relief, keeping centrifuges spinning at an underground fortified bunker, and balking at removing already-enriched materials from the country, Kerry and company have scrambled to make new accommodations.  We're not even sure if Tehran will promise to allow snap inspections or address past military applications of their rogue nuclear program, both of which have been considered by many to be bare minimums.  America has voluntarily ceded its position of strength at the table to one of desperation.  And as a reminder, these talks do not touch Iran's long-range missile program, human rights abuses, sponsorship or terrorism, or lethal meddling throughout the region.  And they persist despite the Iranian military staging a simulated assault on a replica American aircraft carrier, its Supreme Leader leading "death to America" chants, and its nuclear program "accidentally" breaching the terms of the existing interim deal.  I'll leave you with this Free Beacon video montage juxtaposing President Obama's tough talk with his negotiating team's repeated capitulations -- followed by a word from a world leader with real moral clarity:



ACLJ: Hey Obama, While You're Negotiating With Iran, Help Free Pastor Saeed

President Obama is still hoping to strike a deal with Iran's leaders over a controversial nuclear agreement – one which brought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Capitol Hill to warn the world of its potentially disastrous consequences. While the president is negotiating, the American Center for Law and Justice reminded him of some other unfinished business: securing the release of American Pastor Saeed Abedini.

Abedini, a Christian pastor, was arrested in Iran two and a half years ago simply because of his faith. He has languished in a tortuous prison ever since.

Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for ACLJ, is now urging the Obama administration to not be complacent.

Why hasn't Pastor Saeed been released? Like the nuclear talks, there are questions for both sides regarding Pastor Saeed.”

He continues:

Why can’t the U.S. make it happen? Can’t officials apply pressure to free this U.S. citizen? And for Iran -- which clearly needs to earn the world’s trust -- what better way exists for the Iranians to take an important step forward?

I had the chance to have a sit-down interview Mrs. Naghmeh Abedini last year. I found her demeanor to be somber, yet hopeful, for her family’s faith in God had not wavered. Yet, she said the president's words need to be followed by actions. She fears his dire situation will be all but forgotten in the nuclear negotiation process.

“I believe they’re going to use all the leverage that they have for nuclear talks, and I do believe Saeed has been abandoned and forgotten in this process," she said. "Again I’m thankful for those statements, but there has to be action to back that up. It’s been two years too long.”

Instead of making deals with a country that has failed to prove its trustworthiness, why not urge Iran to clean up its atrocious human rights record and demand Saeed's return?

That is a deal worth signing, Mr. President.

Townhall.com Welcomes Allen West as New Contributing Columnist

Townhall Media, a national leader in conservative news, announced Wednesday that former U.S. Representative (FL-22) and Lieutenant Colonel Allen West has joined the Townhall family of talented and influential conservative voices as a regular, bi-weekly contributor for Townhall.com.

"I am excited and honored to welcome Lt. Col. Allen West as a regular contributor to our site,” said Katie Pavlich, Editor at Townhall.com. “We look forward to sharing his unique perspective, shaped by his impressive background, expertise and experience in all aspects of life and public policy, with our audience."

West’s exclusive columns will cover a broad range of issues, including, but not limited to: health care, environment, retirement, education, taxes, and energy. His pieces run online every other Wednesday beginning April 1, 2015.

West, who is President and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, praised Townhall in a statement shortly after the partnership was confirmed:

“An example of the greatness of America is this: I remember being a civilian-military advisor to the Afghanistan Army for two and half years and the most integral medium that kept me in tuned to conservative perspective on issues was Townhall.com. And now, I have been blessed to be named a contributor to Townhall. This is what we must fight to preserve – the aspect that in our beloved Constitutional Republic, hopes and dreams are achievable by the individual by way of the pursuit of happiness – not a government perceived guarantee of happiness. I look forward to providing you, the thoughtful conservative reader, bi-weekly insightful missives.”

The NCPA is a nonpartisan nonprofit devoted to promoting free-market alternatives to government-regulated initiatives. For more information, please visit http://www.ncpa.org/. Lt. Col. West’s first column can be found here, and subsequent columns can be found every other Wednesday on Townhall’s homepage or at www.townhall.com/columnists.

Study: Fracking Doesn’t Mess With Your Drinking Water

Let the word go forth that fracking does not mess with your drinking water. In a new study of over 11,000 drinking wells, fracking wasn’t considered the reason for water contamination through methane creeping into the wells. At the same time, Science magazine noted that the authors of the new study are still disputing the validity of the results (via Science Magazine):

The new study of 11,309 drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania concludes that background levels of methane in the water are unrelated to the location of hundreds of oil and gas wells that tap hydraulically fractured, or fracked, rock formations. The finding suggests that fracking operations are not significantly contributing to the leakage of methane from deep rock formations, where oil and gas are extracted, up to the shallower aquifers where well water is drawn.

The result also calls into question prominent studies in 2011 and 2013 that did find a correlation in a nearby part of Pennsylvania. There, wells closer to fracking sites had higher levels of methane. Those studies, however, were based on just 60 and 141 domestic well samples, respectively.

“I would argue that [more than] 10,000 data points really tell a better story,” says hydrogeologist Donald Siegel of Syracuse University in New York, whose team published the new study online this month in Environmental Science & Technology. Chesapeake Energy Corp., which has large oil and gas stakes in Pennsylvania, supplied the researchers with the database, the largest of its kind, and also funded the work.

For all their disagreements, scientists on both sides of the fracking debate agree that it is very unlikely that microfracturing of rock formation itself contributes to the vertical migration of gases. The problem, they say, is with a minority of badly cased or cemented wells—they just disagree on how often this occurs. Siegel cites a 2014 study that found that just 0.24% of the thousands of wells in northeast Pennsylvania were ever given violation notices related to the migration of methane into groundwater. But Anthony Ingraffea, a civil engineer at Cornell University who is alarmed by the risks of fracking, says those violation notices are just the tip of the iceberg. He points to a study he led, published in PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] in 2014, which found that 9% of unconventional wells drilled in northeast Pennsylvania since 2009 already have structural integrity issues. That problem will grow, he says, as wells age, and as tens of thousands of new wells are bored. “We’re just at the beginning,” Ingraffea says.

So, it appears that the issue surrounding methane contamination of drinking wells mostly rests on poor construction of the well:

Siegel doesn’t deny that there have been problems with a few wells with poorly engineered steel casings or cracked and degraded cement walls designed to keep the boreholes from leaking. Such defective borehole walls can provide a conduit for the methane to move from the shale formation, more than a kilometer underground, to water wells just a hundred meters or so below the surface. But he says his study shows that it is an exceedingly rare issue. “We haven’t seen any evidence [of methane migration] other than the occasional local issue,” he says. “I think our paper, in my view, pretty much seals the deal.”

Regardless, the Obama administration has released new regulations on fracking, which is a method that’s used to extract natural gas since 1947.

Fracking, the Keystone pipeline, and the plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 percent by 2025 are issues at the heart of job creation in Washington. For construction, the impact could be steep with 45,000 jobs being lost every year if the EPA continues to push their agenda with ozone standards (via PCA):

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to further tighten ozone standards could result in the loss of more than 45,000 construction jobs each year, slow the nation's economy, and impede vital infrastructure investments.

PCA estimates that the cement industry alone would have compliance costs and plant closures that could lead to the loss of nearly 900 jobs. Cement manufacturing jobs are highly technical and well-paying, with an average wage of $77,481 per year. Most cement plants are located in small rural communities, so the impact would be felt disproportionately in those regions.

“A cement plant is vital to the economy of its community. When one is forced to close, the region loses jobs, it loses significant tax revenue for schools and public services, and it loses a strong supporter of local charities and civic activities,” said James Toscas, president and CEO at PCA. “Over the past four decades, the U.S. has virtually eliminated the severe air pollution that currently plagues some other countries. However, regulators have continued to tighten air quality standards, often with little or no proven health benefit. This has gotten to the point where our essential industries have struggled to meet current standards, incurred significant costs, and in some cases had to simply shut plants down.”

Most cement and concrete in the U.S is used for infrastructure. Higher costs for construction projects would mean that governments could afford fewer projects each year.

Second Blogger Hacked to Death In Bangladesh: Police Suspect Assailants Tied To Terror Group

A 27-year-old atheist blogger named Oyasiqur Rahman Babu was hacked to death by three Islamic extremists with machetes in broad daylight in Dhaka, Bangladesh Monday morning.

Dead upon arrival, Rahman was brought to a local hospital with two gashes in his throat and four in his face, Bangladesh’s Daily Star reports.

Two assailants in Rahman’s slaying (pictured above) were apprehended almost immediately, and confessed to the killing while being questioned by police, the Daily Star reports.

The pair were students at Hefazat-e-Islam, a known radical Islamist group which has demanded the death penalty for “atheist” bloggers that criticize Islam.

Authorities told local press that during interrogation, the suspects said they had killed Rahman because of his writing on religious issues, according to the Dhaka Tribune.

Also during interrogation the two apprehended suspects said they were instructed to carry out the attack by a third party, whom they named as “Masum.”

“Masum showed us some writings and a photograph of the person. He asked us to come to Dakkhin Begunbari at 9 a.m. when the man comes out of his house for office,” said one of the suspects, according to the Daily Star. “Accordingly, we carried out the attack with cleavers.”

Rahman was the second atheist blogger to be hacked to death in Dhaka in the past five weeks, and the fourth since 2006. In February, secular blogger Avjit Roy and his wife Rafida Ahmed Bonya were also attacked. Rahman had expressed his support of Avjit on social media after the previous attack, changing his profile picture to an image of the hashtag “#iamavijit.”

Freedom-loving nations and coalitions around the world have expressed their condemnation of the murder.

"The Delegation of the European Union to Bangladesh condemns the brutal assault and killing of blogger Washiqur Rahman...

Posted by European Union in Bangladesh on Monday, March 30, 2015

“It’s a matter of tremendous concern that different journalists and other intellectuals have been attacked,” said Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, on Monday.

A total of four men -- the three assailants and the third party -- have been charged by local police with the murder.

Programming Note: The Hugh Hewitt Show


Mary Katharine Ham and I will be subbing for the great Hugh Hewitt tonight, taking the reins of his nationally-syndicated radio show from 6-9pm ET.  Guests include WaPo's Jennifer Rubin on Iran, The Federalist's Gabriel Malor on the Indiana firestorm, plus CNN's Jake Tapper, among others.  Oh, and we may or may not mention our forthcoming book, End of Discussion, which seems highly relevant in light of the Outrage Circus' patented fact-subordinating machinations over RFRA and gay rights.  It'll be a spirited, fast-paced show with lots of breaking news.  We hope you'll tune in. (And pre-order our book!)



Christians Under Attack in Egypt Over Church Honoring Relatives Killed by ISIS

Relatives of the Coptic Christians who were murdered by ISIS in Libya last month are now facing violent attacks of their own—all for wanting to build a church to honor their loved ones.

FoxNews.com reports:

An angry mob in the Upper Egyptian village of Al Our – the proposed site of the church because it was home to 13 of the 21 Christians murdered in the mass “beachfront” decapitation – descended on the community’s current church after the midday Islamic prayer Friday and chanted that they’d never allow construction of the new place of worship to begin, witnesses told Egyptian activists in the U.S.

Things turned far uglier after nightfall, the witnesses said, as a smaller number of individuals threw Molotov cocktails and stones at the church, injuring several people, and setting cars ablaze, including one that belonged to a relative of one of the victims of the Libyan massacre.

“The police came, but after the attack,” said Mina Abdelmalak, a Coptic Christian living in Washington who is in close contact with the witnesses to the events in Al Our. “There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”

The Coptic Christians from Al Our first sought permission from Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to build the church, which until recently has been a customary requirement for the religious minority in the country. No such permission is required to build mosques, however.

Even with al-Sisi’s consent, however, local Muslims objected, particularly over its location near the entrance to the village.

“This is a classic issue in Egypt,” Abdelmalak said, reports Fox. “Even after you struggle to get permission from the president to build a church, you still have to face the mob, which rejects the idea of having a church built in their neighborhood.”

A new location outside the village is now eyed following a meeting between Muslim and Coptic residents that the regional governor brokered.

“This has been effectively imposed on the Coptic residents,” Abdelmalak said. “Dictates to the Christian community are always presented as agreements.”

While police did arrest some members of the mob who participated in the attacks, they were released a few hours later.

Egypt currently ranks No. 21 on Open Doors’ annual list of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian.

Americans Send 1.6 Million Letters to Congress to End ObamaNet

It’s been just one month since the Federal Communications Commission voted to regulate the internet, yet freedom-loving Americans are already inundating Congress with their complaints.

On February 26, the FCC voted to alter the rules under Title II of the Communications Act in order to regulate our computers just like utility and phone companies. It is this extreme power grab that convinced American Commitment, a free-market advocacy group, to mobilize over 500,000 citizens to send letters to Congress sharing their concern about the rise of "ObamaNet." In total, 1,621,614 letters were mailed to Capitol Hill. Phil Kerpen, the president of American Commitment, told Townhall he was pleasantly surprised by the outpouring.

“I have never seen such an overwhelming push back from the general public against the federal regulatory action,” he said. “We’ve seen just a stunning response. In just one month, we had more than half a million people take action.”

Each constituent sent three letters through American Commitment – one to the House and two to the Senate. Kerpen said Congress cannot ignore such a barrage of demands.

“I think they’re starting to feel some pressure up on Capitol Hill.”

That pressure is even being felt across party lines. Last week, G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, became the first Democrat to announce he supported congressional action against the FCC regulations.

Kerpen is not surprised by the backlash considering the law’s vast consequences.

“It’s pretty astonishing what the FCC did here to end two decades of successful free market internet policy and instead say we’re going to regulate the internet like a public utility like a 1930’s law designed for the old phone system.”

Kerpen points to another factor that may be driving Americans’ powerful and passionate responses. A Rasmussen Reports poll from last year asked participants, “Are you worried that the FCC regulating the internet will lead to content control and politicization?” Sixty-eight percent said 'yes.'

“We’ve long argued that once you put federal bureaucrats in charge of the economics of the network, it’s only a matter of time before they try to control the content as well," Kerpen said. "I think that is a widely held concern.”

He said Congress has yet to respond to the campaign, but expects that as they move from the oversight phase into more serious legislative action, members will start addressing the letters.

These letters are likely to speak on behalf of all Americans who cherish their freedom and reject the current administration’s apparent obsession with controlling key aspects of their lives. Obamacare ring a bell?

Let the people tweet!

Surprise: Some Folks Are Abusing Their EBT Cards

Budget legislation passed by Congress last week includes cuts to some welfare programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The cuts have already attracted backlash from left wing activist groups like the feminist group UltraViolet, which launched a campaign to petition Congress to restore the funding.

“Overnight, the U.S. Senate voted for a budget that literally takes food away from hungry children,” UltraViolet’s campaign pleads. “The budgets that have now passed both the House and Senate make deep, painful cuts to the food stamps program.”

TurningPoint USA responded with a little digging. Here’s what they found:

After a brief search on Twitter and Instagram, Turning Point USA uncovered more than one hundred documented examples of welfare recipients abusing, mocking, and making light of welfare programs. Ripe with abuse, Twitter users attempt to sell food stamps, trade the stamps for weed, and purchase expensive food items.

Several of the social media posts use the hashtags #EBT, #EBTgang, #EBTcard, #EBTsquad, and #TeamEBT – many of which depict a culture of glorifying the use of Electronic Benefit Transfers (EBTs.)

A few examples of the Instagram posts from TurningPoint’s investigation:

The rest can be found here.

Poll: Voters In Key States Don't Trust Hillary Clinton Due To Emails

As Hillary Clinton prepares to launch her presidential campaign, a Quinnipiac Poll released Tuesday morning shows that nearly half of voters in key states don’t view her as honest and trustworthy.

“Majorities in each state think Clinton still has questions to answer about her emails,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll. “Voters in each state are evenly divided on whether Congressional hearings are warranted.”

In the wake of a tumultuous month of Clinton’s still-developing email scandal, 50 percent of Florida voters see the former Secretary of State as dishonest -- compared to 41 percent that do trust her.

In Pennsylvania, 49 percent of voters don’t trust Clinton and 44 percent do.

Ohio voters are nearly evenly divided: 47 percent don't trust Clinton and 46 percent do.

“Thirty-six percent of independent voters in the key state of Ohio say they are less likely to vote for her because of the e-mail controversy,” Brown said.

“The good news for Hillary Clinton is that the e-mail controversy has not done huge violence to her presidential chances,” he added.

The poll showed that GOP candidates would win against Clinton in both Florida and Pennsylvania.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush beat Clinton 45 to 42 in the Sunshine State, while Kentucky Senator Rand Paul beat Clinton 45 to 44.

“A red flag in blue state Pennsylvania,"said Tim Malloy, another assistant director of the poll. “Hillary Clinton, seemingly invincible before the e-mail scandal, ends up tied with Rand Paul.”

Gowdy To Clinton: Let’s Have That Interview About Your Emails, Madam Secretary

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has sent a letter to Clinton’s attorney requesting the former secretary of state sit down for a transcribed interview about her private email address and server. Recently, Clinton’s attorney said that they won’t turn over the server, and that it would be a moot point because it had been wiped clean.

Gowdy has said ad nauseum that the committee isn’t interested in any emails relating to Mrs. Clinton’s personal life, or any emails that have nothing to do with Libya or the Benghazi terrorist attack in 2012.

“Toward that end and because of the Secretary’s unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records,” wrote Gowdy. “The Committee is willing to schedule the interview at a time convenient for Secretary Clinton, but no later than May 1, 2015.”

We continue to believe Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement with herself is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. The decision to delete these records during the pendency of a congressional investigation only exacerbates our need to better understand what the Secretary did, when she did it, and why she did it. While she has cited a variety of justifications for this arrangement, many questions and details about the arrangement remain unanswered. These questions relate to:

  1. her decision to bypass an official government email account;
  2. whether she affirmatively turned over any relevant records during the pendency of the Accountability Review Board investigation or at any time after Congress first began investigating the Benghazi attack until December 2014;
  3. her decision to retain those records upon separation from the Department of State;
  4. the methodology by which these emails were subsequently searched for evidence of official records; and
  5. her decision to delete certain emails.

White House: We'll Probably Extend Nuke Talks With Iran

Talks surrounding Iran's nuclear program are down to the wire just five hours ahead of the 6 pm eastern deadline today. The White House is admitting a deal may not be reached in time and that talks may be extended to the end of June.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that even if a deal is reached today or tomorrow, experts need time to dig through the details. Earnest also said a military option is on the table and always has been, but that the administration is still working toward a diplomatic solution.

"The military option has been on the table for quite sometime and continues to be on the table today. That being said, the diplomatic approach would be more effective in resolving the international community's concerns than the military approach," Earnest said. "The President is willing to walk away from the negotiating table before signing a bad deal."

Earnest said any deal that is reached would have to include Iran shutting down every path they have to a nuclear weapon.

"Even if we were to reach a good agreement....we're still going to have a long list of concerns about Iran's behavior. I don't want to leave anybody with the impression we're going to solve all of those concerns through nuclear talks," Earnest said.  "The international community is united no this. What's holding up the talks is the specific commitment that we need to see."

Yesterday Iran made unattainable last minute demands as talks continued to fall apart. Iranian nuclear talks with the United States have already been delayed multiple times.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have stressed the importance of approving an agreement if one is reached.

Anti-Gun Hollywood Liberal Accused of Molesting Young Woman

Meet Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood liberal and an anti-gun zealot. One of his latest projects (which will bomb at the box office), is a movie specifically targeting the National Rifle Association. 

They are going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them,” Weinstein told Stern on Wednesday, referring to the NRA’s lobbying and political strength.

Weinstein did not go into specifics about the project, but said that Meryl Streep was involved and that it would not be a documentary but “a big movie like ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'”

“I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it,” Weinstein told Stern. “The NRA is a disaster area.”

But it turns out, Weinstein may have more than an anti-gun political position to blame for his stance against firearms ownership, especially among women. From the Washington Times

A 22-year-old Italian woman has accused Hollywood film producer and Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein of sexually assaulting her Friday night in New York City, police sources told the New York Daily News.

The woman, who wasn’t identified, told police that Mr. Weinstein, 63, touched her private area and her breasts about 6 p.m. Friday at the Tribeca Film Center, the sources reportedly said.

Mr. Weinstein has been questioned by police, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will decide whether to file charges, the Daily News reported.

“He initiated the contact,” the source said of Mr. Weinstein, the Daily News reported. “He saw her and spoke to her. She didn’t know who he was until he approached her.”

Funny how anti-gun men often turn out to be creeps. It isn't the men who support firearms ownership among women who we should be worried about, instead, it's the men who don't.

H/T @MadStJack

Pence on RFRA: "This Law Does Not Give Anyone A License To Discriminate"

Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) is under intense scrutiny after signing into law a statute that purportedly allows businesses to discriminate against certain classes of Hoosiers. Pushing back against all the misinformation, however, Gov. Pence defended the law in a press conference on Tuesday, thereby hopefully setting the record straight and addressing the controversy head-on.

“Let me say first and foremost I was proud to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act last week,” he said. “I believe religious liberty, as President Clinton said when he signed the federal law in 1993, [is] our first freedom and it is vital to millions of Americans who cherish faith as I and my family do. But it’s also vital to the framework of freedom in our nation.”

“This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier State,” he continued. “But clearly, there’s been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law. And I come before you today to say how we’re going to address that.”

He then dove into the specifics of the widely-pilloried bill.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was about religious liberty, not about discrimination,” he said. “As I said last week, had this law been about legalizing discrimination I would have vetoed it. This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana does not give anyone the right to deny services to anyone.”

“I don’t believe for a minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a license to discriminate or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anyone else," he added. “But I can appreciate that’s become the perception, not just here in Indiana, but all across this country and we need to confront that."

He also announced, however, that the bill needed to be improved, and therefore would look to the state legislature first and foremost to help clarify and refine the bill’s language.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone,” he said, urging state lawmakers to act as soon as possible. “ We want to make it clear that Indiana is open for business. We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it’s a way of life.”

“Let me say I believe this is a clarification, but it’s also a fix,” he added. "[The bill] through mischaracterization and confusion, has come to be greatly misunderstood. And I’m determined to address this [problem] this week.”

Not surprisingly, he also characterized the national media’s reporting vis-à-vis the bill as both “reckless” and “irresponsible”—although he conceded in recent days it had “gotten better.”

Krugman: All of These 'Imaginary' Obamacare Horror Stories Are 'Invented'


Here we go again. One of the High Priests of the so-called "reality-based community" has for the umpteenth time pronounced Obamacare a great success, asserting that people who believe otherwise (like, for example, the majority of the American people) have either been deceived, or are liars. Paint-by-numbers acerbic Leftist, reactionary smear artist, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls Obamacare horror stories "imaginary disasters," made up from whole cloth to scare people and undermine a law that's working and helping people.  We've spent quite a lot of time refuting variants of this argument in recent years, producing detailed responses to President ObamaHarry Reid, and two different bloggers at Vox.  Here's Krugman -- in a column declaring Obamacare a success and its opponents discredited, no less -- bemoaning our "post-truth politics:"

In short, when it comes to the facts, the attack on health reform has come up empty-handed...And the favorable experiences of the roughly 16 million Americans who have gained insurance so far have had little effect on public perceptions. Partly that’s because the Affordable Care Act, by design, has had almost no effect on those who already had good health insurance: Before the act, a large majority of Americans were already covered by their employers, by Medicare or by Medicaid, and they have seen no change in their status. At a deeper level, however, what we’re looking at here is the impact of post-truth politics. We live in an era in which politicians and the supposed experts who serve them never feel obliged to acknowledge uncomfortable facts, in which no argument is ever dropped, no matter how overwhelming the evidence that it’s wrong. And the result is that imaginary disasters can overshadow real successes. Obamacare isn’t perfect, but it has dramatically improved the lives of millions. Someone should tell the voters.

Actually, when it comes to the facts, opponents' attacks on the law have been overwhelmingly vindicated. Obamacare has failed to deliver on nearly every major promise upon which it was sold.  Remember, one of the law's chief architects has conceded that its PR team lied about taxing benefits, lied about cost control, and intentionally exploited legislative opacity, which he bragged would help bamboozle "stupid" voters. So the statement that critics have "come up empty-handed" could only come from a cloistered, closed-minded ideologue who admits to shielding himself from uncomfortable data and opposing viewpoints.  Krugman also fails to mention that many of the millions who've "gained insurance" under the law previously had coverage and were forced to sign up through the exchanges when their suddenly-noncompliant plans were unceremoniously canceled.  He writes that the law had "almost no effect" on people who were already happily insured.  That's only true if you willfully ignore the millions of consumers who've received cancellation notices as a direct result of the law, and the millions more who will experience the same upheaval in the years to come.  Finally, poll after poll confirms that Americans who've been directly harmed by Obamacare substantially outnumber those whose lives have been "dramatically improved."  These are people's actual experiences, and no amount of smug, tendentious bloviating can alter people's everyday realities.  These disasters are not "imaginary" -- as Krugman might be aware if he deigned to read his own newspaper from time to time.  Here's the Times last month:

Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she’d have to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider network and no out-of-network coverage. She accepted that she’d have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician, who didn’t participate. She even accepted having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke it while playing tennis. But her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a follow-up visit with an orthopedist in her Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield network: The nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, Conn. When she called to protest, her insurer said that Stamford was 14 miles from her home and 15 was considered a reasonable travel distance. “It was ridiculous — didn’t they notice it was in another state?” said Ms. Pineman, 46, who was on crutches. She instead paid $350 to see a nearby orthopedist and bought a boot on Amazon as he suggested. She has since forked over hundreds of dollars more for a physical therapist that insurance didn’t cover, even though that provider was in-network...For still others, the new fees are so confusing and unsupportable that they just avoid seeing doctors...by endorsing and expanding the complex new policies promoted by the health care industry, the law may in some ways be undermining its signature promise: health care that is accessible and affordable for all.

Would Mr. Krugman care to repeat his "imaginary" rubbish to the faces of this cancer patient, this young mother, this erstwhile Obamacare poster child, or these workers in Pennsylvania?


I'll leave you with this interesting nugget from the Libre Initiative:

As the enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2015 ends, analysis by Avalere Health shows that while 76 percent of eligible individuals between 100 and 150 percent of the Poverty level signed up through Healthcare .gov this year, enrollment figures decline dramatically among people earning more. Just 16 percent of those earning between 300 and 400 percent of the federal Poverty level signed up, and just 2 percent of those earning $46,000 or more per year did so. The data shows that for consumers who bear a significant portion of the cost themselves, the federal exchange is simply not a popular option. Only when large taxpayer subsidies are provided are people choosing to enroll in significant numbers. But people are required by the ACA to purchase health insurance or face penalties, and as these penalties increase over time, more Americans will be compelled to comply with the law or face penalties that are simply too onerous.

This is a wealth redistribution scheme that hurts the middle class.  As it turns out, people who are both mandated to buy coverage and handed large subsidies from taxpayers are the most likely group to sign up for Obamacare. Go figure. "Success!"

Reid: Nope, I Have No Regrets Calling Mitt Romney a Tax Cheat

The ends always justify the means.

Asked in a recent interview if he had any “regrets” about accusing 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes for ten years during the homestretch of the campaign, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) essentially shrugged his shoulders.

“He didn’t win, did he?” he intoned.

The Washington Free Beacon captured the video:

We knew he was lying, of course, and the Romney campaign ensured in good time everyone else would, too. But such a smug and remorseless answer astonishes even me.

Or does it?

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Senator.

UPDATE: Watch the full clip here.

Santorum Speech Receives Mixed Reactions from GW Students Over Gay Rights

As former presidential candidate Rick Santorum closed his remarks Monday evening at George Washington University, controversy that’s been brewing for nearly a month at the school was visible: half of the students in the auditorium stood in applause while the other half of the room sat stone-faced.

The speech was hosted by GWU’s chapter of Young America’s Foundation, which has come onto the national media stage in the past month because the group boycotted mandatory “LGBT sensitivity training.” In response, GW YAF was labeled a “hate group,” a “cancer,” and was even compared to ISIS.

“The only sensitivity training we need is to respect every person,” Santorum said Monday, to strong applause from half the audience. “Tolerance is the most misused word in the English language.”

“Tolerance means you can say really horrible nasty things that I hate and offend me,” he added. “That’s how we get along. You have a right to be mean -- a right to be nasty to people. That’s how this country works, because we have thick skins and we aren’t offended.”

In his opening remarks, Santorum explained conservative policy on the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran and the impending nuclear deal, and commented on the recent religious protection law passed in Indiana. Afterward, students queued to throw the former senator some tough questions.

“People aren’t dying in America because of this,” one student said, arguing that business owners should be forced to serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation -- one concept addressed in the Indiana law.

Santorum was quick to respond: “Should a gay or lesbian-owned printshop have to print signs for the Westboro Baptists that say ‘God hates fags’?”

“If they have the money to pay, they should,” the student shot back, to “ooohh” from the audience.

Taking the gloves off, Santorum continued: “Should a Jewish printshop have to make signs for the KKK? Should a kosher deli have to serve non-kosher food? It’s a two-way street. Tolerance is a two-way street. If you’re saying that ‘your religious liberties are not as important as my -- fill in the blank,’ then I’ve got a problem with that.”

Peppered with other inquiries ranging from follow-ups on Iran policy and immigration to Santorum’s new book “Bella’s Gift,” about his severely disabled daughter, the theme of the Q&A always returned to gay rights.

“I am a proud and confident lesbian woman, and I’m just wondering why are you denying me my rights to marry the love of my life, to adopt my future children -- both of which I will do?” another student asked, to thunderous applause from half the room.

The former senator was ready to point out her fallacy:

“I don’t come in and say ‘because you have a different point of view, you’re denying me my view of marriage,’” he said. “You’re expressing your opinion -- you have a right to do that, and I have a right to do that.”

The overly secure environment of the auditorium added to the obvious clash of ideologies as the members of GW YAF and various liberal and gay pride campus organizations came together: five security guards lined the walls of the auditorium.

Attendees were notified before the event not to bring any book bags or purses with them, and signs carried in protest were also not permitted. A posted message outside the auditorium read “any person who disrupts the event will be removed by the University Police Department.”

“If you intend to participate in the larger conversation about American politics and culture, it’s really important to understand about the 40 percent of Americans that call themselves conservatives,” said GW YAF President Emily Jashinsky after introducing Santorum. “I want to invite everyone to demonstrate their very best sense of inclusivity, tolerance, and respect tonight -- let’s have a great debate.”

Both Santorum and questioners were repeatedly interrupted by approving applause from both divisions of the audience -- yet Santorum coolly and patiently responded to even the most disgruntled students.

“No matter what your passion is on the issues, we need to have a system that says everybody’s allowed in,” Santorum said.

Santorum’s speech came on the eve of Trans Day of Visibility, hosted by the student group Allied in Pride -- a key opponent of GW YAF on campus.

“Their decision to bring Rick Santorum -- a man who has compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality -- to campus the day before Trans Day of Visibility underscores their intolerance and pattern of hate,” Allied in Pride posted on Facebook.

Gov Christie Pledges Support for 20-Week Abortion Ban Just Hours After Pro-Life Group Places His Name in Red

His name was the only one in red. Yet, just hours after the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List declared Gov. Chris Christie was the only potential 2016 GOP candidate who hadn’t pledged his support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the outspoken New Jersey governor made his stand much clearer.

2016: Where Do They Stand? is a new resource for pro-life voters heading into next year’s presidential election. Specifically, it provides the candidates’ opinion on the Pain-Capable bill. The legislation has been surrounded by controversy thanks to Congress’ missed opportunity, yet the goal of the bill itself is anything but.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is compassionate legislation that would protect babies from brutal abortions after 20 weeks, or five months of pregnancy. If enacted into law, it would save approximately 15,000 babies every year from brutal, painful deaths.

Think this sounds like common sense? The majority of Americans would agree with you. Passing the pain-capable bill is the SBA List's main priority in the lead up to the race to the White House. Because it's so important, the organization wanted to make sure their supporters knew where the 2016 candidates stood on the issue. 

The only one they weren't sure of was Gov. Christie. The SBA List explained this to the press in a Monday email, informing them that the New Jersey Governor was the only one had not endorsed the bill. Therefore, while every other candidate's picture was included with a pro-life quote, Gov. Christie's name was simply placed in red with no corresponding quote. Just hours later, however, Christie sent the SBA List this statement:

“I am proud to be a pro-life Republican. I believe that every life is an individual gift from God, and that no life is disposable...I urge Congress to take swift action on this important issue."

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser gladly accepted his announcement:

"There is complete unity on the Republican side around this highly reasonable proposal to protect pain-capable children after five months,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement after Christie's endorsement. “Meanwhile, the national Democratic Party and its leaders remind us almost daily of the abortion lobby’s importance in their policy and politics. We expect this clear difference to be a focal point of the general election debate.”

The pro-life movement should be cheering to know that the SBA List clearly has influence in this election and Christie's wake-up call should be a warning to all presidential wannabes who don't stand up for the unborn. I hope all of them escape the red ink.

Surprise: Hillary Clinton Lied About Using Only One Device For Email

When Hillary Clinton stepped to the microphones three weeks ago to explain why she used a personal email account on a private server hosted in her home to conduct all of her official State Department business, she claimed she did it out of convenience because she didn't want to carry two devices. 

We already knew Clinton didn't simply own just one device capable of sending and receiving email. After all, she said so during a February 2015 event in California when she admitted to using an iPhone, iPad, mini iPad and a Blackberry. 

Now, the Associated Press has confirmed Clinton did in fact use multiple devices to conduct her official State Department business, not the one phone she previously claimed. 

Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The State Department released a total of four emails between Clinton and her top advisers as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013 by the AP, which sought Clinton's correspondence with senior advisers over a four-year period relating to drone strikes overseas and U.S. surveillance programs.

While limited, the emails offer one of the first looks into Clinton's correspondence while secretary of state. The messages came from and were sent to her private email address, hosted on a server at her property in Chappaqua, New York, as opposed to a government-run email account.

Meanwhile, Congress is still trying to figure out how to handle new revelations Clinton "wiped her server clean."

Marco Rubio: Future of The Country Depends Strongly on The Next Election

Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL) stopped by Fox News' The Five yesterday to discuss his presidential plans and the state of the country moving forward.

"I strongly believe that the future of this country will depend on the next election and what's at stake in 2016 is not simply what party is going to win or the candidate. The fundamental question in 2016 is what kind of country do we want to be in this new century? Do we want to remain an exceptional country, a land of equality of opportunity, the strongest nation on earth, or are we prepared to diminish and decline? And decline is a choice, it's not our destiny," Rubio said. "The country is really at a hinge point in terms of moving forward into the future. We are really transitioning from out of the 20th century, well into the 21st century, a dramatically different world. Globalization has changed the nature of our economy, technology has changed the nature of work, the entire global order that we've had since the end of World War II is now in flux and I think it's really important we move in the right direction as a country by not just confronting the challenges of this new era, but increasing its opportunities."

As he said in the interview, Rubio will make an announcement about his presidential plans on April 13, 2015.

Yemen Unrest Could Spark Regional War

Ground troops from the Arab League could be moving into Yemen to fight the Shiite Houthi rebels that have forced President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi from the capital Sanaa and the southern city of Aden. Hadi was reportedly trying to rebuild his power base there after escaping house arrest. The embattled president was able to go to the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh to attend an Arab League summit, according to CNN:

[Arab League] Support is already broad. The coalition nations participating in the bombardments make up about a third of the league's membership.

On Saturday, Hadi called the Houthis out: "You violated the sovereignty (of Yemen), and you bear the responsibility for what happened and what is going to happen."

Airstrikes have hit Houthi militant groups, smashed their big air defense guns and crumbled key infrastructure that links major towns with the capital, Sanaa, a Saudi official has said. The coalition has destroyed Yemeni army weapons caches and military facilities.

Saudi naval special forces have also rescued dozens of diplomats, the official said. And many U.N. representatives have fled the unrest.

Saudi Arabia has set up a blockade, effectively cutting off Houthi supply lines, and its air force controls Yemeni airspace. They have threatened to attack ships that might supply the rebels.

Concerning the strategic situation, the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran encapsulates the Sunni-Shiite schism, which often times has led to violence between the competing sects of Islam. Saudi Arabia, which sees the Houthis as being backed by Iran–they did send a delegation to Tehran–can’t have an Iranian satellite state on their border:

Iran and Saudi Arabia are bitter rivals. Having Yemen become an Iranian satellite country on its border would be unacceptable to the kingdom.

Iran has sharply denounced the Saudi-dominated armed intervention.

And two Arab League members, Lebanon and Iraq, have voiced opposition to Determination Storm [the current air campaign against the Houthis], Lee reported. Both countries are majority Shiite.

In all, a force of about 40,000 men from the Arab League could be heading into Yemen. The United States has been providing logistical support for the airstrikes as well (via the Hill):

The Arab League on Sunday decided it would build a joint military force featuring combat units from each of its 22 member nations.

It would likely boast 40,000 elite troops backed by light armor and mechanized air and naval power, he added.

The Al Arabiya network said the league declared any member state could request the joint military if its security was threatened. The league would then act if the situation warranted combat, Al Arabiya concluded.

The league’s first potential battleground might be in Yemen, which is currently tangled in a fierce civil war. Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi on Tuesday fled his hometown of Aden as Shiite Houthi rebels advanced on his position.

The embattled leader next retreated to Saudi Arabia, another league member, Wednesday. The Sunni government in Saudi Arabia has since conducted air strikes on the rebels, hoping it will prevent the Houthis from partnering with its Shiite rival, Iran.

The Obama administration revealed on Wednesday it is providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi military campaign. It has additionally ruled out direct military intervention, despite its close alliance with Hadi’s former government.

CNN added that Saudi Arabian officials have insisted that if an invasion occurs, they won’t leave Yemen until the rebels’ fighting capabilities are irrevocably crippled. That being said, the publication noted that the Houthis are skilled guerrilla fighters that could turn this incursion into a bloody affair.

Yemen had been used by this administration as a blueprint for future counter-terrorism operations. When the country continued to devolve into chaos, this administration maintained that position. Even Vox knew better, as this post shows, as they pretty much took Obama’s foreign policy to the woodshed.

The Fact-Free Meltdown Over Indiana's New Religious Freedom Law


As you may have gathered via breathless headlines and hyperbolic social media rants, Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed into law a draconian attack on LGBT rights under the guise of "religious liberty." This unprecedented assault on equality, or whatever, has elicited strident condemnations and boycott threats from a number of celebrities and organizations.  Almost all of this hyperventilating is rooted in some brew of abject ignorance, mindless alarmism, and ostentatious moral preening.  The latter, anti-intellectual phenomenon is especially widespread: "Look at me, I'm a good person because I'm outraged about this terrible law, about which I know very little. Those who disagree with me are exposing themselves as bad people who support discrimination against gay people, which offends my tolerant and progressive sensibilities, of which I'm reminding everyone right now."  

In fact, Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) very closely mirrors a federal law cosponsored by Congressional liberals and signed by President Clinton in the early 1990s.  It is also extremely similar to laws enacted in 19 other states over recent decades.  That list of red and blue states includes Illinois, where then-state Senator Barack Obama cast his vote in favor of the legislation, which may help explain why some Democrats are struggling to logically defend their table-pounding over Indiana's law.  In short, the Hoosier State's RFRA isn't remarkable or radical under any fair reading. In a must-read piece today, writer and attorney Gabriel Malor (who is a gay conservative who supports same-sex marriage) sticks to facts in addressing common misconceptions about these laws -- starting with what they are, and the two-pronged balancing test at their core:

This legislation sets the same minimum standard for burdening the exercise of religion. Under the various RFRAs, a state or the federal government—by law or other action—may not substantially burden an individual’s exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Twenty states, including Indiana, and the federal government have RFRAs.

This was the same test applied by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby ruling on religious liberty and Obamacare's contraception mandate last year.  Malor answers a series of questions about Indiana's law, making clear that it does not codify discrimination whatsoever, nor does it even mention gays or same-sex marriage.  (Separately, Mollie Hemingway profiles a number of Americans whose rights have been protected by RFRA-style laws, including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Native Americans, and "spiritists" -- none of these cases pertained to gay rights in any way).  Critics of Indiana's measure largely ignore these cases, opting instead to invent hypothetical victims of anti-gay discrimination -- which is not "permitted" under RFRA. An example of the alarmism:


Malor, again:

This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide. Why Is Everyone So Mad about Indiana’s RFRA, Then? The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before. Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays...It is entirely consistent to favor broad religious freedom protections and also favor gay rights. Many gays are religious, and so themselves benefit from religious freedom protections like RFRA. But even where gay Americans and religious Americans find themselves in conflict, there is ample room in communities to peaceably coexist. That’s the point of a RFRA. No side gets an automatic-victory card. The interests of all sides gets weighed.

So many important points packed into one pull quote: Indiana does not have a public accommodation law on the books that includes sexual orientation as a basis for anti-discrimination protection.  In other words, businesses discriminating against gay customers isn't illegal in the state at present, and yet it isn't happening.  On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of instances of florists, bakers, caterers, etc. getting sued and having their livelihoods threatened for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding.  Malor writes about peaceful coexistence, but that's not what many on the Left really want, even after years of advancing "live and let live" arguments in favor of marriage equality, assuring skeptics that such unions "won't effect you." This coercive shift is a major theme of the book Mary Katharine Ham and I have written, available now for pre-order.  In any case, Malor's distinction is crucial.  RFRAs do not grant blanket immunity for discriminatory behavior rooted in religious faith -- a photographer turning down a job at a gay wedding, for instance.  They simply create a framework in which competing rights and interests can be balanced on a case-by-case basis.  They provide a potential recourse for the party being sanctioned or sued, but no guarantee of victory.

As I've noted in the past, most Americans now favor gay marriage, and an overwhelming majority believe gay people should be treated fairly and with respect.  People are not okay with anti-gay discrimination or bigotry, but a substantial majority also believes that private businesses run by religious people should be able to opt out of actively participating in the weddings of same-sex couples.  These attitudes are not in conflict; indeed, they embrace the very definition of tolerance and coexistence.  RFRA-style laws help codify a specific platform from which people can assert their religious rights in the face of countervailing government interests or legal challenges.  One more big point: Some opponents of Indiana's law say that it's not quite the same as other RFRAs because it applies its protections to businesses (which adheres to SCOTUS' Hobby Lobby precedent), as well as to private lawsuits in which the government isn't directly involved.  A law professor writing at National Review Online points out that "four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department have all taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion."  Again, Indiana's law isn't some unprecedented, thinly-veiled effort to trample gay rights.  It's quite 'precedented,' actually -- and nearly identical measures have been in place across the country for decades without touching off an awful carnival of bigotry and discrimination.  The hysteria and absurdity of this whole "debate" was perhaps best encapsulated by Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy's self-righteous executive order banning official state travel to Indiana. Surprise:


Davis explains that assertion in greater detail here, later swatting aside red herring push-back from Lefties trying to excuse Malloy's embarrassing tantrum, and exposing a blatant lie the governor's office is now circulating in his defense.  I'll leave you with video of Bill Clinton signing the federal version of RFRA into law back in 1993.  If you skip ahead to the 14:15 mark, you might notice two liberal heroes standing behind him and smiling as he puts pen to paper.  The same hand-wringers who routinely complain about the Republican Party's supposed rightward lurch never seem to mention that the center of the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that Hillary Clinton feels compelled to effectively denounce her own husband's law: