Connect with us

Jindal Says ‘Far Left’ Weakening 1st Amendment, Demands Lawmakers Pass ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill

Published

on

Gov. Bobby Jindal is using his last months in office to pave the road for his 2016 presidential run, regardless of the costs to his state.

It was a brazen act of sheer self interest, a testament to the danger of unchecked ego combined with political power.

Monday morning Governor Bobby Jindal opened this year’s session of the Louisiana state legislature with a 22-minute oratory that sounded in part more like a presidential campaign ad than a speech helping a co-equal branch of government set a rational vision for the future.

Jindal focused on three issues: balancing the state’s budget without raising taxes, improving education in Louisiana by killing Common Core, and passing a sweeping anti-gay “religious freedom” bill already labeled as worse than Indiana’s.

It was that portion of the speech that smacked of sheer self interest and unchecked ego.

HB 707, the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act, was introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson. But in the wake of the firestorm caused in Indiana and Arkansas by their “religious freedom” bills, lawmakers in the Pelican State have little desire to vote on or pass this anti-gay legislation.

LOOK: Louisiana Lawmaker Introduces The ‘Marriage And Conscience Act’ Legalizing Discrimination Against Gay Couples

But with an eye focused on 2016 and his White House aspirations, Jindal has latched onto this bill as a flag of religious liberty he can wave in the air, his banner of bigotry he thinks can open the door to the Oval Office.

“There is a nationwide push by the far left to weaken the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Jindal charged.

“We either believe in religious liberty or we don’t. In Louisiana, I believe we do,” he touted. 

“Let me be crystal clear – I absolutely intend to fight for the passage of this legislation,” Jindal said of HB 707, “and any other that seeks to preserve our most fundamental freedoms.”

“And here in Louisiana, as long as I’m your Governor, we will protect religious liberty and not apologize for it.”

The 43-year old Oxford graduate told the lawmakers in the chamber he wanted to “clear up some falsehoods” about the bill.

“All this bill does is provide necessary protections for individuals to prevent adverse treatment from the state based on religious beliefs regarding marriage.”

And he warned that “people, charities and family-owned businesses are at risk of being penalized by the state because they believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

Equality Louisiana says “the bill clearly is targeting gay and transgender people by focusing on religious beliefs about marriage,” and warns that it “aims to make actions legal — such as denying the same sex spouse of an employee access to life-saving benefits such as health insurance.” 

Jindal sailed on, denying the Marriage and Conscience Act has any impact on gay people at all, but rather, saying it protects Christians.

“In the United States, a state should not be able to take adverse action against an individual for holding a sincerely held religious view regarding marriage. That would be true discrimination,” Jindal concluded.

Unlike his tax and education remarks, Jindal’s preaching about the “religious liberty” bill received not a single clap, not one lawmaker applauding.

Watch:

 

Image: Screenshot via YouTube
Transcript via WWLTV
Hat tip: Times-Picayune

 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Justice Clarence Thomas Believes Media Criticism of Decisions ‘Jeopardizes Any Faith’ in the Supreme Court

Published

on

Justice Clarence Thomas complained about the harsh criticism the Supreme Court has received since allowing a controversial anti-abortion law to go into effect in Texas.

Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, where he complained about media criticism, The Washington Post reported.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician,” Thomas said.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions,” he said.

A second Post report on the speech noted Thomas’ remarks on the ongoing mistrust of the court.

“The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” Thomas said. “And I think that’s problematic.”

The newspaper noted the lecture was interrupted by protesters who yelled, “I still believe Anita Hill.”

 

Continue Reading

AMERICAN IDIOT

‘Genius’ Madison Cawthorn Mocked for Claiming the Constitution Prohibits Airlines From Requiring Vaccinations

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is once again being mocked, this time for yet again not understanding the very basics of American democracy.

On Thursday the Republican from North Carolina claimed it is “illegal” and unconstitutional for airlines to require passengers to be vaccinated, because “you actually have a constitutionally protected right to free, unrestricted travel within the United States.”

That last part has a tiny shred of truth to it. Just not in the way Congressman Cawthorn thinks.

(Those inteested in the legal mechanics should examine this and this.)

Anyone could take a minute to come up with arguments why his claim is false, including that anyone driving a car is required to have a driver’s license and insurance, and wear a seat belt.

The freshman Congressman was quickly mocked:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

29 Months Later Bill Barr’s Super Secret Russia Special Counsel Files His Second Indictment – for Alleged Lying

Published

on

In April of 2019 then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut to open and lead an investigation into Russia – not into how Russia has been attacking the United States via cyber warfare, undermining Americans’ trust in American institutions, and using social media to do it, but into whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been warranted in opening an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including its investigation of Donald Trump.

On Thursday, 29 months after Barr first appointed John Durham (photo, right) to lead that super-secret investigation, 11 months after Barr secretly turned Durham into a special counsel to ensure the investigation would continue past his and Trump’s tenure, and after spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars, the Dept. of Justice has announced Durham has obtained a second indictment.

“A prominent cybersecurity lawyer was indicted on a charge of lying to the F.B.I. five years ago during a meeting about Donald J. Trump and Russia, the Justice Department announced on Thursday,” The New York Times reports.

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, “of the law firm Perkins Coie, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party — is accused of making a false statement about his client at the meeting.”

Mr. Sussmann’s defense lawyers have denied the accusation, saying that he did not make a false statement, that the evidence he did is weak and that who he was representing was not a material fact in any case. They have vowed to fight any charge in court.

At issue is who was Sussman working for when he “relayed concerns by cybersecurity researchers who believed that unusual internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.”

Apparently not at issue is if the Trump Organization or campaign had a secret communications channel to a Kremlin-linked organization.

Frequent viewers of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are likely familiar with her reporting on Alfa Bank, including this segment from October 2018:

Durham has not obtained any indictment against anyone in Russia, any Russian operatives, any Trump Organization or campaign official, or anyone who may have been involved in Russia’s attack on the United States.

The only other indictment Durham has obtained from his two-plus year investigation? The Times in 2019 reported on a “low-level” FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who “altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap,” on Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor.

One expert calls the indictment “weak.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.