Christian Coalition

High Court Takes Up Prayer at Government Meetings

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a case involving prayer during Greece, N.Y., town meetings.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Greece officials violated the constitution by opening meetings over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.

The appeals court said the town should have made more of an effort to invite people from other faiths.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, applauded the ruling.

"A town council meeting isn't a church service, and it shouldn't seem like one," USA Today quoted Lynn said. "Government can't serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion."

But Brett Harvey, a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, viewed the matter differently.

"A few people should not be able to extinguish the traditions of our nation merely because they heard something they didn't like," Harvey said. "Because the authors of the Constitution invoked God's blessing on public proceedings, this tradition shouldn't suddenly be deemed unconstitutional."

The Supreme Court has previously upheld prayers at the start of legislative meetings and has said that private citizens can offer prayers of their own choosing.

 

Please Sign the Christian Coalition's "Stand Up for Religious Liberty" Petition Today!

Federal Court Strikes Down Arizona Abortion Ban

A federal court struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Tuesday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb.

A fetus is generally considered "viable" at 24 weeks. Nine other states have bans on abortions starting at 20 weeks, and some even earlier.

Supporters of the ban say the law was meant to protect the mother's health and prevent fetuses from feeling pain.

And lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban was technically a medical regulation rather than a law because of the stipulations allowing doctors to perform emergency abortions.

"The challenged Arizona statute's medical emergency exception does not transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of abortion procedure," Judge Marsha Berzon said. "Allowing a physician to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term."

But supporters of the ban said they will not stop fighting.

"Given the compelling and important interest Arizona has in protecting the health and well-being of expectant mothers from the dangers of abortions after 20 weeks and to protect children in the womb from needless and horrific imposition of pain, we will seek review from the United States Supreme Court," Maricopa County attorney Bill Montgomery, who argued before the court in support of the ban, said.

"If the 9th Circuit cannot permit Arizona to act because of Supreme Court precedent, then the Supreme Court must change that precedent," he added.

Republican State Sen. Kimberly Yee, who is 20 weeks pregnant and a sponsor of the legislation, said she "wasn't surprised" by the ruling because of the liberal reputation of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court.

"I'm optimistic that the state will have a compelling argument if we move this before the Supreme Court," Yee said.

Justice Department obtained records of Fox News journalist

The Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about a Fox News correspondent's conversations and visits as part of an investigation into a possible leak, The Washington Post reported Monday -- in the latest example of the government seizing records of journalists.

This follows the charge that the department secretly obtained two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further, as an FBI agent reportedly claimed there's evidence the journalist in question -- Fox News' James Rosen -- broke the law "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."

That detail would potentially send the case into unprecedented territory. No reporter has been prosecuted for seeking information. Such cases often target the suspected leaker, but not the journalist who published sensitive or classified information...

Associated Press CEO: Phone Grab 'Unconstitutional'

The Associated Press continues to lash out against the government's secret subpoena of reporters' phone records.

AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt says what the Justice Department did was unconstitutional.

"It was sweeping and broad and beyond what they needed to do," Pruitt charged.

He said sources are now much less willing to talk to AP journalists, adding  that it has already had an effect on newsgathering.

"If they restrict that apparatus ... the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that's not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment," he said.
     
The Justice Department says it was conducting an investigation into how AP learned about an al Qaeda bomb plot in Yemen before it was made public last year.

Meanwhile, Pruitt suggested he hasn't ruled out taking legal action.

"It's too early to know if we'll take legal action but I can tell you we are positively displeased and we do feel that our constitutional rights have been violated," he said.

Gallup Poll: Scandals Need More Investigation

A new Gallup Poll shows that Americans believe the government's handling of the attack in Benghazi last September 11 deserves further investigation, as do the revelations of the IRS singling out religious and conservative groups for scrutiny.

Seventy-four percent of those surveyed agree that the issues raised with the IRS treatment of conservatives need to be investigated, while 69 percent believe there should be further investigation of Benghazi. 

Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents all agree on examination of the IRS case, while just under half of Democrats felt the same way about Benghazi.

But the Gallup organization also reports that despite widespread news coverage of the two events, the level of attention Americans are paying to them is below the average of 60 percent who closely followed more than 200 news stories Gallup has measured over several decades.

Conductors of the survey noted that Republicans have a much keener level of interest and much more "strongly" agree that the government should be investigated than Democrats, and an aide to President Obama seemed to confirm that on a Sunday morning talk show.

When "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace asked Dan Pfeiffer where the president was on the night of the Benghazi attack, Pfeiffer called it "an irrelevant fact" and said Wallace's questions about the administration's handling of the incident were "offensive." 

The nationwide Gallup survey was conducted May 14-15 and was a random survey of 1,022 adults aged 18 and older.  The margin for error is 4 percent.

Reps. Upton & Camp: What is to be done: Reveal and replace Obamacare

By Reps. Fred Upton and Dave Camp

Millions of Americans now find themselves in the midst of a massive botched experiment called Obamacare. Nearly every poll-tested health care commitment is evaporating into thin air, leaving us with higher costs and headaches of uncertainty.

Unfortunately, this was both predicted and avoidable. Obamacare was premised on an outmoded, top-down approach to health care - a 40 year-old liberal aspiration, enabled by unified Democrat control of Washington in 2010.

Three years later, the implications are staggering. Despite the White House's claims to the contrary, we are faced with higher health care costs, many will lose or face substantial change to their insurance coverage, and job creation is threatened as hours and wages are reduced as a result of Obamacare. And the number of people dependent on the government for their health care will expand exponentially, exposing future generations to massive fiscal risks.

As Republicans we find ourselves in a challenging position witnessing this slow motion calamity. Repealing the bungled law and replacing it with a modern, common sense, bottom-up alternative is our preferred approach, which is why the House will vote tomorrow to fully repeal this government takeover of the health care system. Yet, while this vote is important, President Obama's reelection makes full repeal unlikely - at least for now.

So, if repeal is not a viable short-term option, reveal must be. Dissecting Obamcare's defective anatomy while offering alternatives is the way to get our health care system back on track. That's why the two committees we chair will continue our aggressive oversight, exposing Obamacare's failures - and discussing ways to provide more affordable health care to all Americans.

What have our efforts "revealed" so far?

For starters, Obamacare suffers from its own pre-existing condition: hyper-partisanship. You can't build an entirely new health care regime using a partisan hammer. But that's exactly what the Democrats in Congress did, with no Republican votes in the House or Senate.

Enduring health care change must garner some bipartisan support. So, we pledge to focus our efforts on policies that can actually make our health care system work better for families and employers struggling to continue providing benefits for their workers.

Second, the most important health care issue for Americans is cost. Health care costs are far too high for workers and employers. Democrats lost sight of the main priority. Roughly 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance. Instead of figuring out how to offer more affordable options for the uninsured, Obamacare upends the coverage of those that have it.

A recent investigation by one of our committees found that the new health law could drive individual premium increases as high has 400 percent and rates in the small business market could rise by as much as 200 percent.

It is a sad statement on Obamacare that Americans in the individual market will have to hope they only get hit with the average expected premium increase: 96 percent.

Republicans have a lot of affordability ideas. We support the creation of purchasing options across state lines, more flexibility for civic and fraternal associations to provide health insurance, incentives for states that control health care costs, the offering of high deductible plans, the creation of state-based high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and medical liability reform. Unlike Obamacare's top-down mandates, these ideas would all reduce the cost of health care.

Consider this one example. A recent college graduate, Ashley, gets a job at a new start up company. She's excited about the work. Because the firm is just getting off the ground, it cannot yet afford to offer health care benefits.

Under Obamacare, Ashley is forced to buy a plan with all the bells, whistles, and coverage options designed for a woman two and three times her age who faces very different health care needs. We believe Ashley should have more options available to her and the ability to buy a plan tailored to her needs and her budget.

These affordability policies would allow us to remove one of the most unpopular features of Obamacare - the mandate that everyone must purchase government-approved insurance. We don't think it is right for Washington to force Ashley to buy a certain type of health care plan or face a tax.

Eliminating the mandate means the massive expansion of Medicaid, as well as most of the subsidies to purchase insurance in health exchanges, would no longer be necessary, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars over the next ten years.

We are revealing better health care ideas. A bipartisan, affordability first approach, based on encouraging innovation and market-based choices must replace the bungled gambit of the massive old Washington spending and top-down regulatory mandates known as Obamacare.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-MI, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Netanyahu And His Delicate Hold On His New Coalition

It took a while to formulate, but it came out just as most Americans expected the Re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  While he was able to construct his new governing coalition from among the many political parties with all different numbers of seats in the Knesset he did not end up with what he wanted.  Although he added to his Likud Party's 31 seats the 18 seats of the Yesh Atid Party and the 13 seats of the Bayit HaYehudi Party totaled 62 seats, just a slim majority of two seats.

Most interesting to everybody, both of the new coalition partner parties are brand new parties, and their leaders are both brand new members of the Knesset.

It’s obvious that the people of Israel voted for some change. We know that Netanyahu's Likud Party, after merging with Avigdor Lieberman's party, was expecting to win more than 40 seats and to have a solid hold on government control. Now, however, with the two centrist coalition partners having an equal number of seats, the Prime Minister has only a delicate hold on control. How this will work out?  We’ll have to wait and see. It seems that it is certain to affect many of Netanyahu's decisions and actions.

The Yesh Atid Party is a secularist centrist party led by Yair Lapid and the Bayit HaYehudi Party is an Orthodox religious party led by Naftoli Bennett. They have some differences, primarily concerning the Jewish "settlements" in Judea and Samaria. Bennett is a champion of the settlements while Lapid sees them as an obstacle to peace. The Orthodox are different from the Ulrtra-Orthodox. However, the main point on which they strongly agreed is that the Ultra-Orthodox parties must not be included in the government coalition. They campaigned primarily to end the Ultra-Orthodox young men's exclusion from military service and their long-standing welfare handouts from the government. Obviously the Israeli public strongly agreed with them.

For decades the Ultra-Orthodox Parties have maintained participation in the government coalitions, usually helping them to total the necessary majorities of Knesset seats. In the process they have demanded control of the important Religious Affairs and Interior Department Ministries. That gave them a monopoly over the religious affairs of the country and over immigration and citizenship activity, during which time they have angered a large portion of the nation's people.

They have controlled marriage rules and regulations, forcing most couples today to have to leave the country for their wedding ceremonies. They have controlled immigration, forcing many Christian immigrants from Europe and America to remain in the country as non-citizens. They have stipulated that their young men be exempt from military service in order to study in their yeshiva schools, making secular Israelis angry with a situation in which the Ultra-Orthodox refuse to contribute to the defending of their country. Secular Israelis are also fed up with the Ultra-Orthodox living off state welfare resources while remaining unemployed. So the voters made clear that they do not want all these Ultra-Orthodox handouts and exemptions to continue.

An interesting response concerning the election results and the new coalition came from an Ultra-Orthodox leader, Rabbi Yaakov Litzman of the United Torah Party. He described the new government coalition alliance as "Brit Chadashah," which means, "New Covenant," or what Christians call the "New Testament." It was not meant as a compliment. The Ultra-Orthodox regard the "New Testament" as heresy. Litzman regards the new coalition as heretical because for the first time in decades the Ultra-Orthodox parties are not included in the coalition. But the Israel Today news magazine declared that for most Israelis this "New Covenant" represents new hope. It added that the general public is energized by the potential of the new government. "After so many years we now have a new and broad government that represents all citizens, with a unique opportunity to tackle important needed reforms," said Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad spy agency, in a recent interview.

Both Lapid and Bennett, the two new upstart leaders, have been lambasted by the Ultra-Orthodox leaders and media as traitors. But Bennett has declared that both he and Lapid are "working for greater acceptance and understanding of the nation's Biblical and Jewish heritage among all Israelis." We would like to add our congratulations and appreciation for the new "New Covenant" coalition. If it truly serves to bring Israel back to a stronger Biblical based government and society, we Christians will certainly be pleased. It is sad, but true, that many of the Ultra-Orthodox leaders have acted like the Biblical Pharisees, with a condescending attitude toward other Israelis. Hopefully the new government will serve to help all Israelis to respect and appreciate one another, and to work together better than ever before.

Holder on Hot Seat over AP Phone Record Grab

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder himself is on the hot seat for the Justice Department's gathering of phone records at The Associated Press.

Holder faces tough questions Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

"Members of the committee will ask pointed questions about the Justice Department's decision to obtain two months' worth of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press," committee chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said. "Congress and the American people expect answers and accountability."

The AP has called the phone record grab a "massive and unprecedented intrusion."

Holder defended the subpoena of AP phone records at a news conference Tuesday, saying it was part of a criminal investigation into the leak of classified information. 

"I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I've ever seen," Holder told reporters. "It put the American people at risk and that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk and trying to determine who was responsible for that I think required very aggressive action."

But critics like Seton Motley, founder and president of Less Government, call the Justice Department's actions government overreach.
    
"What it shows is a systematic administration-wide approach to privacy, political opponents, anyone that stands in opposition to this administration and that is 'We'll stomp on you. We'll stop you from doing what you want and need to do,'" Motley told CBN News.

"Any of these panoply of things that are coming down, it's becoming more and more apparent that the Obama administration does not respect the wall between the government, the Fourth Amendment, which means you as an individual as a citizen are secure in your papers and your personal belongings and the government," Motley added.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also sent a letter of protest to the attorney general and deputy attorney feneral.

In part, the letter read, "We write to both of you, to express our displeasure with how this incident was handled and demand that any similar actions in the future be handled with greater consideration of the news media's First Amendment rights."

Trying to Change the Subject

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann accused the Obama administration of orchestrating yet another information dump on a “Friday dump day” at the end of last week.  Indeed, this was one of their most clever Friday dumps yet.

Two days following shocking revelations about what is arguably the worst presidential (cover-up) scandal in American history, the BenghaziGate scandal  -- involving the dereliction of duty by the Obama administration regarding the September 11, 2012 Islamic terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the preventable assassinations of Obama’s Ambassador to Libya; his fellow diplomat, and two Navy Seals  --   the Obama administration tried to change the subject to what has become another new Obama scandal.   

The Internal Revenue Service  --  obviously now under the thumb of the Obama administration  --  revealed that it has been playing politics in the two years leading up to last year’s presidential election by targeting conservative and tea-party organizations.  The IRS’s intimidation of conservative groups scared possible donors into not donating to conservative and Tea Party groups.  Likewise, the IRS intimidated grassroots groups into doing nothing to support conservative candidates for all sorts of offices including the presidential race.  And that is exactly what some officials in the Obama administration wanted. 

And change the subject it has.  Yesterday’s top story in many newspapers and other media outlets around the country featured the IRS attack on Tea Party and conservative groups.  Monday’s “USA Today’s” front-page headline blared:  “GOP Demands Obama Apology; Seeks Probe of IRS for Singling out Tea Party.”  A headline in “The Wall Street Journal” said:  “Chiefs at IRS Knew of Targeting.” The past two editions of “The Washington Times” had front-page headlines:  “Outraged GOP:  It’s time to audit IRS; Conservative group targeting ‘chilling,’” and “Congress pounces on IRS target revelations.” 

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Republican from Minnesota, who is also tax attorney, told WND.com that the Obama administration confessed to a flagrant use of politics and power by “the most feared government agency,” the IRS, because of the Benghazi scandal.  She said, “There’s no doubt that this was not a coincidence that they dumped this story today, a Friday dump day.  This is when they put their negative stories out.” 

The WND.com article continues:  “But she said the looming storm cloud called Benghazi is the “soft underbelly” of the Obama administration and likely will keep Hillary Clinton from fulfilling her dream of occupying the Oval Office.  That would make it logical to release an IRS story that, while embarrassing, also could be cubbyholed as another “conservative” dispute with the White House.  She was referring to the ongoing hearings on the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists on a U.S. foreign service post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the ambassador.”  She also maintained that the credibility of the 2012 election is in doubt.

The Congresswoman wonders if the IRS  --  which will enforce ObamaCare  --  “will target conservative voices opposed to President Obama with delays or denials of medical care.”  According to WND.com, Congresswoman Bachmann “said the IRS announcement of misbehavior was intended to provoke conservatives and draw their anger and attention. ‘I was in that Benghazi hearing.  I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t.  I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.  It won’t work.  Conservatives can handle two shocking stories at the same time.  Both are equally unconstitutional and call into question the very president.’” 

Since Congresswoman Bachmann made these remarks over the weekend, things have gotten much worse for the president.  In addition to the news media asking about both the Benghanzi and the IRS scandals in his press conference yesterday with British Prime Minister David Cameron, a new shocking story has developed which affects even his sycophantic mainstream media supporters.  Obama’s administration reportedly has been spying on Associated Press reporters  --  possibly 100 or more  --  in the months before last November’s presidential election. 

The Associated Press’ president and chief executive officer is furious, as he rightfully should be.  Gary Pruitt said the Justice Department’s spying amounted to “a massive and unprecedented intrusion” on AP’s newsgathering operation.  Isn’t it interesting what the reaction of the news media people is when their own ox is gored by the Obama administration?   Pruitt goes on to say:  “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.”

Although the Obama administration’s attempt to change the subject from his Benghazi scandal has temporarily worked, Republicans can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Conservatives can handle even more than two shocking stories at the same time.

Report Shows IRS Chief Knew of Tea Party Targeting

A report by the IRS's own watchdog shows senior IRS officials, including the acting commissioner, knew about the agency's targeting of conservative groups, making it clear that efforts went well beyond the branch initially blamed.
    
Committees from both the House and Senate vowed to investigate.

"When you use the IRS in this fashion, you're basically limiting free speech and that's not good for any of us," said Cecil Cavanaugh of the Tea Party of Louisiana.

Complaints of harassment by conservative groups around the country have been raising concerns about the IRS.

"They wanted to know very specific details concerning people who came to our meetings, people who spoke," Carol Waddell of the Waco Tea Party said.

"How many emails did you send? What were they? How many rallies did you go to?" Jennifer Stefano of Americans for Prosperity recalled. "It had a chilling effect on all of us."

A North Carolina man says his Tea Party group qualified right away in 2009 for tax-exempt status, but then authorities began targeting his personal finances.          

"I have a squeaky clean record and all of a sudden I get audited," he said.

The American Center for Law and Justice represents several Tea Party groups in their cases against the government. They're demanding immediate tax-exempt status for the 10 remaining groups and disciplinary measures for every IRS employee involved in the scandal.

In an official letter to the IRS, the ACLJ said the agency is expected to remain politically neutral and enforce the law with integrity and evenhandedness.     

They say the scandal brings into question the IRS's ability to implement Obamacare.

Following is an excerpt from the ACLJ letter:

"It is no wonder that, in light of the open and notorious politicization of the IRS vis-à-vis Tea Party and no other conservative groups, many Americans view with outright alarm the called-for expansion of the IRS to implement the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)." 

President Obama spoke out about the growing scandal, calling a biased IRS "outrageous."

"I've got no patience with it," the president said. "I will not tolerate it. And we'll make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."

Members of Congress want to know why they weren't told earlier about the IRS targeting conservative groups. They're expected to grill acting IRS chief Steven Miller on Friday when he appears before the House Ways and Means Committee.