California Pastor Temporarily Turns His Chapel Into a Strip Club to Be Deemed ‘Essential’
Since the time various shutdowns, stay-at-home orders, et cetera, were enacted to “slow the spread” of the Wuhan flu, the list of businesses and activities considered “essential” has been illogical at best. In California, marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores have remained open, while gyms and churches have been shut down.
Multiple churches in California have sued over the shutdown order and their “nonessential” designation, arguing that shutting down churches violates the First Amendment. Others have continued to hold indoor services despite the shutdown order, including Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Ventura County, led by Pastor Rob McCoy – who stepped down from his post as a member of the Thousand Oaks City Council before defying the health officer’s order back in April.
Strip club owners in the state have also challenged the shutdown order in court, saying that their businesses are “legally protected speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.” On November 12, a San Diego Superior Court judge ordered that county to temporarily reopen strip clubs, pending a full hearing at the end of the month, after an initial hearing in a case brought by two strip club owners.
Since being able to provide live adult entertainment is a protected right in at least one county, for at least a few weeks, might churches be able to use this ruling to their advantage?
Pastor McCoy, inspired by former Gov. Mike Huckabee, decided to take a chance.
She is the first appointment this group of Religious Leftists has ever opposed. She is that much of a threat to them!
Decades ago the cultural Marxists knew that in order to bring communism to America they had to break down the nuclear family and worm their way into the churches and other religious institutions. Having done that, they are now very much seeing their labor bear fruit as they are closer than they have ever been to overthrowing our government to help bring about the worldwide ‘Great Reset.‘
Donald Trump and Amy Coney Barrett stand in their way.
The twenty-five-year old ‘Interfaith Alliance’has for the first time, they say, come out in opposition to a judicial nomination to the high court (Amy Coney Barrett is that much of a threat to the Marxists!).
Here is what they said in apress releaselate last week under a huge banner that reads RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS UNDER THREAT:
For First Time in its History, Interfaith Alliance Opposes Nominee to the Federal Bench
Concludes that Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation would irreparably endanger religious freedom in the U.S. for those of all faiths and none
WASHINGTON — Interfaith Alliance will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court given the danger her stated views pose to the religious freedoms of all Americans. Her faith played no part in this decision, but rather her long record of statements and decisions that run counter to the historic understanding of religious freedom in this country.
This marks the first time in the organization’s more than 25 year history it has opposed a judicial or executive nomination on the merits of the nominee.
Following Justice Ginsburg’s death, Interfaith Alliance urged the president and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to honor the precedent they set in 2016 and allow the winner of November’s election to nominate her successor. The organization also released five essential questions related to religious freedom that we believe any incoming nominee must answer. Once these calls went unheeded, the organization voiced our initial concerns around Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination.
SaidRabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance: “Believing that honesty and thoroughness are essential in any confirmation process, in the days following her nomination, we examined Judge Coney Barrett’s public statements, activities, and record as a federal judge with an eye toward the future of religious freedom.
“Our thorough review of Judge Coney Barrett’s record reveals an interpretation of religious freedom that threatens our basic right to believe as we choose. Interfaith Alliance therefore takes the unprecedented step of opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court.
“This is not a decision we reach lightly, but it is one we make with resolve and determination.We do so not to call into question Judge Coney Barrett’s personal beliefs or experience, but out of profound concern for her commitment to protecting true religious freedom for all Americans. Her judicial philosophy, evidenced by her past work, endangers the decades of progress our nation has made toward the abiding promise that every American is equal under the law.”
You can read Interfaith Alliance’s full response to Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination here. If you are interested in speaking further with Rabbi Moline, please contact Manisha Sunil at firstname.lastname@example.org and (202) 417-0171.
I know, I know, it isn’t kosher to speak ill of the dead, but really, can we now stop gushing over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
I began paying a little attention to her while writing many posts at Refugee Resettlement Watchabout the hellhole that South Africa has become since Nelson Mandela and his ilk took over the country and turned it into a supposed Nirvana, claiming it is now the “rainbow nation” where love and peace reign and fairness for all is written in their constitution.
(If you haven’t seen my archive on the “rainbow nation” click here.)
Have alook at that constitution (it says everyone has a right to everything!) and you will see why Africans from across that continent flooded there only to experience xenophobia on a level greater than any country in the world.
Ginsburg reportedly praised that commie constitution over the US Constitution, although her fan base claimed her comments were taken out of context. See Foreign Policy for one version of the 2012 controversy.
One writer who isn’t sending air kisses to Ginsburg is Frank Miele opining at Heartland Diary(hat tip: Paul):
RBG has a remarkable legacy — but so do Lenin and Mao. Please stop praising her if you are a conservative!
Democrats are accusing Republicans of being hypocritical, and they are, but not because they want to vote to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg during an election year.
The real reason they are hypocritical is because they don’t have the cojones to call Ginsburg what she was — a hard-left Democrat extremist who was only interested in using her position on the Supreme Court to fundamentally transform the United States into a politically correct, disarmed socialist republic. Her support for a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child is partly responsible for the deaths of millions of babies.
How do Republican senators square that with their effusive praise of her? Simple. As I already said — hypocrisy. Can you imagine Democrats praising Donald Trump as the most significant president of the last 75 years (or more) when he dies? Hell no, because the Democrats know he was their sworn enemy. Republicans are too cowardly to tell the truth about Ginsburg.
A random sampling of the Republican praise for Ginsburg should prove the point:
Thank God we have Trump in the White House! Almost every other Republican you can think of (if he/she was President at this auspicious moment in history) would be tucking tail and running and attempting to show that they are good people by not pushing forward with a nominee for Ha! Ha! “Ginsburg’s seat!”
Confused about what happened in the Supreme Court this past week on the DACA ‘kids’?
Ken Masugi writing at American Greatnesstells us how bad the decision is for us that a President is bound to an illegal decision made by a previous President simply because the new President calling foul didn’t dot all the ‘I’s and cross all the ‘T’s. (Hat tip: Paul)
(Of course questions remain about whether the Trump Administration wasscrewed by sloppy legal workon his side, or intentionally sabotaged by government lawyers who crafted its case.)
Just as the infamous Dred Scott case in 1857 would have extended slavery throughout America, so Thursday’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California threatens to make the machinations of bureaucratic government supreme and unrepealable.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ 5-4 court opinion strengthens the grip of the administrative state—the interlocking network of bureaucracy and political correctness—over the democratically elected branches that are supposed to make us a nation of self-governing citizens.
The Supreme Court, in a seeming conspiracy with lower federal courts, has tilted the table against the elected president and his appointees in favor of bureaucratic governance.
As dissenting Justice Alito pointed out, “the Federal Judiciary, without holding that [the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program] cannot be rescinded, has prevented that from occurring during an entire Presidential term. Our constitutional system is not supposed to work that way.” The judiciary, far from clarifying and drawing bright lines, has effectively become part of the bureaucracy.
Admitting that the equal protection or due process rights of the children of illegal residents—a.k.a. “the dreamers”—were never in jeopardy, Roberts nevertheless concluded that the Trump Administration’s repeals of unlawful Obama Administration actions are illegal because the appropriate provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act were not followed.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch) noted that as a result of this ruling, the Department of Homeland Security “is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”
Despite the illegality of DACA and other policies, which were never laws to begin with, there remains the question of how we are to be free of arbitrary and capricious bureaucratic edicts and decrees.
To repeat: the error is the most basic separation of powers error possible: The court confused itself with the Congress and began making policy demands of the executive…
Aided by a life-tenured Court, the administrative state may have found its Dred Scott case in DHS v. Regents and thereby the means for making itself the true ruler of America.
Whether this will portend a new civil war over whether Americans are subjects or citizens is an open question. For one thing, it isn’t a war unless citizens recognize they are being fired upon.
And, if there was only one reason (there are many!) to get out there now and work to assure that President Trump is reelected remember this—the President appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices!
Editor: Sorry I haven’t been posting much here lately, I’ve been busy at RRW (as well as being distracted as I assume many of you are as well by of demands of just living these days!), but this is very important and I’m not sure how many of you read RRW.
Cross-postedthis morning in an effort to find groups that could support the Thomas More Law Center’s legal petition to the Supreme Court.
I know it’s a little hard to believe that there are other things going on in America besides the virus crisis, but here is important news I should have mentioned sooner.
The Thomas Moore Law Center has filed a petition to attempt to get the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Amendment case that has been working its way through the legal system.
The heart of the case is the Tenth Amendment argument that the federal government has no Constitutional power to shift the cost of refugee resettlement onto state governments as it has been doing for decades.
TMLC is looking for other like-minded organizations to file amicus briefs in support of their argument which has far-reaching implications beyond just the refugee program!
Thomas More Law Center Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Review Tennessee’s Challenge to Federal Refugee Resettlement Program
ANN ARBOR, MI – In what could have far reaching implications for all states seeking to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) collaborating with attorney John Bursch, filed a certiorari petition Monday, March 16 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The petition asks the Court to hold that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s forced state funding of the federal refugee resettlement program.
The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) is a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Both TMLC and Mr. Bursch are representing Tennessee without charge.
John Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general, nationally prominent appellate lawyer and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, authored the petition for certiorari.
The petition argues that the issues presented in the Tennessee case cut to the core of the Constitution’s protection of states against overreach by the federal government. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to appropriate state funds, contrary to the wishes of the state, to fund a federal program.
According to the petition: “If a state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dare stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter.”
The petition seeks to overturn a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled that the General Assembly does not have institutional standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The cert petition does not challenge the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in Tennessee. What it objects to is forcing Tennessee taxpayers to pay the costs of the resettlement.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of TMLC, noted: “From the beginning, opposition to the federal refugee resettlement program has been about protecting Tennessee’s state sovereignty from impermissible federal interference. The federal government cannot simply commandeer state tax dollars to fund a purely federal program to extend benefits to noncitizens.”
Tennessee initially agreed to participate in the federal resettlement program because the federal government promised to reimburse 100 percent of the cost. In fact, Congress crafted the 1980 Refugee Act specifically intending that states not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible. As is often the case, however, the federal government began shrinking its financial support to the states and by 1991 eliminated it entirely. Due to the mounting costs the federal government was not covering as promised, Tennessee withdrew from the program effective June 30, 2008. But that didn’t stop the federal financial burden on Tennessee taxpayers. The federal government simply designated Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a non-governmental private organization, to continue the program with state dollars.
Between 2007 and the end of 2019, resettlement agencies pumped more than 15,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns. They came from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan 3 and many other countries. They often arrive from United Nations camps in poor health, with no job skills or English-language abilities.
The resulting cost to state taxpayers amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In 2015 alone, the refugee-related Medicaid costs paid by Tennessee tax dollars topped $30 million.
Instead of resolving the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the pivotal constitutional issue concerning federalism by ruling that the Tennessee General Assembly lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.
The petition filed on March 16, 2020, argues that this was in error:
“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government has co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget. That is because the federal government can siphon state funds—to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”
TMLC originally filed the federal lawsuit in March 2017 on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens challenging the commandeering of millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.
A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case on the federal government’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the General Assembly lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court now has a chance to shed light on the proper role of the states relative to the federal government—which is the bedrock constitutional principle of federalism.
The petition states: “The (Tennessee) General Assembly does not object to the federal resettlement program. It does not even object to the federal government resettling 4 refugees in Tennessee. The General Assembly does object to the federal government reaching its hand into Tennessee’s pocket to pay for the cost of such a program, particularly when the enabling legislation was enacted with the promise to reimburse states for all expenses incurred in this program.”
The federal government mandates that states provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.
Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.
The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.
And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.