Radio America Online News Bureau

Archives for July 2017

‘Wage the Battle’

by

A strong America means secure borders, free trade, and putting American citizens first when focusing on national security and job creation, according to businessman turned congressional candidate Paul Nehlen.

Best known for his high-profile but unsuccessful primary challenge to House Speaker Paul Ryan in 2016, Nehlen is already running against Ryan in 2018 and is author of the brand new book “Wage the Battle: Putting America First in the Fight to Stop Globalist Politicians and Secure the Borders.”

The book focuses on several major goals, including restoring American sovereignty and reinvigorating American economic nationalism and an America-first foreign policy.

Nehlen has Fortune 500 business experience and points to success in bringing companies to the U.S. from all over the world.  He says America need policies that allow our workers to thrive because he knows they are second to none.

“Hands down, America is number one.  We have got just a fabulous workforce,” said Nehlen.  “There are pockets of great work forces out there.  I worked in Poland a lot.  They’re great.  But there’s nothing the American work forces can’t do, unless they are hamstrung by our government.”

He says convoluted government policies that play favorites in the economy is hurting our competitiveness.

“If, like Speaker Ryan, you try to give certain corporations a leg up on other small and mid-size businesses, you’re really undermining America.  We can’t have a strong military, we can’t have a strong nation unless we have strong trade,” said Nehlen.

Nehlen contends the current structure of our economy is a far cry from what it was intended to be.

“This country wasn’t founded on free trade deals.  This country was founded on protecting our manufacturing base, protecting our natural resources, and tilting the playing field in the favor of our manufacturers.  That’s not what’s happening now,” he said.

Instead, Nehlen says our current course has actually landed us in the midst of economic hostilities with multiple nations.

“We are literally at economic war with countries like China and South Korea and Taiwan, many of whom are manipulating their currency to undermine our ability to do business in the global marketplace.  That has to stop,” said Nehlen.

According to Nehlen, even the recent history of American trade agreements shows the government is choking the freedom out of our trade relationships.

“Back in 1985, we negotiated a free trade agreement with Israel and it was 13 pages long,” said Nehlen.  “Fast forward about 10 years, they passed NAFTA.  It’s 1,700 pages long.  Fast forward another couple decades, the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes along, 5,500 pages.  There is nothing free about trade that is described in 5,500 pages.  It just doesn’t happen.”

Nehlen is thrilled that Trump is more than making good on his pledge to eliminate two regulations for new one placed on the books, operating at a clip of scrapping approximately 16 regulations for every new one.  But he says that success has a lot of people wanting to share the credit, including the Speaker of the House.

“We see Speaker Ryan trying to take credit for that now.  He’s had 18 years in Congress and he’s abdicated his role to the executive branch.  Now he’s trying to take credit for what the executive branch is doing,” said Nehlen.

Congress has yet to approve funds for the construction of a border wall, which was one of President Trump’s most common promises on the campaign trail.  Democrats threatened to shut down the government when a spending bill was approved in April.  Now, reports suggest Republicans are still reluctant to approve the funds.

Nehlen is appalled.

“I’m disgusted with this Congress not voting on the wall and essentially just attaching some spending which will get us about 60 miles of new border fence,” said Nehlen.

“It’s ridiculous.  I’ve been to the border and there are areas of the border where there is – they call it Jurassic Park – the fencing looks like enormous spikes coming up out of concrete.  Adjacent to it is your normal, run of the mill barbed wire, put up by ranchers to keep their steer from going into Mexico because the water is inches deep.  To suggest we’ve got the border secured is absurd,” he said.

 

Getting the wall done is right at the top of an ambitious laundry list that Nehlen hopes to accomplish if elected to Congress.

“One would be to advocate for this wall.  Another would be to advocate for national reciprocity for anybody who has concealed carry.  If you leave your state and go to another state, you shouldn’t have to relinquish the ability to protect yourself,” said Nehlen.

He would also slam on the brakes when it comes to refugee resettlement.

“Nine voluntary organizations – they’re not really voluntary – are getting paid by U.S. taxpayers to move people, predominantly Muslim – 99-plus percent I might add – to the United States.  We are funding our own demise right now.  It has got to stop,” said Nehlen, who also wants Congress to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

“We have got to get the Muslim Brotherhood out of the United States.  We have got to root them out.  That will roll back 60 years of their efforts to undermine the United States from within,” said Nehlen.

One reviewer declared Nehlen’s book a plan of action for Trump-like candidates.  It’s a label Nehlen welcomes.

“I am very flattered by that.  That is exactly why I wrote the book, because we need hundreds of good, righteous candidates who believe in securing the border and putting American workers, American retirees, and American children first,” said Nehlen.

Standard Podcast [ 12:46 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Kelly Takes Command, Murkowski’s Sleepy Dodge, Delaney Who?

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America show optimism that new White House Chief of Staff John Kelly will bring stability and focus to the Trump administration. They also criticize Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski for her refusal to answer a question about why she did not vote for the repeal of Obamacare even though she voted in favor of repeal in 2015. And they react to Maryland Rep. John Delaney announcing his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2020, right after they figure out who he is.

Share

How the Obamacare Flop Impacts Tax Reform

by

The implosion of the Senate’s attempt to address Obamacare also makes effective tax reform more difficult, but the leader of the nation’s largest grassroots taxpayers organization is still optimistic big things can get done.

But make no mistake, repealing the Obamacare taxes was supposed to grease the skids for the tax reform effort.

“The task has not been made easier by the lack of progress on Obamacare repeal and replace, but we’re going to have to approach this with a lot of vigor right now.  The American people are waiting to see that this Congress and this administration can get something comprehensive done,” said National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp.

How does the failure of the Obamacare repeal specifically impact the tax reform push?

“We’re going to have to deal with some of the Obamacare taxes in some fashion, through tax reform or outside of tax reform simply because several of those Obamacare taxes directly effect conventional income tax rates,” said Sepp.

“I’m talking about, for example, the earned income surtax of 0.9 percent, also the net investment income tax of 3.8 percent.  Those types of taxes will actually increase the rate that members of Congress are trying to lower over the long term,” said Sepp.

Nonetheless, Sepp is bullish, even after watching the flop on healthcare in Congress because it appears congressional leaders and administration officials are all singing from the same songsheet this time.

“That means lower tax rates, simpler tax filing procedures, making sure that small businesses don’t pay a higher tax rate than larger ones and, in fact, should pay a lower rate.  There are also things that will help to address the lack of competitiveness of our companies overseas and the tax disadvantages there,” said Sepp.

Sepp is pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are working in tandem on legislation rather than crafting completely separate bills.  He also says GOP friction should ebb greatly now that all the major players agree to stop pursuing the Border Adjustment Tax, which would place taxes on goods entering the U.S.

In addition, Sepp is excited about Republicans trying to drop the corporate tax  rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 15-20 percent, and he says the rate for small businesses should be even lower.

He also is hopeful that Congress can remove the massive paperwork burden for business owners.

“We also need to look at how business claim their expenses and write them off.  This is an incredibly complex area of the tax code.  It amounts to anywhere between 30-50 percent of the paperwork burden that a business faces,” said Sepp.

On individual tax policy, Sepp wants to see Congress pursue much lower tax rates in exchange for removing the vast majority of deductions that are currently available to taxpayers.  He says rates really need to plummet before that trade is a good deal for most Americans.

“The rates range from 10 percent to over 40 percent currently.  We need to get the rates down even lower, five percent or even zero if we expand the standard deduction and perhaps a top rate of 30-35 percent.  If we do that, the trade off of deductions will be worth it,” said Sepp.

Sepp stresses that the status quo is not an option.  He says America suffers more each year as America fails to use the tax code for our economic advantage.

“Tax reform needs to happen because companies are inverting every day.  They’re taking their headquarters overseas and with it a lot of profits that could be taxed here.  The tax code is getting more complex every year.  Even if we don’t pass new laws, implementing old ones and designing all the regulations around them add to that burden,” said Sepp.

Share

After Charlie Gard

by

Charlie Gard is now synonymous with a fierce legal and ethical debate since his court case gained international attention in mid-June. His case captured headlines and elicited strong responses from many leaders. After months of tense court battles, the case’s final hearing ended Wednesday, during which the judge presided over the decision concerning where Charlie would breathe his last. Charlie passed away Friday in hospice, one week before his first birthday.

Charlie Gard was a British baby born in August 2016. He was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial depletion syndrome which left him immobile and unable to breathe unaided. Parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates heard of an experimental treatment that might help their son, and so they used crowdfunding to raise money for the trip to the United States. However, they became embroiled in a massive legal battle that reached the highest European court fighting while for the right to make treatment decisions for their baby when the Grand Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie was receiving care, denied their request.

This case drew a line in the sand, causing people to see it as a very distinctly black and white issue. Many chose sides as the case progressed, furiously arguing either for the right of the courts to decide on Charlie’s behalf or demanding that that right belongs to the parents. But looking through the numerous facts of this case, we start to see this issue is not a simple “good vs bad” but actually a grey area.

Two experts weighed in on the case for us. Jonathan Montgomery is a Professor of Health Care Law at University College London and sided with the courts making decisions. Patrick Coffin is an author and long-time Catholic radio show host who wrote on the case in light of a tragically similar situation concerning his daughter a few years ago.

The debate centered over who should have the right to make decisions concerning Gard and his welfare. Montgomery explained the British law system as relating to children’s and parents’ rights.

“In the United Kingdom, we’re clear that children’s rights are separate from parental rights, so if you have a situation where the doctors caring for a patient believe that the parents are making decisions that are contrary to the child’s interest, then the child has the right to have that adjudicated before a court”

While this may be the law in Great Britain, Coffin says that approach actually undermines parental rights.

“I do sympathize with the hospital as well, I don’t think its just clear cut good versus evil, but obviously when you’re a parent and its your child, the question of who decides what the next right step will be for the child’s care I believe should be up to the parents.”

Coffin also explained how he took issue with some terms people used when talking about Charlie.

“Whenever I hear “meaningful life” or “meaningful existence,” I always cringe a little bit because that brings up the question “according to whom?”

Much of the debate focused on an experimental treatment the parents wanted for Charlie. Montgomery explained the court’s reasoning on why they wouldn’t allow the baby to receive the treatment

“This treatment was tricky, and I think it was a finely balanced decision, because the treatment itself is not particularly intrusive, but Charlie’s life, according to the evidence the judge heard was one which he was like to be feeling some significant pain, although that is not how the parents saw it. Having reached that conclusion, the judge really needed to identify some prospect of success, before it was fair to Charlie to prolong his suffering and distress.”

Coffin saw a different angle, focusing on the money the parents raised to bring Charlie to the U.S. However, that money turned out to be of no help without the ability to make decisions on their son’s behalf.

“With socialized medicine in England, the relationship between the parents and the doctors or the patient and the doctors is of a slightly different cast than it is here in the states. Here in America, we want to treat treat treat as long as you can afford it. And I think this is what galls so many people is that Charlie’s parents raised almost two million pounds on a Go Fund Me campaign.”

The media response to the case also helped to fuel the polarized response. Great Ormond Street Hospital staff, who cared for Gard, are receiving death threats and backlash from numerous places.

Montgomery said the family probably suffered from the attention, but that the hospital should be accustomed to dealing with delicate issues like this one.

“I suspect it has made it more difficult for the family to deal with the decisions their facing because there has been such intense scrutiny. I’ve no doubt its been uncomfortable for the hospital, but that is the hospital’s job to the best for Charlie, and they won’t find these decisions easy, and they don’t necessarily need to be comfortable for the hospital.”

Coffin saw the media’s involvement as both a help and a hindrance.

“I think that is a classic both and. I think the answer is yes, it has been both a help in terms of focusing on this helpless baby.”

 “I think its helped the cause of life and the protection of life by focusing on that sweet little face of his and the desire of the parents to keep him.”

But while there were positives to the media coverage, Coffin perceived an unusual tone coming from the media.

“On the other hand I detect a lot of fear in the coverage. … Seeing someone in that situation is very frightening and the hospital staff as somehow menacing. Not to mention the fact that not a lot of details were given in some of the responses, especially on social media.”

While the media painted hospital officials as the “bad guys” in this story, Coffin stressed that the parents have some part in this too, especially as relates to facing the reality of having a terminally ill child.

“And that’s one of the reasons I don’t think its good on one side and evil on the other. I don’t know what their motives are.”

Coffin referenced the movie Dumb and Dumber wherein Jim Carrey’s character was turned down by a girl he really liked. But, when told he had a 1 in a billion chance with her, he jumped on it, because no matter how slim, it was a chance.  Coffin thinks Charlie’s parents are in a similar mindset.

“I think the distance between A and B, where A is your child is happy and safe and healthy and B is your child is going to die, is a very, very long distance. And some parents come to that realization in different ways and in different time clocks than others.”

With the amount of attention Charlie received, some wonder where the close of the case leaves us.

Coffin felt it left everything back at the starting line, but did find some positive parts within the tragedy.

“I’m not sure how further ahead we are, except that it was lovely to see so much attention lavished on this little boy. And I detected a lot of sympathy for keeping him a pain-free and as healthy as they could given the circumstances.”

Montgomery stated that this case changed no British laws and didn’t seem to think decisions made here would have a lasting impact on future cases.

“I think the case has become an example of some deeply-rooted divisions between different approaches to clinical care. I don’t think it has altered the position Charlie is in.”

 “So its become a set type of case that depends entirely on scientific evidence.”

Undoubtedly, this case has caused tension and division around the world, with people from all walks of life lining up one side or the other. But, as Coffin and Montgomery point out, this is not a clear and simple case, and a proper evaluation of it requires knowledge of the facts and their real life application. While it is crucial to fight for the best possible outcome for a child’s life, it is also imperative to consider who should be making these types of decisions. ~ Sarah Schutte

Share

GOP Obamacare Debacle, Scaramucci’s Loose Screw, Politics Plunge NFL Ratings

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America condemn Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski for failing to deliver on their campaign promises to repeal and replace Obamacare during a vote late Thursday night, while also stressing the mistakes made by GOP leaders and the major flaws in the “skinny repeal”.  Jim mocks new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci for threats and vulgar comments about his colleagues, underscoring already fractious conditions in the new administration.  In an attempt to end the week on a good note, Jim and Greg discuss a new poll showing that more fans stopped watching the NFL last season because of the national anthem protests than for any other reason.

Share

The Concealed Carry Success Story

by

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shot down the efforts by officials in the nation’s capital to severely restrict concealed carry permits earlier this week, and the nation’s leading researcher on guns says many more people are applying  for conceal carry permits and the crime rate among those exercising that right is virtually non-existent.

In response to losing a series of court cases in its ongoing effort to restrict gun ownership in Washington, the city council instituted the “good excuse” rule, by which residents had to give an acceptable reason for why they wanted a concealed carry permit.  And living in a crime-ridden neighborhood was not a “good excuse.”

As a result, a microscopic percentage of D.C. residents are legally able to carry a gun outside their homes.

“D.C., at least at the beginning of July, had only issues 124 permits.  You have over 500,000 adults in the District.  That’s a very tiny rate.  If D.C. issued concealed carry permits at the same rate that they’re issued in the 42 right to carry states on average, it would be about 48,000,” said Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of multiple books on the subject, including “More Guns, Less Crime.”

The number of permits approved in D.C. might be even smaller if not for the web of political influence.

“The problem is the type of people who get permits here are well-to-do, very politically connected individuals,” said Lott.

He says there are a lot of Washington residents who need the right to bear arms a lot more than those people.

“My research, if it shows me anything, is those aren’t the people who need them the most.  The people who benefit the most from having concealed carry are people most likely to be victims of violent crime and those tend to be poor blacks who live in high crime areas.  The other groups that tends to benefit the most are women and the elderly,” said Lott.

Lott’s research says those are exactly the groups showing a major change of heart on gun ownership and possession.  Since 2012, he says there’s been a 22 percent rise in men applying for concealed carry permits, while there’s been a 93 percent spike among women, many of them minorities.

“There’s been a sea change in women’s views and blacks’ views about guns.  We’ve seen polls indicating they believe that guns are more likely to protect them than to cause problems for them,” said Lott.

“In 2007, there were 4.6 million concealed handgun permits.  Now it’s 16.3 million.  But even that almost four-fold increase underestimates the change because in just the last two years, you’ve had eight states which have adopted so-called constitutional carry laws.  You don’t even need a permit to carry,” said Lott.

Far from concealed carry permits turning our streets and neighborhoods into the Wild West, Lott says permit holders almost never commit crimes.

“One of the other things we found in our report is how incredibly law-abiding permit holders were.  Police are rarely convicted of crimes, but permit holders are convicted of any crime at about one-sixth the rate that police officers are,” said Lott.

Some in the gun rights community argue that open carry is the more accurate interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms but Lott says concealed carry actually makes life tougher for criminals because those intending to do harm can seek out police or anyone else who is obviously armed and attack them first.  With concealed carry, Lott says the criminal has no idea who might stop him at any point.

Share

Sessions Supporters Rally, Healthcare Hypocrisy, Will Spicer Dance With Stars?

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Republicans for backing Attorney General Jeff Session even in the midst of President’s Trumps invective against him, including the warning from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that there is no time left in 2017 to consider another person as attorney general. They express their continuing disgust as six Senate Republicans who voted to repeal Obamacare in 2015 refused to do so now. And they fume as former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor admits Republicans never believed they could repeal Obamacare if they took back control of Congress but used voter anger and expectations to win elections. Finally, rumors are swirling that former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer might join the cast of the ABC reality show, Dancing With the Stars.

Share

‘This Was Really Driven By Political Correctness’

by

President Trump reinstated the ban on transgenders serving in the U.S. military on Wednesday, pleasing cultural conservatives and infuriating Democrats, LGBT activists, and quite a few Republicans.

Trump made the announcement Wednesday morning via three tweets.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.  Thank you,” stated Trump.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says Trump made the right decision in reaction to President Obama lifting the ban in the final months of his administration.

“The Obama policy was not well-grounded.  Therefore, returning to the longstanding policy that has always prevailed in our country was the right decision,” said Sprigg, who contends allowing transgender troops to serve openly would create a major distractions.

“Allowing those who identify as transgender to serve in the military would simply be a distraction from the core mission of our armed forces, which is to fight and win America’s wars.  President Trump’s tweets indicated that he understands that,” said Sprigg, who sees the same motivation for Obama pushing Congress to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military or opening combat roles to women.

“All of these are situations where military effectiveness was not the primary objective and they all fall under the category of social engineering,” said Sprigg.

And why would transgenders serving be a distraction?  First, Sprigg says Obama’s lifting of the ban was never about military readiness.

“This was really driven by political correctness.  It would undermine good order, morale, and discipline in the military.  It would raise all kinds of issues of privacy, just as we’ve discussed in some civilian contexts,” said Sprigg.

He also says a lot of taxpayer dollars would be needed to accommodate the medical needs of people transitioning from one gender identity to another.

“We would actually be asking taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for people who are already serving in the military.  And, under the Obama policy, it would have eventually been for people who would choose to join the military as well,” said Sprigg.

Beyond that, Sprigg says the medical needs of such personnel would greatly limit their usefulness in overseas crises.

“Perhaps most importantly of all, these people undergoing these medical treatments have unique medical needs, which makes them non-deployable because they require specialized care that may not be available everywhere in the world where the military is deployed,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says there is nothing new about medically excluding people from military service, so he sees the accusations of bigotry and discrimination in response to Trump’s announcement as being flawed.

“There are lots of patriotic Americans who are willing to serve their country but are not permitted to serve their country because of special medical conditions.  I think those who identity as transgender as essentially no different from that category of individuals.  It’s not a question of discrimination,” said Sprigg.

Trump is getting some vocal support for his decision.

“He’s doing what the vast majority of people in America want as well as military leaders,” said Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, who led the unsuccessful effort earlier this month to block taxpayer dollars from being spent on gender reassignment procedures and treatment. “So I’m very pleased that he listened and he acted decisively and will help restore our military’s readiness.”

Iraq War veteran J.R. Salzman offered a lengthy Twitter explanation of how combat duties broke a lot of people he served with.

“Now take someone confused about whether they are a man/woman,” wrote Salzman.  “Take those psychological and emotional issues and put them in that environment. Take someone who is right off the bat not uniform or part of the same team. Give them special treatment because of their identity.

“Take that person, put them in that stressful war environment and watch what happens. It’s a f—ing ticking time bomb,” stated Salzman.

In addition to the fierce condemnation offered by Democrats and liberal activists to Trump’s reinstatement of the ban, man of the Republicans who offered a public response were also very critical.  The Huffington Post compiled many of those statements.

““Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

“Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, an Iraq War veteran.

“I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them,” added Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, also criticized the decision, as did Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, a former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sprigg isn’t overly surprised at the GOP backlash.

“I think they have internalized too many of the talking points to the radical LGBT activists and are not thinking clearly enough about this topic,” said Sprigg.

But while there may be a majority of lawmakers in opposition to Trump’s decision, Sprigg says Republicans would much rather forget about it than try to reverse it.

“I sense that this is the type of issue that a lot of Republican politicians would rather not have to deal with at all.  They didn’t want to have to deal with Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to prevent the spending of taxpayer money for gender reassignment surgery or hormone replacement therapy.

“But I also think they’re not going to want to deal with any effort to overturn the president’s decision,” said Sprigg.

Standard Podcast [ 9:55 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

DC Gun Policy Shot Down, McCain’s Return, Hammers & DNC Hard Drives

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud a federal appeals court for striking down the District of Columbia’s policy of requiring a “good reason” for allowing resident to conceal carry their guns.  They also welcome back John McCain and the start of the health care debate but lament how tough it will be to pass a good bill and McCain’s castigation of everyone for the Senate gridlock.  And they marvel at the lack of media coverage as a top IT expert for former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and several other Democratic lawmakers is arrested for bank fraud while trying to leave the country and the FBI looks into hard drives demolished by hammers.

Share

Minnesota ‘Chilling’ Free Expression

by

A Christian couple looking to add wedding videos to their business repertoire is suing the state of Minnesota after official there made it clear that their laws require anyone working as a wedding vendor to accommodate same-sex couples.

Carl and Angel Larsen operate Telescope Media Group.  In a statement provided by their attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, the Larsens contend their business “exists to tell great stories that honor God.”

It also points out the couple is expanding into wedding video services to “reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

But the state of Minnesota is placing a major hurdle in front of their business plans.

“They’re unable to do so because the state says if they do them for marriages that are consistent with their beliefs –  marriages between a man and a woman – they have to do them on behalf of same-sex marriages as well,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco, who is lead counsel for Telescope Media Group in this case.

The state is relying on an updated version of it’s Human Rights Act to force vendors into accepting clients for all legal forms.

“The law bars discrimination on a whole bunch of different categories and the state has added sexual orientation to the law.  But [the state] has also announced that it interprets the law to require people in the wedding industry to promote concepts of marriage, including same-sex marriage, that they disagree with, even if that violate their religious beliefs,” said Tedesco.

“The state has put that on official websites.  They’ve announced that in various different places.  They’ve basically put people on notice.  They’re looking out for faithful Christians in the wedding industry, and they’re going to prosecute them if they act in a manner that’s consistent with their beliefs when it comes to marriage,” said Tedesco.

Punishment for wedding vendors refusing to accept same-sex clients can be up to 90 days in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Tedesco says a pre-emptive lawsuit was clearly needed.

“No one in their right mind , when 90 days in jail is on the line and the state is saying the exercise of your first amendment rights could wind you up in jail is going to exercise their rights.  They chilled their expression.  They go to court to try to get a judgment from the court before that even happens,” said Tedesco.

“Rather than take that risk, Carl and Angel filed a lawsuit to try to get the court to say that it was unlawful for the state to even apply the law to force them to say things they don’t want to say through their films,” said Tedesco.

Tedesco says the Minnesota Human Rights Act is a blatant violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“These kind of pre-enforcement challenges are something that’s been used for years in the civil rights context,” he said.

“When laws like this go on the books, the state is saying, ‘We’re going to apply this to expression,’ the courts are very concerned and they’ve said many times in opinions they’ve issued in this area that people will respond to those laws simply by stopping their speech, chilling their expression.  Then everybody loses,” said Tedesco.

Right now the court is weighing competing motions.  Officials from Minnesota are asking for the case to be dismissed.  The Larsens are asking to be able to video wedding of their choice until the issue is resolved in court.

Tedesco says Minnesota is among a growing number of states being pressured by liberal politicians and activists to forbid vendors from acting on their consciences.

“There are activists on the left that are pushing very, very hard for these same kind of laws to be adopted in states that don’t have them.  There’s at least 20 states that have them right now and they want all 50 states to have them.  They want the federal government to have them,” said Tedesco.

“Those activists say there are no compromises.  You have to comply with the law.  Speech is not a defense.  Your speech can be compelled.  You can be forced to speak and act in ways that are completely inconsistent with your core beliefs,” said Tedesco.

“This is very problematic in the marriage context right now.  These laws adding sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws are the tools the other side uses to coerce uniformity of thought and belief when it comes to the marriage institution,” he said.

Standard Podcast [ 10:49 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share