![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fiGVhiSe7Es/UC2iXPZr6dI/AAAAAAAAIBo/dnH7JqKKqVQ/s1600/sidepicture.jpg"left")
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
Posted on 05/04/2017 3:13:30 PM PDT by detective
President Trump's Religious Liberty executive order, like many of his orders, set out good general principles. The principles, e.g. "It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom" are good. The actual legal authority is limited. It's a good start for a much broader program.
The order largely takes on the Johnson Amendment. But as a practical matter, that needs to be repealed by Congress. And it should find its way to the agenda. President Trump can try to limit its enforcement, but as long as it's there, it's a ticking time bomb. And with members of the Obama/Clinton judiciary acting like a rogue state, bad laws are dangerous to have on the books.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Meanwhile the deceivers, d'rats, left, liars, looters, losers, morons, marxists, punks, propagandists, scumbags, socialists, tyrants, totalitarians are figuring out new angles in their war on family values and religious institutions.
Thanks for posing.
BUMP!
There are some interesting videos at YouTube about religious “no-go” zones. Easy to find. The people of one religion are notorious for violating the civil rights of people of other religions. They’re also notorious for propagandizing against that common knowledge. They’re being streamed into our western culture countries by our academic and corporate leaders, who are spoiled rotten and addicted to harassing their own countrymen.
It’s also part of the new international slave trade under the false guise of free markets and freedom.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
He says it’s a “good start,” presumably because of the sentimental penumbra, but goes on to say that the actual text changes legally nothing. This is exactly what other conservative writers are saying.
You change law by changing law, Congress. You change regulations by changing regulations, regulators.
“He says it’s a “good start,” presumably because of the sentimental penumbra, but goes on to say that the actual text changes legally nothing. This is exactly what other conservative writers are saying.
You change law by changing law, Congress. You change regulations by changing regulations, regulators.”
That is why I thought it was a good article.
It outlines what the EO says.
Then the articles lists the things that need to be done that the EO does not cover.
Which is everything. This order signals an attitude, which is nice, but it does nothing to law, regulations, or Federal agency activity. It is possible that the agencies themselves will do something differently, but it is also possible that they will not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.