“The California state Senate has passed a bill that would make it harder for Christian institutions to obtain religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals,” writes Eric Metaxas.

An encouraging sentence, but not to the person who wrote it, whose headline declared: “A License to Discriminate: California’s Assault on Christian Colleges.” This neatly echoed other headlines of nearly unadulterated panic: “California Bill Would Ultimately Erase Religious Schools” (Federalist), “An Imminent Attack on Religious Liberty” (Master’s Seminary), “California Bill Called ‘Existential Threat’ to Catholic Education” (Crux), and so on.

California’s bill, S.B. 1146, which passed the state senate and is working its way toward a vote in the state assembly, would decree that only colleges training ministers and theology teachers would be allowed to claim exemption from Title IX laws, which explicitly protect gender-based discrimination but have been used successfully for decades to also protect LGBT Americans from mistreatment (and in late 2015, a federal judge all but sealed the deal).

The bill would “bar colleges receiving state funding from making employment, student housing, admission and other decisions on the basis of gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation,” as Catholic leaders said in the Crux, calling the whole thing “a restriction of religious freedom.”

In other words, should a religious university that receives state funds wish to deny a homosexual or transgender American entry into the school or a teaching position, among other possibilities, on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or identity, said university would be unable to do so.

This would only apply to a university that “receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid,” in the words of the bill. It would also require schools that do get the exemption to prominently make this known on their websites, at student orientation, and so on, to warn LGBT individuals of certain possibilities. LGBT students or employees at exempted schools would also be able to sue if discriminated against.

Over 40 California colleges currently qualify for Title IX exemptions, and of course many more across the U.S. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT civil rights group, calls the exemptions a “license to discriminate” — phrasing Metaxas may appreciate. This issue is only part of a larger social problem —Republican states are fighting to allow private businesses and organizations to refuse service to gay people, and in 28 states you can still be fired just for being a homosexual (California, however, is not one of them).

The law set off the usual hysteria (Holly Scheer, writing in the Federalist above, seems to think this opens the door to government bans on “chapel services,” “prayer events” at graduation, even “theology classes” themselves) and the platitudes that have defined unequal treatment and prejudice throughout American history, such as the we don’t serve your kind here, but plenty of places do (Scheer: “No one forces people to attend religious schools… California alone has hundreds of college and university options…only 42 are religious”).

But proponents of the measure point out that, as one state politician said, “California should not be using taxpayer money to subsidize colleges that choose to discriminate against LGBT students.” American Atheists wrote, “It’s a very simple test for us: If you’re getting taxpayer money, follow the damn law. Accepting government support means accepting government regulation.”

After all, taxpayer funds come from all Californians — gay or straight, trans or cis, close allies and violent bigots. Should religious universities wish to deny, or terminate at will, employment or enrollment for LGBT people, one would think at the very least taxpayers of diverse backgrounds and views should not have to support the universities.

Further, though this would perhaps never cross Scheer’s mind, some LGBT Americans are in fact Christians, and may desire the freedom to attend religious schools without fear of persecution or retribution.

Were taxpayer-funded universities able to legally turn away Christians, one might call it a “license to discriminate” — in the accurate sense, that is.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

It was only a matter of time.

It was only a matter of time before a rightwing extremist rose to prominence in the American political arena. There is only so long bigoted and authoritarian musings can be entertained on far right media like Fox News or Rush Limbaugh Live before a candidate casts aside any facade of decency and appeals to the basest, most vile instincts of human beings.        

Donald Trump was the candidate extremists were waiting for.

Trump recently called for the U.S. to block all Muslims from entering, turning stereotyping into national policy, widening our dangerous problem of racial profiling to a massive, never before seen scale. He used American detention of German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants during World War II as justification, turning draconian sins generally looked back upon with embarrassment as shining examples of sensible security measures.

Neo-nazis called him a “glorious leader” and “ultimate savior” for this, adding, “Heil Donald Trump” for good measure. In 1990, Trump’s ex-wife said Trump sometimes read a book of Hitler’s speeches, My New Order, which covers propaganda and speaking style, a blueprint for fear-mongering and race-baiting. Trump first confirmed this, then denied it.

Trump also called for the surveillance of American mosques, a database of Muslim Americans, and/or special religion identification cards for Islamists. In essence, the eradication of Constitutional religious freedom protections and the establishment of authoritarian anti-privacy and discriminatory policies that echo the Third Reich.

One man at a town hall meeting told Trump that President Obama is a Muslim, “not even an American,” that “we have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims,” and asked, “When can we get rid of them?” While it was unclear if the man meant all American Muslims or just Islamic extremists, Trump didn’t question any of it, instead saying, “You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.”

Despite being unable to provide a shred of evidence, Trump insists he saw American Muslims cheering as the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, fomenting anti-Muslim hatred.

Activists believe Trump’s rhetoric is contributing to the rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes that began even before the deadly ISIS attacks in Paris and the San Bernardino shooting.

Trump vilified undocumented Mexican immigrants, generalizing them as criminals, drug dealers, rapists, and killers. He stokes nativist fears about Hispanics stealing jobs, spreading unemployment, lowering wages, “destroying the Middle Class.” He wants to build a “gorgeous wall” akin to the Great Wall of China, while rounding up 11 million people (many of whom were born in the U.S. and are thus American citizens by law), and trucking them out of the country. This despite the fact that amnesty is the least expensive, most effective, and most humane way to end the problems associated with illegal immigration. 

Invoking Trump’s name and his deportation plan, two white men beat a homeless Hispanic man in Boston with a pipe and then urinated on him. Trump heard about this and explained that his followers are “passionate” people who “love their country,” only later writing he would “never condone violence.” Other Trump supporters beat an Hispanic protester at a rally, chanting “USA! USA!”

Trump believes the government should censor the Internet to curb access to radical Islamic literature and websites. He said, “Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ Those are foolish people.” This despite the extensive erosion of civil liberties and massive increase of domestic spying since George W. Bush.

He heartlessly mocked both the voice and physical motions of a disabled reporter, mocked Asian business partners using broken English, and ridiculed political rival Carly Fiorina, saying, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” He may or may not have suggested Megyn Kelly was asking “ridiculous” questions of him during a debate because she was menstruating.  

He’s called one woman a “big, fat pig,” “disgusting,” a “slob” and an “animal”; another he called a “dog”; another he wrote had an “ugly face and body.” On the other hand, he’s often joked about his daughter’s body and that he would date her if he wasn’t her father. He likes having “a young and beautiful piece of ass” on his arm, and sometimes insinuates women are successful only if beautiful.

He joked Hillary Clinton would not be an ineffective president because she couldn’t “satisfy her husband.”  

Trump thinks the U.S. war against terror is ineffective because it’s a “politically correct war.” To fight ISIS, Trump says, the U.S. must “take out their families” and bring back torture techniques like waterboarding, saying, “If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they’re doing to us.” This despite the fact that 90% of drone victims are already innocent bystanders, and the fact it is just such actions that radicalize people and breed more terror attacks.

He wanted U.S. forces to stay in Iraq and “keep the oil.” He insulted former prisoner of war Senator John McCain, saying, “He’s not a war hero… I like people who weren’t captured.” He also believes his time in the New York Military Academy gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” He said an army deserter should be executed.

His foreign policy positions usually amount to aggressive intimidation. He promises to “beat China” in trade deals. “I beat China all the time. All the time.” To keep oil prices low, he would simply tell OPEC, “…you’re not going to raise that fucking price.” As for ISIS: “I would bomb the shit out of them… There would be nothing left.”

He believes he can sign an executive order that will overrule all state laws, decreeing that anyone who kills a police officer will be executed. He also wants police forces nationwide to maintain the use of military-grade weapons and vehicles.

He constantly talks about his wealth and power, mercilessly showcasing his narcissism. “Women find his power almost as much a turn-on as his money,” Trump said of himself. “I’m really rich,” he often brags. He was insulted and outraged when Forbes valued his net worth at only $4.5 billion, writing, “I don’t look good, to be honest. I mean, I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion.” He also boasts of a high I.Q.

Yet he has not the wit to check the validity of his sources. He tweeted a graphic falsely claiming that the vast majority of white Americans were killed by blacks in 2015, a graphic that may have originated with a neo-Nazi. Trump refused to apologize for or take down the lies.

According to one source, Trump once said, “Laziness is a trait in blacks” and that he didn’t want black men counting his money; he once took out full-page ads in New York papers calling for the death penalty for black teens who allegedly raped a white woman (they were later declared innocent); and he was once sued for not renting to African Americans. He was a leader of the “birther” movement that sought to prove Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

After a Black Lives Matter protester interrupted one of Trump’s speeches, supporters physically assaulted the man, as Trump yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” While a spokesperson later said Trump’s campaign does not condone violence, Trump himself said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Elsewhere, Trump has threatened to attack Black Lives Matter protesters personally.

There is evidence Trump’s father was a Klansman. Even after all this, Trump insists he will get the African American vote, and claims his Muslim friends think banning Muslim immigration is a good idea.  

The majority of Trump’s supporters are working-class whites. Surveys indicate only 2% of Trump supporters are under 30, only 50% have a high school diploma, and only 19% have a college degree.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Hillary Clinton sat before the House committee on Thursday, her face a mix of bemusement, boredom, and defiance, suffering through a seemingly eternal interrogation.

The committee has spent 18 months and over $4.5 million investigating the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the American State Department outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed a U.S. ambassador, two CIA contractors, and one other diplomat, yet another violent reaction to U.S. foreign policy.

As Clinton was Secretary of State at the time, the GOP has led a relentless assault to assign her the blame and destroy her political career, with some Democrats dragged along against their will. The committee is made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats.

Clinton took responsibility for the tragedy in January 2013.

The committee questioned why security wasn’t stronger, why the outpost wasn’t abandoned if it couldn’t be protected in a volatile area, and why the U.S. intervened in Libya in the first place.

Republican Peter Roskam called Clinton the “chief architect” of the intervention in Libya, the one who “drove it” and “persuaded people” to go along with her “plan.” As this seemed to border on questioning the legitimacy of U.S. military intervention in Africa, Roskam was quickly sushed by Democrat Adam Smith, who said such talk wasn’t relevant and that this was a hearing, not a foreign policy debate. Thus the real reason behind the attacks and the casualties–the U.S. presence in Libya itself–was neatly swept under the rug.

Further, the committee asked why the State Department covered up certain details of the event by censoring the CIA.

Indeed, the CIA reports to Congress concerning the attack were “extensively edited” by Clinton’s State Department. As ABC News reported:

The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.    

A State Department spokesperson worried in an email that being truthful about Al Qaeda affiliate involvement and warnings of possible terrorist threats “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that…?”

The Obama administration lied when it claimed the report to Congress was put together by the intelligence community and that the White House only changed one word, according to the ABC News report.

Apparently the CIA warnings were real enough for the State Department to wipe from the CIA report, but not real enough for Clinton to admit to; she consistently denied any intelligence warnings about a potential attack.

This is plausible deniability, a useful tool in the political handbook. Clinton can simply deny warnings existed or, barring that, that they ever reached her ears, a truly unbelievable notion.

This kind of corruption–distorting intelligence reports to protect the image of government officials–must be prosecuted and eliminated.

But one might wonder where this intense criticism of government departments and officials was in the Republican Party after the far more deadly terrorist attack eleven years to the day before Benghazi.

After all, the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia, according to Osama bin Laden and U.S. intelligence officials. Foreign military incursion breeds extremism, whether in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, or Libya. Perhaps Roskam wasn’t seriously questioning U.S. involvement in Libya, just the way it was managed–or mismanaged–by Clinton.

Unfortunately, the painfully obvious fact that the attack never would have occurred had U.S. military and intelligence personnel not been in Libya was left unexamined, in the same way most Americans–and Congress–left unexamined how our military and intelligence presence in other nations led to an attack on U.S. soil in 2001.

In another parallel, 9/11 was not solely an intelligence failure, but a failure of officials to act on intelligence. Donald Trump, the offensive and usually misinformed Republican presidential candidate, pointed this out to Jeb Bush recently, and Republicans have gone berserk over it.

Intelligence briefers reported to President George W. Bush in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. by hijacking planes (see also The Concise Untold History of the United States, Stone and Kuznick). These warnings were ignored.

Stone and Kuznick write that

Bush disdainfully told his CIA briefer, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” Yet with a straight face, Bush told a news conference in April 2004, “Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country.”

Again, plausible deniability. A fancy phrase meaning “lies.”

If citizens care about transparency, the GOP’s assault on Clinton is doing us a favor. It is simply unfortunate that 9/11 birthed blindly patriotic sheep among Republicans and Democrats alike, who rallied behind Bush and granted him the power to do virtually whatever he wished at home and abroad, through war resolutions and the Patriot Act. He was the “chief architect” of two invasions, which resulted in a catastrophic death toll of innocent civilians, and the loss of many U.S. servicemen and women.

Where was the firestorm of criticism from the GOP–or the Democrats, at least, after 9/11? Where was the 18 month investigation? When will there be harsh punishment for officials who lie, by omission or otherwise, about what they knew, and when will more politicians acknowledge the root causes of anti-American terrorism?

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.