Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, March 30, 2015

Jeb Bush: "Hillary Can't Do The Heisman On The First Four Years Of Obama Foreign Policy"

Jeb Bush was the latest potential Republican presidential candidate to face the grilling of Hugh Hewitt, on the Hugh Hewitt Show-- okay grilling isn't really Hugh's style but that never stops him from asking tough questions. Jeb supports the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana and showed himself to have a good knowledge of foreign affairs. His best line of the night was when he said of Hilary Clinton's tenure at state, "I think she can’t do the Heisman on the first four years of the Obama foreign policy."


Below is the full transcript of the interview along with a few sound bites of the key sections:


Hewitt: All right, now let’s turn to the serious stuff. I want to start with the attack on the NSA today. We don’t know much about these two people, probably terrorists, obviously. It’s a terrorist attack when you attack the NSA. How great a threat of lone wolf terrorism do you see right now? And what should the country do about it?

Bush: I think it’s a serious threat in a world where we’re so connected with the rest of the world. We have people moving in and people moving out. People get their information now, not everybody gets to listen to your show to get all their information. People get their information in different ways. They get disaffected, disillusioned, preyed upon, and so yeah, I think that this is an ongoing threat, and I hope that our counterintelligence capabilities are always vigilant. I’ve always been nervous about the attacks on the NSA, and somehow that we’re losing our freedoms by keeping the homeland safe. I think we need to be really vigilant about that.

Hewitt: That’s where I was leading. There is an element within our party, and I’m a Republican, you’re a Republican, that has grown Snowdenesque in certain ways, and very, very anti-surveillance, but in a world where people are attacking the NSA, I don’t know that we have an alternative. So how do you balance those two things out?

Bush: Well, first of all, I think the President has to lead, has to explain to people. He’s actually enhanced the intelligence capabilities, in many ways, because technology has gotten better. But he never defends it. He never explains it. He never tries to persuade people that their civil liberties are being protected by the systems we have in place. If people knew that, I don’t think there’d be any doubt that they would want to have the ability to identify people from the outside that may be trying to coordinate with some people in the inside.

Hewitt: All right, now I’m going to go abroad in a moment, but first, I want to do a domestic political story. Earlier today, I watched Peter Hamby on CNN, which is on over your head, say that, and I want to quote him correctly, you don’t see a lot of Republicans rallying to Mike Pence’s defense right now. That’s a direct quote from Hamby. He’s a great reporter talking about the Indiana Religious Freedom Act. What do you make of the controversy? Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, great company, had a blast at it in the Washington Post yesterday. What do you think?

Bush: I think if you, if they actually got briefed on the law that they wouldn’t be blasting this law. I think Governor Pence has done the right thing. Florida has a law like this. Bill Clinton signed a law like this at the federal level. This is simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs, to have, to be able to be people of conscience. I just think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.

Hewitt: You know, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed in 1993. It’s been the law in the District of Columbia for 22 years. I do not know of a single incidence of the sort that Tim Cook was warning about occurring in the District in the last 22 years.

Bush: But there are incidents of people who, for example, the florist in Washington State who had a business that based on her conscience, she couldn’t be participating in a gay wedding, organizing it, even though the person, one of the people was a friend of hers. And she was taken to court, and is still in court, or the photographer in New Mexico. There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government. And this law simply says the government has to have a level of burden to be able to establish that there’s been some kind of discrimination. We’re going to need this. This is really an important value for our country to, in a diverse country, where you can respect and be tolerant of people’s lifestyles, but allow for people of faith to be able to exercise theirs.



Hewitt: Okay, now let’s go to what I think is probably the most important story. That’s an important story to a lot of people, but the Iranian nuclear deal, it was announced over the weekend by their foreign minister, deputy foreign minister. They’re not going to send their enriched uranium to Russia. We didn’t get up and leave at that point. What has gone wrong here? And what do you think of these negotiations?

Bush: I think they should have stopped a long time ago. If the purpose of the negotiations established by President Obama at the beginning, and by, by the way, by his predecessors of not allowing Iran to enrich uranium to be able to build a bomb, if that was the purpose, fine. But now, we’ve negotiated downward to the point where we’re now talking about breakouts, we’re talking about vague assurances of verification. We’re talking about allowing them to enrich uranium inside, and store it inside their own country. There are places that, facilities that don’t have the same, they’re not open places that this is all taking place, fortified so as to protect themselves from attack. I think this is wrong. All the while, and this is the part that’s most amazing to me, all the while that the Iranian government, through its resources and its surrogates, is destabilizing the region. They have influence or control over four capitals while we’re negotiating with them. This is the part that’s most troubling, is that the President and his administration seems to be more interested in cutting a deal with Iran, who has marches calling for the death of the United States, or the annihilation of Israel, and treats friends in the region, particularly Israel, with incredible disrespect.

Hewitt: Now General Soleimani is said to have been in Tikrit last week and Yemen this week in support of the Houthis. They’re all Shiia-aligned, Iranian-aligned militias. If you’re the president, what’s the line you’ll draw with Iran about projecting force outside of their country’s border?

Bush: I think we have to tighten up the sanctions, if possible. This is, the danger of this agreement is what I described and much more, but it also is the loosening of the sanctions very fast, in which case it would be very hard to put the genie back into the bottle. The one leverage point we have over Iran is tightening sanctions rather than loosening them. And if we were in that position, I think we could get a better deal that would contain Iran’s interest in destabilizing the area. In the interim, we also have ISIS. You know, our disengagement has created this dual threat that is, the one solution, I think, that is clear to me, at least, is that we need to rebuild our relationships with the traditional Arab nations, for them to have confidence that we’ve got their back. We’re providing some intelligence support apparently in Yemen, but when we pulled back, these voids are being created, and they’re being filled by people that want to create great instability and harm to the United States, and to those that believe in freedom.

Hewitt: You know, Governor Bush, I have a piece in the Washington Examiner today about who’s winning the Putin primary, and that’s the person that Vladimir Putin would least like to see become president. And I point out you’ve got foreign policy experience and old hands around you. How would you go about dealing with Putin? Your brother told me on this show he misjudged him at the beginning. He looked into his eyes, that whole mistake that he made in assessing him. How do you assess Putin? How would you deal with him?

Bush: I think he’s a ruthless pragmatist. I think he tries to undermine or underwrite the risk on every action he takes. And if the risk is low relative to the advantage that he seeks, he’ll continue to do it. and so a weak America, an America that is, that’s not clear about what our intentions are, will we support Article 5 in NATO? Will we forward lean troops? Will we provide defensive weapons to Ukraine? Will we announce in advance that there are additional sanctions that our country and the countries of Europe will impose on Russia if they take certain actions is a far better strategy than trash talking the guy and doing nothing.

Hewitt: Should we lean forward on Article 5 with the Baltic states?

Bush: Yeah, absolutely. And the President has done a small amount of that, but I think there needs to be clarity in Moscow that we’re serious about protecting the one alliance that has creates enormous amounts of security and peace in the post-World War II time.

Hewitt: Are you, Jeb Bush, saying that if Putin makes a play on the Russian population areas of the Baltics, that that’s an occasion for war in Europe?

Bush: What I’m saying is that if we’re not serious about Article 5, then we ought to have shut down NATO. And I think shutting down NATO would be a disaster. The Baltic states are counting on the United States to be a leader in this regard, and it’s not just the Baltics. It’s also Poland, it’s Eastern Europe, it’s a lot of countries. The Baltics are the most vulnerable, because they, as you point out, there’s high percentages anywhere, what, 25-40% of the population are Russian speaking. But sure, the new threats aren’t necessarily invasions. It can be creating a cyberattack and then creating, taking off the emblems and coming in and destabilizing countries as has just occurred in Europe.

Hewitt: We’ve got about a minute to the break. Should we have done more for Ukraine? Should we do more for the Ukrainians right now?

Bush: I think we should. I think we should provide defensive support for Ukraine, and we need to get the Europeans back in the game as well.



Hewitt: I’ll be right back with Governor Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, probable candidate. You’re not official, yet, are you?

Bush: Not today.

Hewitt: Not today. You know that Marco Rubio is said to be announcing on April the 13th. Did you catch that today?

Bush: I did.

Hewitt: And so you’re going to beat him to the punch? Or are you going to wait a little bit?

Bush: I’m going to ponder it for a while.

Hewitt: I want to get a couple of hard ones in first. A real tough one – how’s your dad? America loves him. How’s he doing?

Bush: He’s hanging in there. He’s actually, he’s in great spirits. He can’t walk, but he’s enjoying life, and he’s really recovered from some of the illnesses he’s had. And my mom as well, I was with them last week. They look spectacular.

Hewitt: And you brought him around to the presidential campaign business?

Bush: She, you know what? As she described it to me, she was sick and tired of her remaining friends, I guess those are the ones that are still alive, giving her so much grief. So she’s totally on board.

Hewitt: Now I also read the cover story in the National Journal by Tim Alberta about you. And I didn’t realize you had actually gone, I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m an Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian.

Bush: (laughing)

Hewitt: But that means I go to Mass on Saturday night, and I go to the Presbyterian on Sunday. But you went through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, RCIA.

Bush: Yeah.

Hewitt: …which is close to water torture.

Bush: No, no.

Hewitt: And that is, it goes on forever. It’s like 100 years long.

Bush: Well, to be fair about it, I started the week after I lost an election in November, so I skipped October, I think. So I skipped maybe the first five weeks, did a little tutorial. And I found it really important. I found it, hanging out with normal people, loving, Godly people, sharing their faith, excited about new people coming into the faith. It was a great anecdote to a pretty tough campaign, to be honest with you.

Hewitt: Are you pro-life thoroughly and completely?

Bush: Yes. Yeah.

Hewitt: And does that extend to end of life, because it’s beginning to fray at that end as well.

Bush: Absolutely. In fact, tomorrow is the anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, which I was governor. People might not remember this, but this was a fairly controversial time. And we extended her life through legal means for a year, and the law that we got passed then was ruled unconstitutional. The federal government came in. Congress passed a bill as well that was overturned. So this was the last day of a 14, as I recall, 13 day period where this woman was being starved to death, because she did not receive sustenance. It was one of the most difficult times in my life, to be honest with you.

Hewitt: Now being a Catholic, obviously there’s an appeal to be made to Catholic social teaching. And some people worry your immigration policies might be informed by Catholic…and my buddy, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia wants your immigration authority to be informed, he wants me to be informed by that. How does the interplay – Catholic social teaching and domestic policy?

Bush: Well, I’m going to get my economic policy from Milton Friedman and others like that, not from the Pope. And as it relates to social doctrine, I do think where my faith comes into play is most as it relates to the most vulnerable in our society. I think that’s the proper place for conservatives to act. There are certain people – the developmentally disabled, families that worry more about whether they’re going to outlive their child and have no support, unborn children, the frail and the elderly, I think it is legitimate for conservatives to have sympathy for the plight of people that are in that position. Now that doesn’t mean we’re going to dramatically expand government, but acting on our sense of conscientiousness for those that are suffering is attentive of our faith, right?

Hewitt: You mentioned earlier about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Preserving the freedom of churches to be able to do that is vital in the United States.

Bush: Completely, and unique to the United States, unique to the United States, which is the part of this that is quite dangerous, that this administration more than any other is reaching way beyond where governments have gone before to I think infringe on people’s faith, and infringe on their rights of conscience to be able to express their faith as they’ve always done. So these are, you know, important times for people of faith to engage in a loving way. It doesn’t have to be in a hostile way. In fact, the better, the more effective way of communication in these kinds of things, I think, is not the way where you’re haranguing people that may not agree with you. But there’s got to be some space for people of faith to be able to act on it.

Hewitt: Now I want to go back to the President. On the last Wednesday of your brother’s tenure in office, he had a half dozen talk show hosts, I was among them, into the Oval Office. And it was off the record, but I can paraphrase it. A senior administration official looked us in the eye and said you’ve got to give the new guy a chance. And he’s getting daily briefings, he’ll be good on these issues. That senior official, who will go unnamed, was wrong. He’s not good on these issues. What is the President’s compass here, Jeb Bush?

Bush: Well, I think whoever briefed you was right to give the new president a chance to able to disprove or prove whether he was, what his policies were. I think he started in office thinking all of the adulation was actually a policy. I think he actually thought the sheer force of his personality could change the world, that the speech in Cairo, the Nobel Prize, all of these things kind of validated the need, I don’t need a doctrine that guides and create a consistency in foreign policy. I can just do this in a nuanced way. I also think that he honestly believes that America’s presence in the world needed to be pulled back, because it was not a force for good, that American power in the world was not a force for good. And what he’s learning is that voids are filled. And now they’re filled not necessarily by nation-states. They’re filled by barbarians. They’re filled by nation-states using surrogates. They’re filled by evil doers that now have technologies a their fingertips to be able to undermine not just the neighborhood in which they are, but undermine the world.

Hewitt: One of the voids is being filled by President al-Sisi, formerly General al-Sisi.

Bush: Yeah.

Hewitt: I think that’s a good void filler.

Bush: Well, but it’s a void that was created, his need to take charge partially related to the fact that we undermined a friend and ally over many, many years, and then, you know, we were 0 for 3, in effect. In each one of the changes, we were on the wrong side of what actually happened. Now, we’re making it hard to develop a relationship with General al-Sisi, President al-Sisi, and he’s the one leader in the Arab world who’s standing up and saying that it’s the responsibility of Arab governments to fight the barbarians, to fight Islamic terrorism, and to fight, as we’re now learning, he’s joined the coalition with Saudi Arabia as it relates to Yemen. So those kind of leaders need to be supported by the United States. Look, we have values in our country for sure, and freedom, democracy are values that we’re not, you know, we always need to stand for. But we also need to be supporting people that believe in security, because there’s no way that a country like Egypt or any other country is going to be democratic and free until their security situation is improved.

Hewitt: Will it be fair if you’re the nominee and campaigning against Hillary Clinton to argue you broke it, you bought it with regards to Libya and all the other chaos that swirls around the region?

Bush: Yeah, no, I think she can’t do the Heisman on the first four years of the Obama foreign policy. She’ll try. I mean, she’s going to, look, this is very Clintonian, I think, to figure out a way to get out of a mess. But she was Secretary of State of the first administration. And while some of this disruption and then all the stuff playing out right now didn’t exist in the first four years, its roots were there. The pullback began then. The reset with Russia, the discussions with Syria, the red line, all these things created the beginnings of what we’re now seeing. And so…



Hewitt: We’ve got one minute left, and I promised your people a half hour, so I’ll let you go. What about her server and wiping it clean? Or you can stay around if you want to talk about that longer. But what about that?

Bush: I don’t know. I don’t know. I put my money on Trey Gowdy, for starters. That guy is a superstar. He respects the rule of law. He’ll be a gentleman about it, but he’s not going to give up on this notion that she needs to come clean with what she knows about that information and other things for sure.


GOP Introduces Bill Barring Govt. Union Activity On The Public Dime

Since Jimmy Carter signed the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, Government Employee Unions have been able to conduct union business while on the taxpayer dime.  A new bill introduced just before congress went on vacation would  prevent federal workers from engaging in “official time,” a practice established in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to allow feds to perform union functions while receiving a federal salary and working in a federal space. Official time was created as trade off, because federal unions must represent and negotiate for individuals not on their rolls. "
The bill, introduced in the House by Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., and in the Senate by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, would bar federal employees from engaging in collective bargaining or participating in arbitration on behalf of a union against their employer.

“After examining the practices of over 60 government agencies, my office has found an astounding amount of government waste,” Hice said. “By eliminating the ‘official time’ practice, we will return over a billion dollars to hardworking American taxpayers, and shed this shady, wasteful practice that only benefits unions.”

The government spent $157.2 million in fiscal 2012 on employees working 3.43 million hours of official time, according to the latest figures from the Office of Personnel Management. That marks about a 19 percent increase in the number of official hours since fiscal 2008. Official time usage varies greatly by agency. Some employees work full time on union activities despite earning federal salaries, though most official time users spend only a portion of their weeks conducting union work.
“While on the taxpayers’ dime, federal employees should not be allowed to spend the entire day, every day, conducting union-related business and not doing the government job they were hired for,” Isakson said. “The original intent of ‘official time’ has outlived its purpose and been taken much further than ever intended. This is commonsense legislation that would help ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being used for union activities that should instead be conducted during the employees’ paid time off, as would be demanded in the private sector.”
Think about this for a moment. Government Unions in themselves are just wrong, the same people the unions are negotiating with they are voting for (or their bosses). The officials are supposedly negotiating good deals for the people and then go begging to the same unions for campaign contributions.  It's a built in conflict of interests.
“Official time gives agencies an easy way to include employee input into any mission-related challenges that the agencies may face,” said American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox, “and it also is used to help resolve conflicts that arise in the workplace without resorting to more expensive and time-consuming administrative or legal procedures.”

Federal employee unions have long warned of an effort to outlaw official time, saying it was an inevitable tactic in the larger fight against organized labor. Rep. Phil Gingery, a fellow Georgia Republican who no longer serves in the House, introduced similar legislation in each of the last three congresses, but those measures never became law. Unions worry the bill could face a friendlier reception in the now-Republican controlled Senate.
I hope the bill finds a friendlier reception in the Republican-controlled Senate.  Anyone reading this post couldn't take time off to talk to the co-workers and get paid for it...but government unions do...it's simply wrong...This is a great example of government waste and it needs to be fixed.

'Ride The Thunder' Premiere Takes The Westminster Theater By Storm

A guest post from my friend Tami Jackson...Based on what she tells me and what she writes below, I can't wait till the movie comes to New York.


'Ride The Thunder' Premiere Takes The Westminster Theater By Storm



Ride the Thunder film project has been several years in the making: Author Rich Botkin and Director Fred Koster joined forces to bring the true story of the Vietnam War to the screen.

Friday night, March 27, after hundreds of hours of filming, editing, and interviewing, the long-awaited movie premiered at the Westminster Regency 10 in Westminster, CA.

About 500 invited guests descended on the theater, including Veterans — both American and South Vietnamese — friends, family, cast and crew. The crowd was all smiles and great expectations, knowing this movie might just be the vehicle to spread the truth about Vietnam.

America has largely been ignorant for 40 years plus concerning the Vietnam war: why we were involved, who were the NVA, the ARVN, and others? Who was funding and supporting the North Vietnamese Army? Did the South Vietnamese really want our help?

Were we winning and defeating communism in that small country in Southeast Asia? If so, why DID we pull out when we did?

And for 40 years Main Stream Media, academia, certain famous personalities and others have spread outright lies about the intent and the successes in Vietnam.

The truth of Vietnam, a country oppressed and occupied for hundreds of years, has been mostly hidden and unknown…until now.

The Ride the Thunder “family” had worked and hoped and prayed for the intent of this movie to be apparent to the premiere attendees: to change the mis-remembrance of the Vietnam War, and to give those tremendous men, Americans and South Vietnamese, who fought side-by-side in the war, their proper place in history.

And so they came, excited and expectant.

Fred Koster and Rich Botkin said a very few brief words before the movie began (2 screens were showing the film, both packed out). Director Koster said that this would be a very different movie, a movie that would answer so many of the skeptical questions. That would fill in the missing pieces for both the Vietnamese and the Americans.

Ride the Thunder is a docudrama: approximately 60% re-enactment and 40% interviews.

Interspersed throughout the film original footage of TV interviews of Ronald Reagan, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry were used to great effect, allowing the viewers to come to their own conclusions.

The story artfully weaves the recollections of Lt.Col. Le Ba Binh, writing from the confines of the Communist “Reeducation” camp, with both events just prior to the Easter Offensive and with Col. John Ripley’s efforts to inform Americans back home about what was really going on in Vietnam.

Like an historic duet, the lives of the South Vietnamese Marines and the American Marines ebb and flow, creating a powerful and moving story.

All too soon, the hour and 46 minutes came to an end, invitees wiped their eyes, and applause broke out.

The film that sought to communicate the truth had touched the audience.

In the reception following, held at the Hotel Huntington Beach, the movie goers celebrated a movie unlike any other.

The gathering was loud and joyful. Hugs and congratulations mingled with hope that this was just the beginning.

Saturday day word reached the team: the movie was selling out quickly and another screen was added to accommodate the surge of ticket sales. Huge groups of tickets were being bought and the Westminster Theater proclaimed Ride the Thunder their most successful premiere to date.

The opening weekend’s success, followed by an expected high per screen viewings in the coming 5 days, could spring-board the movie to nation-wide distribution.

Take notice America: the truth about our nation’s involvement in the Vietnam War, artfully told in the film, Ride the Thunder, is about to eradicate the lies and distortions disseminated for too long.

Want to know more about the movie CLICK HERE to go to the movie's website/





O'Keefe Finds Another University Willing To Sanction An ISIS Club (As Long As They Change Name So It's Not Obvious)

James O' Keefe's Project Veritas has found another school willing to allow students to form a pro-ISIS club. This time there can be no claims the school administrator didn't really know what was going on as what happened with the Cornell video. The latest video takes place at Barry University and the school's only objection to the club was the name, they suggested the group find a more politically correct name “because technically our country is at war with ISIS”
The latest video (below) reveals several high-level officials and a professor at Barry University actually sanctioning a club with the stated purpose of sending material aid to ISIS.

According to the school's website:
Barry University in Miami, Florida, inspires students to foster positive change in the local and global community. No matter what undergraduate or graduate degree program you choose, you gain hands-on experience and apply what you learn in the classroom to a rapidly changing world. You work with professors who mentor, encourage, and challenge you. You choose from a full array of campus activities that allow you to have fun, make friends, and develop your talents. At Barry, you prepare to join the next generation of change agents and leaders.
I am not sure helping ISIS is the change agent people expect from the school

In O’Keefe’s latest video, several Barry University officials as well as a professor appear a little too eager to guide a Veritas journalist through the process of forming a pro-ISIS club. Derek Bley, Coordinator for Leadership Development & Student Organizations, was fully aware that the proposed student group was being formed to aid ISIS and he expressed no ethical qualms whatsoever. Disturbingly, Bley’s only concern appeared to be the use of the acronym “ISIS” in the club’s name: “We’re not here to limit people and their clubs… but I would recommend maybe coming up with one or two other possible names just in case this one does not get through.”

The reporter also had a discussion with Frederique Frage, Associate Director of International and Multicultural Programs, and Daisy Santiago, International & Multicultural Programs Coordinator, both of whom were incredibly supportive of the proposed mission of the pro-ISIS club, just not its name.

Frage and Santiago appeared to be concerned only with the club’s name in a joint meeting with the Project Veritas reporter. In the open office setting where the meeting took place, Frage said: “By all means we support any student wanting to start their own organization… the only thing, as far as the name, the thing is, because technically our country is at war with ISIS.” And Santiago opined: “We talked about maybe saying [Sympathetic Students] in support of in the Middle East… as opposed to [saying] ISIS.”

Professor Pawena Sirimangkala signed the necessary documentation to give the Veritas reporter everything she needed to start the pro-ISIS club (our journalist, of course, did not).

This Video is a much watch!


Reading the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act-- I Can't Find the Hate LGBT Part

Granted, I am not a lawyer and it takes a few times to understand the legal gobbly-gook in the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But I cannot find anywhere in this law where it says stores can refuse to serve gay people, black people, Jews or anyone else. Nor does it force some people to eat sugar-free peeps during Easter season rather than the full diabetes causing sugar ones.

The operative part of the legislation is section eight (not to be confused with the section eight that Cpl Klinger was trying for)
"Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
That's it, nothing about gay marriage, no posses to go after transgenders, only that state governments cannot mess with someone's freedom of religion unless there is a compelling government interest, and if there is a compelling interest the govt. has to find the least restrictive way to mess with the freedom of religion.

In 1993 then President Bill Clinton signed into law a Federal Religious freedom act. The federal bill's operative section (section B) says:
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Now to my eyes which never went to law school (much to my mom's chagrin) the Federal Section B seems to say the exact same thing as the Indiana Section 8. Now the reason Indiana needs its own version of the religious freedom law is because in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores, the court held that the Federal Religious Freedom restoration act didn't apply to states. And the issue on the lawsuit had nothing to do with LGBTs it was about whether Native American Tribes could use peyote in their rituals.

Below is the full text of the Indiana law, I can't find any part which says one type of person can refuse to serve another based on sexual preference, gender, race, religion or peep preference give it a read and tell me if I am wrong.

The mainstream media says the bill was passed to allow people to discriminate against gays, but it seems that the law was passed to make up for the fact the federal law doesn't apply to states, especially those states who want to regulate peyote.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.