Amazon Investigating Claims of Employees Leaking Data for Bribes

Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) said on Monday it was investigating suspected internal leaks of confidential information by its employees for bribes to remove fake reviews and other seller scams from its website.

Amazon employees are offering internal data and other classified information through intermediaries, to independent merchants selling their products on the site to help them boost sales in return for payments, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing sources. . .

“We hold our employees to a high ethical standard and anyone in violation of our code faces discipline, including termination and potential legal and criminal penalties,” a company spokesperson told Reuters.

Brokers for Amazon employees in Shenzhen are offering internal sales metrics and reviewers’ email addresses, as well as a service to delete negative reviews and restore banned Amazon accounts in exchange for payments ranging from about $80 to more than $2,000, the WSJ report said. (Read more from “Amazon Investigating Claims of Employees Leaking Data for Bribes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump Orders Declassification of Some FISA Court Documents, All Texts From Russia Investigation

By Townhall. After months of requests, President Trump declassified a number of FISA court documents late Monday afternoon and directed the relevant government agencies to release them to the public.

“At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released in a statement.

President Trump also ordered the unredacted release of all text messages related to the Russia investigation from fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Read more from “President Trump Orders Declassification of Some FISA Court Documents, All Texts From Russia Investigation” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Trump Orders Feds to Declassify Key Fisa Documents

By Fox News. President Trump on Monday ordered the declassification of several key documents related to the FBI’s probe of Russian actions during the 2016 presidential election, including 21 pages of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, and text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. . .

Trump also ordered the Justice Department to release text messages from a number of the key players in the Russia investigation “without redaction” — including Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

It was not immediately clear when or how the documents would be released. Congressional sources told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know how soon he will get the documents, but said Trump’s order covers “pretty much everything that he wanted … and the text messages are a bonus.” . . .

Earlier this month, 12 Republican members of Congress publicly asked Trump to declassify the June 2017 application for a warrant against Page as well as the FBI reports of interviews with Ohr, known in bureaucratic parlance as “Form 302s.” (Read more from “Trump Orders Feds to Declassify Key FISA Documents” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Appalling: Murkowski Votes to Continue Federal Funding for Abortion, Cruz, Others Tag Along

An amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would have defunded Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45-48, well short of the 60 votes it needed invoke cloture and pass the measure. . .

We are disappointed that the majority of the U.S. Senate that claims to be pro-life has not kept its promise to defund Planned Parenthood. At the ACLJ, we will continue to fight for life, and a critical step in that fight is eliminating taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. A key part of this effort is informing you how individual Senators vote on the relevant measures.

For starters, there were six Senators absent for yesterday’s vote: Bob Corker (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Patty Murray (D-WA).

Next, two Senators from the party with an avowedly pro-life platform voted “No” on this amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. They were Sen’s Collins (R-ME) and Murkowski (R-AK).

Several Senators who have actively campaigned on a pro-life agenda also voted against the amendment and in favor of taxpayer funding for the abortion industry. For example, in 2006, during his U.S. House race, Joe Donnelly (D-IN) said, “In keeping with my personal faith and family values, I have consistently opposed abortion and will continue to do so in Congress. I believe that pro-life means promoting life at every stage, from conception until natural death. I will always vote according to my faith and my conscience on life issues.” Perhaps we should remind Senator Donnelly that Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of abortions in the United States of America. (Read more from “Appalling: Murkowski Votes to Continue Federal Funding for Abortion, Cruz, Others Tag Along” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Suspending the Constitution: In America Today, the Government Does Whatever It Wants

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document.

The reality we must come to terms with, however, is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces may change over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

Thus, in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage, however, has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A 2006 survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsonstelevision family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties” is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

“Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable.You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

(This post originally appeared HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NFL Player Shocks Team, Retires Mid-Game. Teammate Lets Him Know How He Feels About It.

Buffalo Bills cornerback Vontae Davis, 30, announced during halftime of his team’s losing effort against the Los Angeles Chargers Sunday that he had decided to retire, right then — as in, he wasn’t going to play in the second half.

After 10 years in the league and having secured a one-year deal in February — that included a base salary of $2.25 million, a $1.5 million signing bonus, $2 million guaranteed and additional roster bonuses — Davis abruptly announced Sunday that he was done with football.

“This isn’t how I pictured retiring from the NFL,” he said in a statement he issued later Sunday. “But in my 10th NFL season, I have been doing what my body has been programmed to do: Get ready to play on game day. I’ve endured multiple surgeries and have played through many different injuries throughout my career and, over the last few weeks, this was the latest physical challenge. But today on the field, reality hit me fast and hard: I shouldn’t be out there anymore.” . . .

Though Davis said he meant no “disrespect” to his fellow players, some of one made clear that he didn’t interpret it that way. Linebacker Lorenzo Alexander, who told reporters about his former teammates’ mid-game retirement after the game ended, slammed the “completely disrespectful” move.

“Never have seen it ever,” said the linebacker. “Pop Warner, high school, college, pros. Never heard of it. Never seen it. And it’s just completely disrespectful to his teammates. … He didn’t say nothing to nobody. … I found out going into the second half of the game. They said he’s not coming out, he retired. That’s it.” (Read more from “NFL Player Shocks Team, Retires Mid-Game. Teammate Lets Him Know How He Feels About It.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s How Some Liberals Describe the Issue of Abortion

By Townhall. As liberal legislators vociferously oppose the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, they have pointed to abortion and Roe v. Wade. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) recently asserted that the landmark abortion case pertains to the issues of individual liberty and the limitation of governmental involvement in people’s lives:

“Roe v. Wade isn’t just about women, it’s about personal liberty & limits on a government’s ability to interfere in intimate, personal decisions ALL Americans make,” Feinstein tweeted. “Brett Kavanaugh could be the vote to overturn Roe and all the progress we’ve made. #WhatsAtStake” . . .

In a tweet expressing congratulations to Planned Parenthood’s new president, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) described “the right to a safe abortion” as a form of “health care.” . . .

“Congratulations to @DrLeanaWen on being named the President of @PPFA. We’re at a pivotal moment in the fight for women’s reproductive rights & I look forward to partnering to ensure that all women receive the health care they deserve, including the right to a safe abortion,” she tweeted. (Read more from “Here’s How Some Liberals Describe the Issue of Abortion” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Pro-Abortion Doctor Was “Horrified” After Seeing Aborted Baby’s Hand, Becomes Pro-Life

By Life Site News. . .Chapman was an OB/GYN practicing in England before abortion was legal. She had no personal experience with abortion, and pro-abortion propaganda swayed her toward the mindset of supporting abortion. . .

“In those days, I thought that women only had terminations in cases of rape, incest, chronic and serious health conditions, or if made to have abortions by vicious and uncaring husbands. I thought the decision was a private matter between the woman and her doctor and the doctor always knew best…. I believed in a woman’s right to choose, and to have reproductive freedom.”

Despite this misinformation, Chapman only recognized what an abortion did when she was asked to examine a woman who had just had a D&C procedure. Used to treat various problems such as miscarriages, fibroids, polyps and uterine cancer, the procedure involves scraping the lining of a woman’s uterus and removing the tissue. When a woman is pregnant, however, a D&C aborts the unborn child.

“I carried out an internal examination and was shocked, indeed horrified, to feel a tiny baby’s hand in the vagina. ‘You were pregnant!’ I screamed. ‘No, I wasn’t,’ she replied. Her denial, and the duplicity of the doctor who admitted her for a ‘D&C’ stunned me. The scales fell from my eyes and I realized, for the first time, that abortion consisted of the dismembering of a living human being, and was not, as the media was pleased to say, the scraping out of a few cells and some blood.”

When Chapman saw the child’s hand, she said her life was changed forever. She became pro-life, refusing to perform abortions even when threatened with the loss of her job. She went on to write “Abortion: The Patient’s and the Doctor’s Dilemma” in 2007 and continues to work with women and discuss life-affirming options that do not involve aborting their own child. (Read more from “Pro-Abortion Doctor Was “Horrified” After Seeing Aborted Baby’s Hand, Becomes Pro-Life” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftists in Complete Frenzy After Learning Trump Will Be Able to Message All Americans

If you’re a cell phone owner — and I’m assuming that applies to most of you in 2018 — you’ve probably received one of those alerts on your phone about an abducted child or a possible weather emergency, or just the usual test message.

Well, now FEMA is about to conduct a national test of part of their alert system in which the president can notify the American people in the event of an emergency, which is something that has to be pretty uncontroversial, right? I mean, there’s absolutely no way that this could possibly be problematic. . .

So, here’s the occasion that has liberals all in a tizzy: “The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), will conduct a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) on September 20, 2018,” the agency announced via a release.

“The WEA portion of the test commences at 2:18 p.m. EDT, and the EAS portion follows at 2:20 p.m. EDT. The test will assess the operational readiness of the infrastructure for distribution of a national message and determine whether improvements are needed.”

So far, so normal. The part they don’t like? “The EAS is a national public warning system that provides the President with the communications capability to address the nation during a national emergency,” the release reads.

(Read more from “Leftists in Complete Frenzy After Learning Trump Will Be Able to Message All Americans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Study Is Guaranteed to Tick off Gender-Fluidity Champions

A new study indicates that contrary to the position of social justice activists, gender differences may be very real indeed.

The study’s authors write, “We explored the time course of the two main interesting variables for the respective research question: 1) attractiveness and 2) gender, both processed on the basis of mere presentation of frontal 2D faces. Our rationale was as follows: If gender is processed earlier than attractiveness, once cannot exclude the possibility that sexual markers are already taken into account early in the processing of attractiveness. In other words, attractiveness assessment at a very early stage is highly probably gender-specific.”

Later, the authors note, “All predictor variables mentioned above, except for symmetry (which might be called a pure perceptual property) seem to be at least indirectly dependent on the antecedent processing of gender; averageness and skin, as well as cues associated with personality distribution, seem all to be based on gender-specific norms and distributions, thus, a reliable distribution of such qualities requires the successful identification and processing of the respective gender.”

(Read more from “New Study Is Guaranteed to Tick off Gender-Fluidity Champions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Arrested for Falsely Accusing Trump Supporting Teens of Crime

New York law enforcement officials charged 19-year-old Adwoa Lewis with making a false punishable written statement on Saturday after she falsely accused four Trump-supporting teenagers of slashing her tires and leaving her a note that told her to “go home.”

Lewis gave Nassau County police a written statement on Friday claiming to be the victim of a hate crime which she said happened while “she was driving home in Long Island September 2 when four teens confronted her,” the Daily Mail reported.

Lewis claimed that the four teens yelled “Trump 2016!” before they told her that she “didn’t belong here.” . . .

Police determined throughout the course of an investigation that no confrontation ever happened as Lewis had alleged.

Police later said that Lewis admitted that she wrote the note herself and placed it on her car. (Read more from “Woman Arrested for Falsely Accusing Trump Supporting Teens of Crime” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Privileged Actress Attacks ‘Straightness’ and ‘Whiteness’

Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s National Dinner on Saturday night, Oscar-winning actress Anne Hathaway attacked “straightness” and “whiteness” saying, “It is important to acknowledge with the exception of not being a cisgender male, everything about how I was born has put me at the current center of a damaging and widely accepted myth. That myth is that gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.”

Hathaway continued, “This myth is wrong, but this myth is too real for too many. It is ancient, so it is trusted. It is a habit, so it is assumed to be the way things are. It’s inherited, so it’s thought immutable. Its consequences are dangerous because it prioritizes a certain kind of love; a certain kind of body, a certain kind of skin color, and does not value in the same way anything it deems to be other to itself.”

Then Hathaway segued to the idea that it is a select few white people who hold money and power and deny that same money and power to all others: “It is a myth that is with us from birth, and it is a myth that keeps money and power in the hands of the few instead of being invested in the lives of the free.”

Hathaway, whose older brother is gay, left the Catholic Church with her family after her brother went public about his sexual orientation; the family joined the Episcopal church.

(Read more from “Watch: Privileged Actress Attacks ‘Straightness’ and ‘Whiteness'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.