Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘First Amendment asault’

Forget Jade Helm: Obama quietly implementing OUTRAGEOUS rule against gun owners


waving flagWritten by Allen West on June 9, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/forget-jade-helm-obamas-state-dept-quietly-implementing-outrageous-rule-against-gun-owners

citizens armed tyranny

The-Great-Australian-Gun-Buyback-600x387
The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That statement is pretty clear to understand and comprehend, yet some folks just can’t seem to get over it. There are liberal progressive folks of the left who feel it is their mission in life to relegate the Second Amendment as meaningless. Now, what I am about to say will probably anger some people but so be it. 

I’m often asked about FEMA camps along the interstate, Walmart stores closing, and the impending Operation Jade Helm. I continue to tell people that while you’re running around with your hair on fire concerning yourself about these stories, the Obama administration is doing the “Kansas City Shuffle” — you look right while they go left.

Get a load of THIS quiet assault going on – not just on our Second Amendment, but our First as well.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

“In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.”

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting. “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.” who want unarmed citizens

The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Of course you’re asking, how can this be done and what does the State Department have to do with this?

As the Examiner writes, “At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Criminals and DictatorsRegulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers. The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.”

As typical for the government gobbledegook, it took State Department 14-pages to explain but the NRA sought to encapsulate their overreach: “With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”

Now of course the Obama defenders will say what does this have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms — much ado about nothing. But here is the objective: the government is seeking to restrict the free speech of American gun owners and the gun industry in sharing information pertaining to their ability to keep arms. Furthermore, the government is using regulatory coercion and threat of imprisonment to create behavior modification — not exactly a positive reflection on our governing system.

In addition, the Obama administration is seeking to surrender U.S. Constitutional gun ownership rights to international code — aright violation of the sovereignty of our Republic. It’s just another attempt to chip away at our liberty by circumventing the legislative process and our rule of law. THAT is why this matters.

We’re entering that dangerous area of critical mass where America has an executive branch and a president who in their final eighteen months together will complete their fundamental transformation — by any means necessary. The Obama administration and the progressive socialist left have effectively become “da man.” And because they’ve gone down that path, we may be entering a time of warranted civil disobedience. To think, that if I, Allen West, a law-abiding American citizen, were to write technical details or make a video about my Bushmaster AR-15 on this website without prior approval of the State Department, I could face a $1 million fine or 20 years in jail is simply beyond belief and comprehension. Welcome to the new America, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal progressives.

Message to State Department: first of all, teach John Kerry how to ride a bike, then leave us the heck alone and stop trying to undermine our individual rights.Second Amendment

Message to President Obama: get a strategy to defeat ISIS, because we are not going to allow you to disarm our citizenry so your Islamist pals can overtake us here in our homeland. And I say that fully aware that PSD-11 demonstrates the Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood — and we know exactly what the Brotherhood has intended for America in their Explanatory Memorandum written in 1991 by Mohammed Akhram. In case you don’t know, a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11 was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no one is allowed to actually read it.ban

So please folks, instead of FEMA camps, FEMA camps, study the ITAR and realize how the Obama administration is doing everything possible to slowly undermine your right to keep and bear arms. Then, flood State Department phone lines demanding they rescind the unconstitutional rule or face the wrath of American gun owners who will not comply.freedom combo 2

Sally Kohn’s Small Business Refuses to Serve Everyone


by John Nolte, 1 Apr 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/01/sally-kohns-small-business-refuses-to-serve-everyone/

  • CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.
  • Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.
  • Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.
  • Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.
  • Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.
  • Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.
  • Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.
  • Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.
  • Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.
  • Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.
  • Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.
  • Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.
  • Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the  government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.
  • Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.
  • Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver “an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech,” but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyone’s toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.
  • Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).
  • Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.
  • Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.
  • Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.
  • Sally does not believe Bob’s First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.
  • Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.
  • Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.
  • Bob would never dream of trampling Sally’s First Amendment rights.
  • Sally wants the government to trample Bob’s First Amendment rights.

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…

“Any business can already discriminate in any way it sees fit — as long as it’s not discriminating on the basis of a protected identity. Period.  So, for instance, a restaurant can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or even “no people wearing blue shirts” as long as the reasoning or motivation isn’t a protected identity. So you can’t deny service based or race or religion. That’s the law.”

Kohn adds that she “wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to have that protected legal status — which they do under the laws in some states, but not most, and not at the federal level.”

She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s viewpoints on an issue. Because for instance, whether you’re against *or* for abortion is NOT a legally protected class of identity.”

“Even still, incidentally, under my understanding of the law, if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to come to my bakery and buy the same cake I sell everyone else, I’d have to sell them one. BUT I wouldn’t have to write “God Hates Fags” on it, just like I wouldn’t have to write a curse word on it if I didn’t want to. Because that’s not form of discrimination we legally/constitutionally protect against.”To-Bake-Or-Not-To-BakePicture3

“Free speech by the way doesn’t legally apply here because the government isn’t compelling any speech.”

“In sum, if you run a bakery and don’t want to follow the laws of our country and serve all people equally, get out of the bakery business. Certainly no one is forcing you to run a bakery.”more evidence

When I asked if like her right to not write “God Hates Fags” on the cake if a Christian baker was protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.

“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”Truth The New Hate Speech

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust. This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product. This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one another’s sincerely held beliefs. It is also about equal protection under the law — in this case the very first Amendment.

Picture6

Houston’s Homosexual Major Wants Pastor’s Sermon Notes and Recordings


Obamacare

Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/13/2014

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/major-u-s-city-demands-oversight-of-sermons/

Houston Mayor Annise Parker

Houston Mayor Annise Parker. Major U.S. city demands oversight of sermons

Officials with the city of Houston, Texas, who are defending a controversial ordinance that would allow men to use women’s restrooms now have demanded to see the sermons preached by several area pastors.

The recent move came in a subpoena from the city to pastors for copies of their sermons and other communications in the city’s legal defense of a “non-discrimination” measure that allows “gender-confused” people to use public restrooms designated for the opposite sex.Transgender

A lawsuit challenging Houston’s move alleges the city violated its own charter in its adoption of the Equal Rights Ordinance, which in May designated homosexuals and transgender persons as a protected class.

Critics say the measure effectively enables sexual predators who dress as women to enter female public bathrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities. A coalition of activists that includes area pastors filed suit Aug. 6 against the city and lesbian Mayor Annise Parker after officials announced a voter petition to repeal the measure didn’t have enough signatures to qualify for the election ballot.

Parker, who has acknowledged the ordinance is “all about me,” was legally married to her same-sex partner in California in January.

Obama Big Brother 02The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion to quash the city’s demands to see the sermons. ADF argues the pastors are not party to the lawsuit, and the city’s strategy doesn’t meet the requirements of state law that requires such efforts “be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, not be overly broad, seek only information that is not privileged and relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, and not cause undue burden or harassment.”

ADF said city officials “are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each other’s restrooms.”

ADF attorneys say the city is “illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.”

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb said the city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is needless and unprecedented.

“The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique CP 03of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment,” she said.

While the public submitted more than three times the legally required number of petition signatures to require city action, and the city secretary certified the number as sufficient, the mayor and city attorney “defied” the law and rejected the certification, ADF said.

“The message is clear: oppose the decisions of city government, and drown in unwarranted, burdensome discovery requests,” said a brief in support of the motion to quash. “These requests, if allowed, will have a chilling effect on future citizens who might consider circulating referendum petitions because they are dissatisfied with ordinances passed by the city council.’

“Not only will the nonparty pastors be harmed if these discovery requests are allowed, but the people will suffer as well. The referendum process will become toxic and the people will be deprived of an important check on city government provided them by the charter.The Persecution has Begun

WND has reported similar measures in other jurisdictions across the country. Opponents point to incidents such a man in Indianapolis who allegedly went into a women’s locker room at a YMCA and watched girls, ages 7 and 10, shower.

Opposition in Houston was led by a coalition including the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston, the Houston Area Pastor Council, the Houston Ministers against Crime, AME Ministers Alliance of Houston/Gulf Coast, the Northeast Ministers Alliance, the South Texas Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, the South Texas District of the Assemblies of God and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

The coalition had submitted more than 55,000 signatures in the referendum drive. City Secretary Anna Russell confirmed in writing Aug. 1 that the petition sponsors had submitted 17,846 qualified signatures, nearly 600 above the minimum 17,269.

However, City Attorney David Feldman announced 2,750 petitions were invalid because of “technical problems.”TECHNICAL

Opponents have argued Feldman did not have the authority to step in and make the decision and that it should have been handled by the courts.

Critics dubbed the Houston law the “sexual predator protection act,” claiming that by designating transgender or gender-confused persons as a protected class, women and children are threatened by predators seeking to exploit the ordinance’s ambiguous language.act

Political activist Steven F. Hotze said the ordinance would establish minority status for transvestites, allowing men who dress as women to enter women’s public bathrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities.

“I want to protect my wife, daughters and granddaughters from being exposed to the dangers of male sexual predators masquerading as women in women’s public bathrooms and other facilities,” he said. “This is why it has been called the Sexual Predators’ Protection Act.”act

ShovingSimilar cases also have erupted in Maryland, Florida and Colorado, which adopted a radical “transgender nondiscrimination” bill in 2008 that makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the “perception” of gender identity. One consequence of the law is a ruling forcing authorities to permit 6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy who says he thinks he’s a girl – to use the girls bathroom at his elementary school.

Nationwide, 17 states and the District of Columbia have embraced the transsexual agenda. Rhode Island added “gender identity and expression” to its anti-discrimination law in June with the support of Gov. Jack Markell, and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden announced his support in an Equality Delaware video.

But other attempts to advance the transsexual agenda were defeated in Montana, Missouri, North Dakota and New York, where state Senate leaders refused to allow a vote.

Here what happened in Washington state:

 transgender

Imperial President ObamaThe Obama administration is solidly behind the move to open locker room doors to some members of the opposite sex.

  • President Obama signed the U.N. Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity;
  • The White House hosted the first-ever meeting with transgender activists;
  • The Department of State made it easier for transsexuals to change the sex indicated on passports;
  • The U.S. Justice Department sided with a transsexual individual in an employment discrimination suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives;
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled for the first time last year that “gender identity or expression” in the workplace is protected under federal civil rights law;
  • The Office of Personnel Management inserted “gender identity” for the first time into its federal workplace anti-discrimination policy;
  • The American Psychiatric Association removed “gender identity disorder” from its list of mental health ailments in late 2012, a move some regarded as a lifting of the social stigma attached to transsexual behavior.

Article collective closing

Tag Cloud