Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

This is The Cartoon That Won The “Draw Muhammad” Contest in Texas

By Steve Straub – 59 Comments · In US

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/this-is-the-cartoon-that-won-the-draw-muhammad-contest-in-texas

Here’s the cartoon that won the draw Muhammad contest in Texas yesterday that drew ISIS attackers:

Does this cartoon justify mass murder? BizPac Review reports:

Only when it comes to Islamic terror do liberals try to blame the victims. But conservatives weren’t letting them get away with it on Monday.

In the aftermath of the attack on the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas, that left one guard wounded and two terrorists dead, social media has been on fire with arguments over where the blame should be placed. Naturally, in an era of bootlickers for Islamist terrorists, there was no shortage of those trying to lay responsibility for the attacks at the feet of the victims, including a hit piece from British tabloid “The Daily Mail” attacking controversial event organizer Pamela Geller.

”New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi also asked, “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest?’” Astounding that a journalist would ever start a sentence by putting free speech aside.

Fortunately, plenty of people, including Geller herself, placed the blame where it belonged: On the two Islamic terrorists whose response to art they dislike is to try to kill people. “This is a war. This is war on free speech,” she wrote on her blog Atlas Shrugs. “What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

By Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren For Dailymail.com

Published: 19:39 EST, 3 May 2015 | Updated: 16:04 EST, 4 May 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3066779/Police-officer-suspect-said-injured-shooting-outside-art-anti-Muslim-exhibition-art-depicting-prophet-Muhammad.html#ixzz3ZCqRoM6p

A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after the two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

Elton Simpson, 30, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, and his roommate Nadir Soofi, 34, were armed with assault rifles when they were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.

The shooting unfolded as the American Freedom Defense Initiative held an event inside the building where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were being displayed. Followers of Islam deem that any physical depiction of the prophet – even a positive one – is blasphemous.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

Soofi, named as the second gunman by the Washington Post, shared an apartment with Simpson at the Autumn Ridge complex in Phoenix.

On Monday morning, FBI agents and investigators could be seen cordoning off and searching the apartment, as well as a white van believed to belong to Simpson. Investigators are also reviewing computer records from materials found at the home.

Shot dead: Elton Simpson, pictured left, and Nadir Soofi, right, opened fire outside an anti-Islam event on Sunday evening in Texas

: Killed: FBI crime scene investigators look at the bodies of the two killed gunmen outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas on Monday. Police killed the two men after they opened fire at an anti-Islam event on Sunday

: ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site

On Monday, Simpson’s father said that he believes his son, who had worked in a dentist’s office, ‘made a bad choice’.

‘We are Americans and we believe in America,’ Dunston Simpson told ABC News. ‘What my son did reflects very badly on my family.’

Ahead of the attack on Sunday evening, several Twitter messages were sent out, and authorities believe Simpson was behind them. The last one was shared just half an hour before the shooting.

Followers of ISIS had been calling for an attack online for more than a week after learning that the competition in Garland would feature a ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest, with a prize of $10,000 for the best caricature.After the attack, the SITE Intelligence Group reported that an Islamic State fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-Isis individuals.

In a series of tweets and links, a jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British IS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas.

‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet.

Other ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the now-suspended account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said ‘the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack’.

The contest was just minutes from finishing when multiple gunshots were heard.

The two suspects had pulled up in a vehicle before getting out and firing at a security officer, 57-year-old Bruce Joiner, who was employed by the independent school district. He was later taken to hospital in a stable condition and was released on Sunday evening.

Attack: The bodies of shooting suspects are seen next to their vehicle as it is searched for explosives at an anti-Muslim event in Texas on Sunday. The two men had got out the vehicle and opened fire, wounding a security guard in the leg, before they were shot by police

Elton Simpson was well known to the FBI. In 2010, he was convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia – although a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group.

During the investigation, an FBI informant recorded their conversations, which showed Simpson talking about his intentions to fight for the Muslim way of life.

Court documents state: ‘Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away”…. “[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”‘

He added that in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Somalia, ‘they trying to bring democracy over there man, they’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws’.

He went on: ‘That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.’

In a recording from 2009, he told the informant that it was time they went to Somalia.

‘It’s time,’ he said. ‘I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… It’s time to roll…

‘People fighting and killing your kids, and dropping bombs on people that have nothing to do with nothing. You got to fight back you can’t be just sitting down… smiling at each other…’

As the gunmen got out of their car with their weapons, one police officer – a tenured traffic cop – shot both men dead, Garland Police officer Joe Harn said at a press conference on Monday. The officer used his service pistol to shoot the men, who were carrying assault weapons.

‘With what he was faced with and his reaction and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job,’ Harn said of the officer.

‘He did what he was trained to do, and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job and probably saved lives. We think their strategy was to get into the events center and they were not able to get past that outer perimeter.’

Randy Potts, a contributor for The Daily Beast, recalled how he was watching the speeches wrap up when a man wearing camouflage shouted: ‘Get inside the conference room now!’

‘The room was oddly quiet,’ he said. ‘A hush fell over the crowd of about 150, as if we were listening for something outside. Then a camo-clad security guard with a rifle got up on stage and announced that a cop and two suspects had been shot.’

He described how security surrounding the event was evident even as he drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center. The parking lot was surrounded by yellow tape and his ID was checked twice before he was allowed to enter.

Johnny Roby of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, had also been attending the conference. He said he was outside the building when he heard around 20 shots that appeared to be coming from the direction of a passing car.

Roby said he then heard two single shots before officers yelled that they had the car before he was sent inside the building.

The building, which had about 100 people inside, and surrounding areas were placed on lockdown by SWAT teams.

FBI bomb squad robots were then sent in to check the suspects’ vehicle, as the two bodies of the gunmen lay on the road beside it. The bodies were not immediately taken from the scene because they were too close to the car, which police feared had incendiary devices inside.

Shortly before midnight, police alerted media that a strong electronic pulse would be activated near the scene, presumably as part of the bomb squad’s work, and a loud boom was heard moments later, though police did not comment further on what was carried out.

The art event had been condemned by critics as an attack on Islam, but the organizers insisted they were exercising free speech.

Some Twitter users began posting about the shooting using a #JeSuisGarland hashtag, mirroring the #JesuisCharlie hashtag that became popular after January’s jihadist attacks in France. In that incident, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its cartoons of the prophet.

After the gunfire in Garland, those inside the building started to sing patriotic songs, including the national anthem and God Bless America, and said a prayer for the injured security guard after one woman pulled out an American flag from her bag.

Garland Police officer Joe Harn said on Sunday evening they had been monitoring the build-up to the event and had not received any credible threats.

During a press conference, he described how the shootout lasted only seconds. A large area around the Center remained blocked off late into the night.

: Update: On Monday, Garland Police spokesperson Joe Harn praised the traffic officer who took down both of the attackers

Texas Governor Greg Abbott described the incident as a ‘senseless attack’ and praised the ‘swift action’ of Garland law enforcement.

: Security guard Bruce Joiner was shot in the leg while standing outside the building. His injuries were not life-threatening

The attack unfolded shortly after Dutch member of parliament and leader of the far-right Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, had delivered his keynote speech. There had been calls by members of Congress for him to be stopped at the border so he would not be able to speak.

‘We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech,’ he said during his speech shortly before the building was shut down. ‘That is our duty… Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.’

His remarks were met with a standing ovation. He then told the audience that most terrorists are Muslims, and ‘the less Islam the better’.

In 2009, he sparked controversy for showing a controversial film which linked the Koran to terrorism and has previously said the Netherlands is being taken over by a ‘tsunami of Islamisation’.

Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event and the leader of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on her personal website after the attack: ‘This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

In a post in late March, she insisted that the event was necessary to fight back against what she described as ‘the jihad against freedom’.

It was set up by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and had been described by opponents as an attack on Islam. They booked the center a little more than a week after Islamic militants in France killed 12 people at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The Garland Independent School district, who own the cultural center, allowed the event to go ahead despite criticism from residents and local Muslims that it was a risk to public safety.

The group spent $10,000 on 40 additional security officers, aware of potential threats they may attract, while Garland Police officers were fully prepared to deal with any issues that arose.

Before the event, the New York-based organisation made the headlines for its sponsorship of anti-Islamic adverts which it paid to run on transit systems in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and San Francisco.

A picture taken from inside the event just before the attack showed Geller giving a check for $12,500 to Bosch Fawtin who won the event.

He told the Dallas Morning News he believed there would be no danger because of the high levels of security surrounding the event.

‘I had known it would be secure, but seeing it is a whole new thing,’ he said before the shootings.

Locals in Garland said they were upset with the exhibit being held in their town, and tried to convince the city council to intervene.

One resident, Dorothy Brooks, said that the event was like shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater – an oft-cited example of freedom of speech taken too far.

She continued: ‘I understand that participants have a right to express themselves with cartoons, but I regret that this will be happening in our city.’

Another, Lena Griffin, asked at a city council meeting: ‘Do we want to be involved with this type of rhetoric?’ It is not an issue of free speech but clearly one of public safety.’

Winner: Artist Bosh Fawstin (left) is presented with a check for $12,500 by Dutch politician Geert Wilders (center) and Pamela Geller (right) during a ceremony at the Curtis Culwell Center just before the shootings occurred

The site obtained a letter from congressmen Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and André Carson (D-Indiana) sent to John Kerry and Homeland Security asking them to bar a speaker for the event from entering the United States.

Caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have triggered violent protests in the past, including when the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published 12 satirical cartoons in 2005, triggering deadly protests in some Muslim countries.

In January, just weeks after the Paris attacks, an event called Stand with the Prophet was held in the same center. Muslim leaders from across the world gathered to try and combat ‘Islamophobes in America’ who had turned Muhammad into an ‘object of hate’.

Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event. One chanted: ‘Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!’ Others held signs with messages such as, ‘Insult those who behead others,’ an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

Mr Abbott said state officials are investigating, and Dallas FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said that the agency is providing investigative and bomb technician assistance.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was followed by another a month later in Europe. A masked gunman sprayed bullets into a Copenhagen meeting in February attended by a Swedish artist who had been threatened with death for his cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

A civilian was killed and three police officers were injured in the attack, aimed at artist Lars Vilks, who stirred controversy in 2007 with published drawings depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a dog.

Denmark itself became a target 10 years ago after the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. The images led to sometimes fatal protests in the Muslim world.

CONTROVERSIAL CARICATURES: WHY DEPICTING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS BANNED BY MUSLIMS

It’s not mentioned in Islam’s holy book, the Quran, but the religion’s ban on depicting the Prophet Muhammad — even favorably — has run firm through the centuries.

Religious traditions built over the years have prohibited such depictions out of respect for Muhammad and to discourage idolatry, according to Muslim scholars and clerics. The ban is further rooted in a wider prohibition against images or statues of human beings.

There have been exceptions. A rich tradition of depicting Muhammad emerged in miniatures and illustrations for manuscripts from around 1200 to 1700. The art is mainly from Turkey and Iran, where pictorial traditions were stronger than in the Arab world. The paintings often show traditional stories from Muhammad’s life, such as his journey to heaven, though in some the prophet’s face is obscured by a veil or a plume of flame.

Shiites also differ from Sunnis by depicting Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, revered by Shiites who see him as the prophet’s rightful successor. His image — and those of his sons Hassan and Hussein — are plentiful among Shiites, adorning posters, banners, jewelry and even keychains. For Sunnis, the ban on depictions extends beyond the prophet to his close companions and wives.

‘The Prophet Muhammad enjoys sublime and supreme status among Muslims and it is impossible to let a normal person depict or act the role of the prophet,’ said Iraqi Shiite cleric Fadhil al-Saadi. ‘There is no confirmed information about the shape or the features of the Prophet … So nobody should come up with a painting or an image of him. That would represent an insult to the status of the prophet.’

With no explicit text against depictions — or against images of humans in general — the prohibition comes from deduction by Muslim scholars and interpreters over the centuries from the collections of Hadeeth, or sayings and actions of Muhammad.

The prohibition against depicting humans and other living beings, which emerged from scholars as early as the 9th century, came from reported sayings of Muhammad, in some of which he refused to enter a room with such depictions or challenged their creators to breathe life into them. The presumption was that such art would suggest man can emulate God’s powers of creation — and there were worries that statues in particular could encourage idolatry.

Islamic tradition is full of written descriptions of Muhammad and his qualities — describing him as the ideal human being. But clerics have generally agreed that trying to depict that ideal is forbidden. That puts satirical — and obscene — depictions like those in the French magazing Charlie Hebdo far beyond the pale.

While no one knows Muhammad’s true appearance, followers of the relatively modern, ultraconservative Salafi movement in Islam seek to emulate him as closely as possible — including in what they believe to be his physical features and dress. Hardcore Salafis wear a beard without a moustache, let their hair grow long, line their eyes with kohl or wear robes stopping around mid-shin, contending that was the prophet’s manner.

The ban also extends to his wives, daughters, sons-in-law, the first caliphs who succeeded him and his closest companions. In fact, Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni world’s foremost seat of religious learning, has complained when ‘Mohammed, Messenger of God,’ an epic 1970s Hollywood production, depicted the prophet’s camel.

There is a thriving production of religious TV series in the Arab world depicting the times of the prophet. But Muhammad and his companions are never themselves shown. At times, a white light stands in for Muhammad in the films or in movie posters — and when they are meant to be addressing Muhammad, the actors usually speak into the camera.

My Own Two Cents………

Regardless of how you feel about the event, there is one fact that must remain absolutely clear. The event was about FREE SPEECH, organized by, and conducted by, people who are fed up with all the Islamification of America. Anytime you have one group of people controlling what all other groups can, and cannot say, is a form of tyranny that can never be tolerated. How they expressed this with the cartoons is objected to by people from all political sides. I understand. Still, killing people because you don’t like their speech can never be accepted.

We are Americans. Our freedoms have been eroded since the Wilson administration. What you are hearing are the voices of patriots refusing to give up quietly, and without a fight. I am one person who is tired of all the talk. and with this blog, and other activities, I am trying to wake up Americans to action (not violence).

I leave you with the following image I just created. Get ready. You are going to see it a lot in the coming days.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Why the 3 Percent is Beating the 30 Percent and Will Target Churches Next

Posted 10 hours ago by Gary DeMar

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/21601/3-percent-beating-30-percent/#CSj1AGL32k0LTvZV.99

As I pointed out in a “When Gays Fire-Bombed a Church: ‘Gay Rights or Gay Riots,’” Christians have been the target in the homosexual debate going back more than 30 years. Homosexuals learned that by attacking one church or one person at a time, they could get pro-homosexual precedents established. They also learned that there was never much of a groundswell of support for the victims who opposed same-sex sexuality. Churches didn’t want to get involved, so many of those who were attacked were left defenseless. Because of the lack of broad Christian support, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel were founded, as well as other legal advocacy groups, to defend the victims of same-sex bullying.

These groups had a lot of catching up to do. The ACLU, founded in 1920, has had a 60-year head start. It has more than 500,000 members and an annual budget of over $100 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in all 50 states and Puerto Rico and have their own budgets.

How did we get in the situation where those who identify as LGBTQQA* make up around three percent of the population and are setting the agenda when Christians make up around 35 percent? Homosexuals have been successful in redefining everything, so much so that using Husband/Wife; girlfriend/boyfriend; mom/dad is now considered a form of “heterosexism.”

A tiny minority of woman are claiming that it’s “sexist” to refer to Hillary Clinton as just “Hillary” even though there is a “Ready for Hillary” super PAC and posters with her image with only “Hillary” identifying her. Double standards and hypocrisy are rampant among liberals. But that’s another story.

In addition, homosexuals have taken over the courts by getting their lawyers in places of legal power to impose a radical sexual agenda on America.

So where have tens of millions of Christians been? They’ve developed their own self-defeating narrative that keeps them out of the fight. Here is some of their warped theology:

Jesus never got mixed up in politics (so why should we?)
There’s a separation between church and state (even though there isn’t any such constitutional claim)
The Christian’s citizenship is in heaven (it didn’t stop the Apostle Paul from using his Roman citizenship: Acts 22:25-29)
We can’t impose our morality on other people (all law is the imposition of somebody’s view of morality/immorality)
We’re not to judge (what’s forbidden is inconsistency: Matt. 7:1-2)
Politics is dirty (and so is everything else)
Religion and politics don’t mix (then why are murder, stealing, and rape morally wrong?)
Jesus wasn’t a social reformer (He didn’t get married, have children, or own a home either)
Christians should remain neutral (neutrality is impossible and leads to being neutralized)
God’s kingdom is not of this world (God’s kingdom is in, over, and through this world)
It’s never right to resist authority (“We must obey God rather than men”: Acts 5:29)
The church should only preach the gospel. (preaching the gospel is the first step followed by teaching the “whole purpose of God”: Acts 20:27)
We’re living in the last days (How long have we been hearing this claim?)
And the most often used excuse?: “We’re afraid we might lose our tax-exempt status.”

The way things are going, churches may lose their tax-exempt status anyway if homosexuals continue to press their agenda and a majority of Christians try to stay “neutral.”

“This is the only logical end for militant gay activism. Now a gay/LGBT group in Wyoming is demanding that the government shut down any church that has the temerity to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Jeran Artery, the chairman of the gay group Wyoming Equality, posted the stunning statement to his Facebook page … but like all liberals quickly removed it hoping that it would go down the Internet memory hole.”

: Jeran Artery, Chairman of the Homosexual Group Wyoming Equality

Artery said: “Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501(c)3 status revoked!!”

He’s not the only one. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni and furniture tycoon Mitchell Gold “have agreed that Christian churches ‘must’ be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an ‘ossified’ doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.”

In the comment section of Facebook people claimed, “It will never happen.” I asked, “Ten years ago, who could have imaged that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding would lead to fines and the loss of a business?”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City Bans Pro-Life Banner Saying “Choose Life”

Posted by Steven Ertelt Mar 17, 2015, New York, NY

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/17/st-patricks-day-parade-in-new-york-city-bans-pro-life-banner-saying-choose-life/

A local pro-life group that promotes adoption as an abortion alternative has been banned from today’s St. Patrick’s Day parade and prevented from displaying its pro-life banner, reading “Choose Life,” in the parade. The Children First Foundation, a pro-adoption group that applied to march in the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade, will not be marching today in the world’s oldest and largest parade because it tells LifeNews.com that it was blocked, stonewalled and officially rejected by the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee.

“Why? That is an important and serious question that the parade organizers should be asked to answer,” Dr. Elizabeth Rex, president of the pro-life group, told LifeNews today.

Rex explained that, following a September press conference that introduced Cardinal Dolan as the 2015 Grand Marshal and explained the “change of policy,” the Wall Street Journal reported that a pro-life group would be able to march in the parade. Then, something changed.

“Dennis Saffran, in a well-documented article entitled “Parade Blarney” published in City Journal, the nation’s premier urban-policy magazine, (www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0313ds.html) chronicles the parade organizers’ obvious shenanigans that led to the “exclusion” of a pro-life banner while allowing the “inclusion” of a gay banner in the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City,” Rex said.

“History will now report that in 2015 there was “no room in the parade” for an organization dedicated to helping pregnant women. Fortunately, the Church of the Holy Innocents, extended a warm welcome to The Children First Foundation and to their banned “Choose Life” banner at their historic church at 128 West 37th Street, close to the parade route between Broadway and 7th Avenue,” Rex said.

Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights,has withdrawn his support for the event because pro-life groups have been excluded. He said the reason for withdrawing his support “has to do with being betrayed by the parade committee. They not only told me one thing and did another, they decided to include a gay group that is neither Catholic nor Irish while stiffing pro-life Catholics. This is as stunning as it is indefensible.”

ACTION: Complain to the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Political Cartoons People Have Sent to Me

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

WND – http://www.wnd.com – Stone-throwing Muslims bloody Christians in Michigan

Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/27/2014

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/christians-bloodied-by-stone-throwing-muslims-in-michigan/

Dearbornistan32 The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has decided to review a First Amendment complaint brought by Christians who were assaulted by a rock-throwing Muslim mob at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan.

The case arose from the annual Arab International Festival in June 2012 when Wayne County sheriff’s deputies stood by while a Muslim mob threw rocks at Christians, bloodying them.

The officers then threatened the Christians with arrest if they didn’t leave the event.

The Christians brought a lawsuit against Wayne County over its officers’ actions, and a three-judge panel dismissed it.

But a majority of 6th Circuit judges has agreed to re-hear the case.

The case, shepherded by the American Freedom Law Center, isn’t the first time that Muslim mob violence has erupted at the Arab festival. Earlier, a group of Christians was awarded more than $100,000 in damages because of attacks there.

In the latest case, Robert J. Muise, senior counsel for the AFLC, called the decision to re-hear “great news for religious freedom and the freedom of speech.”

“The panel’s [overturned] decision rewards violence over protected speech and thus incorporates into the First Amendment what is known as a ‘heckler’s veto.’ We are confident that the full court will reverse this ‘dangerously wrong’ decision,” he said.

The 6th Circuit’s rules note that granting such a re-hearing is rare.

“A petition for rehearing en banc is an extraordinary procedure intended to bring to the attention of the entire court a precedent-setting error of exceptional public importance.”

The dissent from the panel’s decision that earlier had dismissed the case said: “The majority’s first error is its conclusion that the First Amendment did not protect [the Christians’] speech. This is not only wrong, it is dangerously wrong.”

AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi said the First Amendment “is under assault by both Muslim supremacists and Islamists on the one hand and progressives advocating ‘hate-speech’ crimes on the other.”

“The result is a shrinking arena of free speech with government bureaucrats and cultural and civilizational jihadists dictating what is and is not acceptable speech,” he said. “Maybe, just maybe, the Sixth Circuit has decided to draw the line in the sand to protect against any further encroachment upon the sphere of this First Amendment freedom.”

AFLC said the rock-throwing incident left members of the evangelism team bloodied while deputies from the Wayne County sheriff’s office stood by. Then, when Ruben Israel, the leader of the evangelists, asked officers to enforce the law so that Christians could speak, he was told to either leave or be arrested.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the Christians’ message, there is one issue to which there is no dispute: no citizen should be stoned in a city street in America for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech,” Muise said when the case developed.

“And what makes this case so egregious is that law enforcement officers were present and made the conscious choice to allow the Muslim mob to silence the Christian speakers through violence. Indeed, the video of the incident looks like something you would see in the Middle East, not in the United States,” he said.

“While it is shocking to see video of Christians being stoned in the United States for criticizing Islam, it is not necessarily surprising that this incident occurred in Dearborn, Michigan, a city where the mayor and law enforcement have consistently violated Christians’ free speech rights in favor of appeasing a large Muslim population and where, in line with the Islamic legal dictates of Shariah, the Christian Gospel is treated as criminally offensive speech, and violence ‘for the sake of Allah’ is reinforced by arresting or removing the Christians. What you are witnessing on the video is the enforcement of Shariah by a hostile mob and law enforcement aiding and abetting,” Yerushalmi added.

WND reported only a few months before the stoning incident that a court had found local officials in Dearborn liable for $100,000 in damages for arresting a Christian pastor who wanted to hand out Christian tracts at the same festival in 2009.

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen then recommend fees and costs totaling $103,401.96 be awarded in the case, which was handled by attorney Muise on behalf of Christian pastor George Saieg.

Muise, at the time, was with the Thomas More Law Center.

Muise also won acquittals on charges of “disturbing the peace” brought by Dearborn against a group of Christians after they were arrested in 2010 for a similar kind of speech activity.

See video of the 2012 attack:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

October 22, 2014 By Casey Mattox

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.

The news has slowly leaked out as insurers grappling with this change have begun quietly informing employers of this sudden change in the terms of their policy. This is how Kaiser Permanente broke the news to one California church that its insurance policy for its pastors and staff would now include elective abortion coverage:

I want to formally share with you that on August 22, 2014, the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) notified Kaiser Permanente and other affected health plans in writing regarding group contracts that exclude ‘voluntary termination of pregnancy.’

This letter made clear that the DMHC considered health care services related to the termination of pregnancies – whether or not a voluntary termination – a medically necessary basic health care service for which all health care services plans must provide coverage under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act. You may recall that at the request of some employer groups with religious affiliations, Kaiser Permanente submitted a regulatory filing in May 2012 properly notifying the DMHC of a benefit plan option that excluded coverage of voluntary terminations of pregnancies. The DMHC did not object to this filing, permitting Kaiser Permanente to offer such a coverage contract to large group purchasers that requested it. The DMHC acknowledged that it previously permitted these contract exclusions, but now is requiring health care service plans to provide coverage of all terminations of pregnancies, effective immediately. To that end, the DMHC requires Kaiser Permanente and similar health care service plans to initiate steps to modify their plan contracts accordingly.

Effective August 22, Kaiser Permanente will comply with this regulatory mandate.

Churches Can Exclude Chemical Baby Killing, But Not Surgical

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.

This California mandate is in blatant violation of federal law that specifically prohibits California from discriminating against health care plans on the basis that they do not cover abortion. Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation have filed administrative complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (which oversees this federal law) on behalf of individual employees and seven California churches forced into abortion coverage in violation of their conscience.

What will be the administration and the Left’s response to this unprecedented attack on religious liberty? If they couldn’t stand with Hobby Lobby because it was a for-profit business, not a church, and because they thought its conscience concern was misplaced on the abortifacient nature of Plan B, will they now demand religious liberty for churches forced to cover elective abortion? If not now for religious liberty, when?

Do the administration and the left-wing commentariat continue to see any life in the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections at all? The Left’s response to California’s abortion mandate will reveal whether their claims of respect for religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case were serious or mere fig leafs for an even more dismal view of religious liberty than they have let on.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Students Were Passing Out U.S. Constitutions at a Public University. Moments Later, This Happened.

Oct. 14, 2014 7:37pm Oliver Darcy

Officials at a public university in Oregon threatened to call the police on students handing out the U.S. Constitution on campus because they refused to do so in the school’s “free speech area.”

According to Campus Reform, which obtained video of the incident, the group of four students were distributing copies of the Constitution out last Tuesday when they were confronted by administrators at Southern Oregon University.

Footage of the extensive encounter depicts multiple college administrators tell the students that passing out Constitutions in the public area is against school policy and not allowed.

“I would very much like you to leave, if you would, please, because the students have the right to be able to come by here without you guys, you know, invading their space and asking them to do something,” Tim Robitz, director of university housing, told the students.

“We have our free speech zone. I understand that you may not like it, but that’s where it is,” Allyson Beck, the school’s family housing coordinator, also told the students.

The students, affiliated with the group Students for Concealed Carry, refused to comply with the instructions, contending they are unconstitutional.

“Thank you for coming down here and explaining to us the unconstitutional policies here on campus, but we’re not going to move,” one of the students told an administrator.

At multiple points in the video, students unsuccessfully attempted to explain to the officials that because they were on public property, they were legally entitled to protections provided by the First Amendment.

Campus police never appeared to arrive at the scene and the group never complied with the orders to halt their activities.

Group member Stephanie Keaveney later told Campus Reform that the group “encountered wild accusations” because they were pro-gun.

“Administrators accused us of causing an immediate panic for the safety of students in the face of gun violence, or the promotion of such,” she said.

David Hacker, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Campus Reform school administrators were legally wrong.

“Caging students in censorship zones flies in the face of the First Amendment and undermines the reason for education,” he said. “Colleges and universities are and should be the marketplace of ideas, and the Constitution protects the speech rights of everyone, not just groups or students that a few university officials personally choose.”

“Caging students in censorship zones flies in the face of the First Amendment…”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Christians/Jews Criticized For Millennia: Time For Muslims To Buck UP!!

http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/christians-jews-endured-criticism-millennia-time-muslims-buck/#i5wCOkLL2UjQxSZQ.99

Written by Audrey Russo on June 18, 2014

“You grow up the day you have your first real laugh — at yourself.” ~ Ethel Barrymore

Christians understand freedom. It is one of the benefits of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that were the foundation of our great Republic. Christians/Jews allow others to live in freedom to choose how to worship, if they choose to worship. They have been criticized, mocked, demeaned and their beliefs blasphemed for millennia. It has NEVER been necessary for the government to infringe upon and crush those who criticize an ideology…until Islam.

The Islamic world is stuck on “machismo” yet when it comes to their feelings, they appear to be SO super- sensitive that they must control the entire non-Muslim world from giving them a boo-boo on their itty-bitty hearts. And they are attempting this by intense pressure at the United Nations (via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) for laws that just so HAPPEN to comply with Islamic Sharia Law. Blasphemy Laws (controlling speech) command ALL peoples submit to Islamic Law, whether believer or unbeliever (kafir, infidel).

Leaders of the two most populous Muslim countries (Indonesia and Pakistan) have argued vigorously that insults against Muhammed, Islam’s prophet, incite violence and are not legitimate free speech. This coming from the “arbiters” of free speech…Muslim States are the greatest draconian, dictatorial regimes on earth, next to their twin: Communist countries. Even the dubious leader of the Free World, Barack Obama, joined the chorus of hate against free speech at the UN in Sept. 2012, when he stunningly said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

And tragically, Leftists worldwide are happily aiding them on their freedom-crushing course.

A little info for Leftist-poisoned minds: We do not have a right NOT to be offended in this country. Freedom of speech is an inestimable gift that must be respected to be appreciated. And it is a mature matter that should be handled by adults who don’t whine and cry like infants the moment someone steps on their rhetorical toes. Respecting free speech is allowing others to have their voice…whether we agree with them, or not. This concept is foreign to an ideology created by a control-freak named Muhammed, who used the tactics now made an art by the Left: Fool them by their feelings (because if they can get you to bypass your brain, they win).

Bulletin to the followers of Islam: It’s now the 21st century…and Islam must step into it…or slither back into its ominous orifice in the earth. It’s time to buck-up…grow a thick skin on those feeble feelings and enjoy the freedom that Judeo-Christian precepts have established. A whole new world lives outside the iron-fisted burqa of Islam’s ideology…

It’s time to grow up…and enjoy your first real laugh…at yourself!

Image: Courtesy of: http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/bighairynews/2011/04/florida-retard-burns-paper-muslim-retards-kill-people.html

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Agrees to Rule On Limiting First Amendment

http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-agrees-to-rule-on-limiting-first-amendment/

Case will directly impact political hyperbole on the internet

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | June 18, 2014

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

The Supreme Court will soon decide if threatening speech posted on the internet is protected by the First Amendment.

The Court said it will hear an appeal from a Pennsylvania man convicted of making threatening comments on Facebook against his estranged wife, elementary schools, judges and the FBI.Anthony Elonis was convicted of transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce and sentenced to 44 months in prison.

The case is Elonis v. United States.

Mr. Elonis’ lawyers argued an individual should not be convicted of making a threat unless there is evidence he actually intended violence. Elonis said much speech posted on the internet is “inherently susceptible to misinterpretation.” He insisted his posted remarks did not demonstrate a “subjective intent to threaten” based on previous Supreme Court precedent and are protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Justice Department countered by saying Elonis’ argument undermines “one of the central purposes of prohibiting threats,” which is to protect individuals “from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders.”

According to the government the defendant’s behavior was not merely “careless talk, exaggeration, something said in a joking manner or an outburst of transitory anger. The statements that qualify as true threats (from the defendant) thus have a significant, serious character.”

In the past the Court has ruled laws covering threats must not infringe on the First Amendment. This includes “political hyperbole” one may construe as subjectively threatening and “unpleasantly sharp attacks” that are not in fact true threats.

In The Ethics of Liberty Murray Rothbard argues that threats must be “palpable, immediate, and direct” and “embodied in the initiation of an overt act” in order to be considered actual threats. Language, no matter how abusive or subjectively threatening, cannot be regarded as violence.

If the Court rules in favor of the government, the landscape of the internet will change dramatically. Political hyperbole, often uncivil and “unpleasantly sharp,” will become illegal and subject to prosecution.

Last month Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to amend the Constitution in order to limit political speech.

“If ultimately adopted, it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment rescinded a freedom listed as among the fundamental rights of the American people,” warns Ken Klukowski.

Political speech falling outside the parameters set by the ruling political class constitutes a threat to the establishment. This speech flourishes on the internet, specifically on alternative news media websites.

Many lawmakers may indeed be outraged by the ability of individuals like Anthony Elonis to issue verbal threats over the internet. However, for the elite, the overriding agenda is to limit and outlaw speech that may endanger their hold on political power.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Rules Pro-Life Group Can Defend Its Free Speech Rights

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-pro-life-group-can-defend-its-free-speech-rights/

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/16/14

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a pro-life women’s group in a case regarding whether it has a First Amendment right to expose the pro-abortion records of political candidates.

The Susan B. Anthony List is petitioning the high court to allow their First Amendment challenge to Ohio’s “false statement” law to proceed on the grounds that the statute empowers a state agency to determine what constitutes true or false political speech.

In 2010, SBA List attempted to erect billboards to expose then Rep. Steve Driehaus for supporting taxpayer funded abortion by voting for the Affordable Care Act. SBA List was prevented from doing so because of the Ohio law, and was threatened with prosecution if it engaged in similar speech about Driehaus or other candidates in Ohio.

Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled the pro-life group has standing to continue its First Amendment challenge to Ohio’s “false statement” law.

“Today’s decision by the court is a step toward victory for the freedom of speech and the broad coalition of groups who have supported SBA List throughout this case. The truth or falsity of political speech should be judged by voters, not government bureaucrats,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, in an email to LifeNews.

“It is beyond dispute that Obamacare contains multiple abortion-funding provisions,” continued Dannenfelser. “This reality will continue to be an issue in the midterm elections and future election cycles. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, SBA List is now one step closer in its quest to unleash the First Amendment from the constraints imposed by Ohio’s unconstitutional false speech statute. We are optimistic that the district court will rule quickly and will side with the First Amendment, so that we may proceed in Ohio – without fear of prosecution – with our ongoing efforts to inform voters that their elected representatives voted for taxpayer funded abortion.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman told LifeNews, after the decision: “The First Amendment forbids government from acting as a ‘truth commission’ on matters of public debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully upheld the freedom of Americans to speak in accordance with their views by allowing them to challenge laws that silence them. The Susan B. Anthony List’s warnings about abortion funding in Obamacare were objectively true. If that fact was part of what cost this congressman his job, that’s because his constituents, like most Americans, reject taxpayer-funded abortion.”

During the 2010 midterm elections, the Susan B. Anthony List helped defeat 15 out of 20 of the Democrats who failed to hold firm on their pro-life principles during the vote on the Affordable Care Act.

Since 2009 the SBA List, as well as Members of Congress like Reps. John Boehner (R-OH), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), along with other pro-life groups, and the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops, have argued that the Affordable Care Act permits taxpayer funding of abortion.

In 2010, then House Republican Leader John Boehner said, “The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it. Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”

In 2010, Cardinal Francis George, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said, “The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions… Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Stacey Dash viciously attacked by black community for Fox gig

http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/stacey-dash-viciously-attacked-black-community-fox-gig/#Y0ISXeK3hSdAOgqU.99

Written by Allen West on May 30, 2014

Photo: CelebrityNetworth.com via BizPac Review

It never ceases, and it never ceases to amaze: the duplicitous hypocrisy of the so-called “tolerant Left” and worse, the nastiness of the black community. Hat tip to our local friends at BizPac Review for bringing it to our attention yet again.

BizPac reports: “Fox News announced Wednesday that actress Stacey Dash has been hired as a contributor to provide cultural analysis and commentary across the network’s daytime and prime time programming. The news is not going over too well on the Left, particularly in the black community — Dash is of African-American and Mexican descent.”

Why, why does it matter to these hate-filled individuals? Did any black conservative come out and spew hatred about Toure, Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, Joy Reid, or Tamron Hall being hired as show hosts? No, the argument is always about views and perspectives on the issues.

Once again, the closed-minded drones in the black community who associate character with skin color and refute the right of an individual to independent thought have reared their ugly heads. But Ms. Dash has withstood the fiery darts of these hate-mongers before when she tweeted out her support for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

“Perhaps I publicly endorsed Romney from a slightly naïve place, thinking that I could speak my voice without being criticized in such racially charged and hateful tones,” Dash wrote in an editorial for TMZ.

Why is it that the liberal progressive Left — and their black henchmen — hate black conservatives to so passionately? If you have an ideological disagreement based upon debate of the issues, let’s have at it.

“The ONLY FREE SPEECH the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/ followers of Saul Alinsky are interested in is REPEATING WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SAY, THIS AGREEING WITH THEM. Anything else is grounds for hatred.” JB

However, the route taken of crying Oreo, sellout, Uncle Tom, house Negro, white man’s porch monkey and other invectives achieves nothing. Name-calling has no effect in any way. As a matter of fact, it only emboldens us more. I know its intent is instilling fear, coercion, and intimidation, but all it does is point a blinding spotlight on a lack of intelligence and inability to make a coherent presentation.

Wednesday’s announcement brought out more of the “racially charged hateful tones” Dash spoke of, as seen on Twitter. While many of the tweets are being deleted by users once they realize their hatred is on full display, Twitchy.com captured a few. Here are the cleaner ones:

Am I right about this? Just watch and see the comments that will emanate from the usual suspects on these pages — so predictable.

I’ve never met Stacey Dash, but applaud her courage, conviction, and character. The fascists, whether black or white, shall not shut us down.

We have the right to free speech. You have the right to spew hatred, but I would recommend you all refer to Proverbs 17:28, (NIV):

“Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Leftist Thought Police emboldened and on a tear

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/13/leftist-thought-police-emboldened-and-on-a-tear/

By: David Limbaugh
5/13/2014 06:00 AM

Leftist Thought Police emboldened and on a tear Before I begin, I want to pose a question to the powers that control our society today: Am I allowed to comment on issues that pertain to homosexuality if I don’t echo the views of our masters?

Will people who read this column willingly twist what I say to justify condemnation of anyone who disagrees with them? They certainly do it to many other people.

Note to those waiting for an excuse to pretend to be offended so they can cram their views down our throats with McCarthyite tactics: Please read precisely what I say and don’t draw unwarranted inferences, for there are no hidden meanings here and there is no concealed agenda.

My intent is not to comment on the propriety or normality of homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage, though I will not run from my previously stated position that I oppose formal societal sanctioning of same-sex marriage and believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. So sue me. No, please don’t. That is just an expression. Some of you might take that seriously and test your standing, and in this culture, who knows how that would end up?

What greatly concerns me is the increasing discrimination against people whose views don’t conform to the dictates of the leftist thought and speech police. Have leftists become so emboldened by their organized bullying of their opponents that they openly support outright discrimination and legal penalties against them? In their self-righteous zeal, have they morphed into the very ogres they crusade against?

So what if someone doesn’t believe homosexual marriage ought to be sanctioned? Does that person not have a right to say so without fear of formal reprisal? People who disagree certainly have a right to be offended — if you can call that a right — but do they have a right to be protected from being offended? For example, Miami Dolphins player Don Jones has just been fined and suspended by the Dolphins because he posted two tweets either critical of or making fun of Michael Sam, the first openly gay person to be drafted to the NFL. Jones will be allowed to rejoin the team only after he completes “educational training.”

“That term produces all kinds of evil thought. It conjures up images of “re-education” camps from the days of the USSR. Communist force people into these camps in order the get them to think the way the STATE wants them to think. THAT IS NPT FREEDOM AND THAT IS NOT PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM BEING OFFENDED!’

“Being offended is a CHOICE, not a right not to be offended. I am offended multiple times a day, yet I will lay down my life for the right of the “offending” people to express their thoughts and beliefs. I want the same consideration.” JB

Let’s take it a step further. What if someone believes that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful and also believes in following the Bible? Are we getting to the point that Big Brother not only gets to disapprove of such beliefs but also is entitled to punish and muzzle those who subscribe to them?

“One more time. “Are we getting to the point that Big Brother not only gets to disapprove of such beliefs but also is entitled to punish and muzzle those who subscribe to them?” “JB

Which is a greater evil and which is a greater threat to our formerly free society, to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and same-sex marriage ought not to be sanctioned or to ban the expression of such thoughts?

“Well?” JB

Leftists can deny that they want to control thought — just as they send another “homophobe” to sensitivity training not to teach him to treat all people well but to re-educate him on the issues. Don’t fool yourselves. The left isn’t simply demanding that we treat all of our fellow men and women with respect; it’s insisting that we all march in lock step with its view of the moral propriety of such relationships.

Are there any proponents of same-sex marriage out there who are concerned by the utter totalitarianism we are moving toward? Will they stand up against it, or will they allow their views to be merged into the dangerous groupthink that is enveloping our collective psyche like the blob?

Particularly disturbing is the left’s despicable tactic to label as haters those who believe in traditional marriage. This is the worst kind of dishonest intimidation I’ve witnessed by a large group in our society in years.

I shouldn’t even have to say this, but people who oppose same-sex marriage do not hate homosexuals. They don’t dislike them. They don’t want them to be mistreated. They just don’t want society to sanction marriage outside its traditional definition.

Christians believe all kinds of behaviors are sinful but don’t consequently hate the sinners, not only because they are commanded not to hate sinners but to love them but also because if they hate sinners, they will hate themselves, as we are all miserable sinners. Is it a stretch for Christians to wonder how long it will be before the expression of some of their views will be outlawed?

“This Christian does.” JB

This appalling effort to taint opponents as haters is rampant because it is what fuels the mob mentality against dissenters and empowers the thought police.

If leftists are so intent on normalizing homosexual behavior, why are they browbeating us with the issue by glorifying homosexuals, demonizing same-sex marriage opponents and sending those who publicly disagree to re-education camps when they can get away with it? Was it really necessary, for example, for President Obama to give a shout out to Michael Sam for being the first openly gay player drafted to the NFL? So what? If homosexuality is normal, then just let it go without comment. Why do leftists have to politicize everything?

I don’t care that Sam is gay and he will play in the NFL. More power to him. I do care about our society’s becoming Stalinist. Do you?

“Yes I do David. The evidence of Socialism is growing everyday.” JB

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “The Great Destroyer,” reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Be Very Careful How You Read the Following.

Controversial Black Mass planned at Harvard

Transcript of television news report:

RIGHT NOW WITH THE THE PLAN. THIS SATANIC MASS IS NOT WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. TONIGHT THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL BE HOLDING A PROCESSION AS WELL AS AN HOUR OF PRAYER AS A COUNTERMEASURE. ORGANIZERS OF THE SATANIC MASS SAY IT’S NOT INTENDED TO BE A RESULT BUT FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLORE OTHER FORMS OF WORSHIP. THE BLACK MASS RE-ENACTMENT IS SPONSORED BY A CULTURAL STUDIES CLUB. IT INCLUDES SATANIC RITUALS AND MOCKS A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MASS. CATHOLICS ARE TAKING OFFENSE AS WHAT THEY SEE AS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO DO A K.K. RE-ENACTMENT OR A MIN STREL SHOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT HARVARD, WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF THE HARVARD COMMUNITY? I WOULD HOPE THE REACTION WOULD BE OUTRAGE. IN A STATEMENT THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON CONDEMNS THE RE-ENACTMENT SAYING IT PLACES PARTICIPANTS DANGEROUSLY TO DESTRUCTIVE WORKS OF EVIL. THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL COUNTER THE BLACK MASS WITH AN HOUR OF PRAYER. THE CLUB IS DEFENDING THE MASS SAYING THE PERFORMANCE IS DESIGNED TO BE EDUCATIONAL. IT’S PRECEDED BY A LECTURE THAT PROVIDES THE HISTORY, CONTEXT AND/OR GIN OF THE BLACK MASS. SOME STUDENTS SAY THEY’RE OPEN TO IT. I THINK EDUCATION SHOULD BE ABOUT TRYING OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND TALK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES AS LONG AS IT’S DONE IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER THERE’S TO PROBLEM. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CLUB SAY THEY DO NOT INTEND TO INSULT THE CHURCH DURING THE MASS TONIGHT.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. —The student organizers of a planned satanic mass at Harvard University say their intent is purely educational, but the Roman Catholic church says participants are putting themselves “dangerously close to destructive works of evil.”

The student club said in a statement that “the performance is part of a larger effort to explore the religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.”

“Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices,” the statement said.

The Harvard Extension School said it supports “the rights of our students and faculty to speak and assemble freely,” and noted that the group also plans Shinto, Shaker and Buddhist events.

The Boston Archdiocese, however, says the mass mocks the Catholic Mass.

“For the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the church provides clear teaching concerning satanic worship,” the archdiocese said. “This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil.”

The Rev. Michael Drea, senior chaplain at the Harvard Catholic Center, said the academic freedom argument is a smoke screen.

“The black mass is a contradiction to the Catholic faith and is rooted in hatred and bigotry,” he told the Boston Herald. “The university shouldn’t tolerate something like this under the guise of academic integrity.”

“My first reaction was outrage. Then I was given this thought by the Holy Spirit of God. Any attempt to silence, or censor their First Amendment Right of Free Speech will ADD to the persecution of the Evangelical Church by the extreme Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Democrats/Liberals. Silencing them gives the Left ammunition to silence us.’

“I’d rather fight to my own death their right to do this, so that my rights as a Evangelical, Pentecostal Christian can continue a little longer. It is okay to disagree, and even hate what someone else is saying, doing or believing, and still fight for their right to do so.’

“Silencing them silences us.’

“What do you think?” JB

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

More News From the Growing Obama Administration Police State

Dad Arrested for Speaking Up About Pornographic Content in Required Reading for 9th Graders

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/dad-arrested-speaking-pornographic-content-required-reading-9th-graders/#r1ulJ5tfVOQfgUjt.99

Reported by Lily Dane

A reading assignment has some parents in New Hampshire confused and upset.

The controversial book “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult is required reading for some 9th grade students at Gilford High School. The book is a fictional story about a school shooting and has been part of the curriculum since 2007.

School officials say that the book contains important themes, but parents say that message is overshadowed by what some call pornographic content on one page.

The book was assigned to students last Monday, but the school failed to give parents of freshmen students notice of the sexually explicit content in the novel. One page of the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers.

Some parents are outraged, and attended a school board meeting to make their feelings known.

William Baer, whose 14-year old daughter is a student at the school, was one of the parents who spoke out at the meeting. He was promptly arrested for doing so: PLEASE SEE THE VIDEO FOR YOURSELF

EAGnews spoke with Baer about the incident, and he explained what made him so upset:

Baer tells EAGnews he became aware of the book’s objectionable material purely by chance. A family friend was visiting last Wednesday and talking to Baer’s 14-year-old daughter about how things were going in school. When she mentioned that she’d just been assigned the novel, the friend picked up the book and casually opened it to page 313 which contains a very graphic description of a sexual encounter between two adolescents. The friend was aghast as he read the passage, and asked Baer if he was aware of the book’s content.

“I was shocked when I read the passage, and not much shocks me anymore,” Baer says. “My wife was stunned by the increasingly graphic nature of the sexual content of the scene and the imagery it evoked.”

Here is an excerpt from the book. We considered omitting it from this article, but, if it is okay for 14 year olds to read…

Warning: Explicit content:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.

” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

During an interview with another news outlet, Baer asked them to print that passage:

Baer asked that The Daily Sun print the passage. Otherwise, he expected readers would dismiss his response as that of “an uptight, over-protective, over-reacting parent.”

Editor Ed Engler declined, saying he thought some of the description rendered were not suitable for publication in 99 percent of daily newspapers in America, “Maybe 100 percent”.

Baer noted that the (Manchester) Union-Leader, too, flatly refused to print it, asking “it’s not fit to print, but it’s okay for my daughter to read it and discuss it? My goal is to have everyone in the United States read what’s on page 313 of that book,” he declared, “except my daughter.” (source)

Baer, who is an attorney, told EAGnews that the school “has no business introducing such themes” to students, and questioned why it is acceptable for “the state, through its schools and agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this kind of material.

In a written response to EAGnews, Gilford school leaders admitted they didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who are currently assigned the book.”

It’s a little late now, isn’t it?

Baer suggested that the notice include the passage on page 313:

“If the text were not included, do you know any parent ,or student, for that matter, who could reasonably expect such content to be in a 9th grade assigned book? I think if they put that text in the notice, the vast majority of parents and possibly students would opt out.”

Baer told EAGnews that this is just more evidence that public schools are indoctrinating our children:

Baer believes the politicians and educators running the public school system want to dismantle the family unit, and undermine traditional morality, “though they’re never going to admit this.”

“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs. That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy. They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent, which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”

He’s right. Earlier this year, Paul Reville, the former secretary of education for Massachusetts and a Common Core supporter, spoke at a panel in support of the curriculum:

He shared his thoughts on opponents of the curriculum, stating that critics were a “tiny minority” who opposed standards altogether, which was unfair because “the children belong to all of us.”

The incident at Gilford isn’t unique: reading assignments that contain pornographic material seem to be more and more of a “normal” occurrence, especially since the introduction of Common Core curriculum in schools.

In his article Sex and the Public Schools, Michael Snyder discusses ways schools are sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages. Some public schools are mandating sex education for kindergarteners. Earlier this year, a middle school in Kansas decided that adding anal sex, oral sex, and touching were appropriate topics to add to their health class curriculum.

If your child must attend public school, you may want to pay close attention to the assignments they being given.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Mayor ordering raid on Twitter troublemaker riles free speech defenders

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/mayor-ordering-raid-on-twitter-troublemaker-riles-free-speech-defenders/?intcmp=HPBucket

Published April 22, 2014

FoxNews.com

<<<<<Ardis at a City Council meeting in Peoria, Ill.AP

A police raid to learn who was behind a Twitter account that mocked an Illinois mayor has so far resulted in one arrest, but officials said Monday the investigation continues, as free speech advocates express concern.

The account — @Peoriamayor — was created about nine weeks ago and had about 50 parody tweets, mostly about Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis supposedly using illegal drugs and associating with prostitutes, before Twitter suspended it in mid-March.

The Star Journal of Peoria reports the warrant and raid were ordered by Ardis, who is now facing a public backlash, largely on social media and in editorial pages where he is being accused of trying to step on First Amendment rights.

A resident of the home told the newspaper that police seized computers and smart phones in the raid, in an apparent attempt to learn who was behind the Twitter account.

The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $2,500 fine and one year in jail.

Three people at the home during the raid were taken to a police station for questioning. Two other occupants were visited at their workplace, then taken in for questioning.

A Peoria Police Department spokesman confirmed to FoxNews.com that one resident was charged in connection with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. However, the investigation is ongoing, which prevents officials from discussing whether police will make additional arrests, he said.

“I find it very troubling,” said Angela Campbell, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. “It chills people’s First Amendment rights to criticize officials … whether it’s through parody or just calling somebody a jerk.”

Campbell, a First Amendment specialist, also questioned whether the charge of unlawfully impersonating a public official applies, since its intent is stop somebody from, for example, posing as a police officer to extract money or sex in exchange for ignoring a traffic violation.

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, raised similar concernsabout free speech and the impersonation issue.

“This absolutely raises concerns for me,” he said. “Under the Constitution, you can criticize people in power. It’s how you can tell the difference between a democracy and a police state. And you can do it through humor.”

However, he also has concerns about First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment issues regarding the search warrant.

Caplan says executing a search warrant is unusual in the case of a misdemeanor, although he is not an expert on Illinois state law.

“I need more facts, but it smells a little like retaliation,” he said.

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard told the newspaper the intent of the account, which also included tweets about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, was not clearly identified as satire.

“In fact it appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor,” he said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What Legislation Is Glenn Beck Denouncing as ‘Nazi Stuff’?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-legislation-is-glenn-beck-denouncing-as-nazi-stuff/

by Josh Feldman | 1:20 pm, April 18th, 2014

In reaction to the Kansas shootings this week, two Democrats are pushing for legislation to come up with a government report looking at the perpetuation of hate speech in the media. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 would update an old report on the role of the internet, radio, and television in “encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.”

Senator Ed Markey argues the purpose of the bill is to make sure anyone using any of those outlets is not encouraging hate speech “outside the protection of the First Amendment.” The bill has gotten a mixed reception, with liberal radio host Alan Colmes speaking out against it, and now Glenn Beck has jumped into the fray.

Beck, who was very outspoken against an FCC proposal to look into American newsrooms, decried the bill as Nazi-style tactics. He said, “Forget about the Fairness Doctrine, this is Nazi stuff.”

He showed off an old German SS-approved radio that cut off access to certain radio stations, saying “we’ve been down this road before.”

Watch the video below, via BlazeTV:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Car With “Co-Exist” Bumper Sticker Runs Over Pro-Life Display

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/09/car-with-co-exist-bumper-sticker-runs-over-pro-life-display/

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/9/14 3:06 PM

You’ve seen those dark blue and white bumper stickers on the road with religious symbols from all sorts of religions urging people to “coexist.” The idea behind them is to promote some sort of respect for tolerance and diversity and they generally appear to be aimed at Christians.

As Bristol Palin notes in a blog post, that level of open-mindedness apparently doesn’t apply to abortion backers.

A student’s pro-life display caused one of his fellow students to go sort of nuts. According to FIRE President Greg Lukianoff:

FIRE just released a video featuring the story of student Robert Smith at Dartmouth College. In 2012, one of his fellow students hated his campus pro-life display so much that he actually ran over it with his car right in front of the student organizers.

(This display was American flags, not crosses.) Not only was this move crazy and dangerous, it came with an ironic twist: the car had a “Coexist” bumper sticker on the back.

What part of “co-exist” did this guy not understand??

Destroying pro-life cross displays is something of a theme for abortion proponents.

Abortion activists over the years have vandalized and destroyed dozens of pro-life displays meant to memorialize unborn children who are victimized by abortions. One wonders what is so upsetting about remembering the babies abortion has killed that drives them to little trample on the displays and violate the free speech rights and property rights of pro-lifers.

A group in Ohio has seen their pro-life display trashed for a third time now.

In 2011, a pro-life display of crosses meant to memorialize unborn children killed by abortions was the latest to suffer from pro-abortion vandalism following an incident at a Pennsylvania college.

Student vandals at Missouri State University wrecked a pro-life cross memorial on the school’s Blair-Shannon Lawn in 2008. And in 2010, abortion advocates at La Crosse University in Wisconsin vandalized a pro-life student the pro-life campus group erected.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

I Just Uninstalled FIREFOX Because of the Following Report. How About You?

Mozilla Chief Learns, if You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, You Don’t Deserve a Job

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-you-dont-support-gay-marriage-you-dont-deserve-a-job-n1818885/page/full

Todd Starnes | Apr 04, 2014

As we enter this golden age of tolerance and diversity, the nation’s gay rights community is sending a warning message to Americans: If you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.

Apparently, Brendan Eich did not get that message. He’s the former chief executive officer at Mozilla, the technology group that gave us the Firefox Web browser.

Eich resigned under a firestorm of controversy after it was revealed he had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that protected traditional marriage.
It’s unclear who outed Eich. But that really doesn’t matter. Once his donation was revealed, supporters of gay marriage launched all-out war.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OKCupid, the popular online dating website, asked its followers to stop using Firefox. The wireless company Credo Mobile gathered more than 50,000 signatures on a petition calling for Eich to resign.

OKCupid posted a letter denouncing the Mozilla CEO, The New York Times reported.

“Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure,” the letter stated.

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property?

Why not take away their right to vote?

Why not take away their children?

Why not just throw them in jail?

Why not force them to work in chain gangs?

Why not call for public floggings?

Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

Eich won’t say he was forced to resign, but based on the company’s press release, it’s safe to say his days were numbered.

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a statement;

“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

She went on to opine about freedom of speech and equality. In her estimation, one trumps the other.

“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” she wrote. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.

I write about this very issue in my upcoming book, “God Less America.” There are pages and pages filled with stories of workers and business owners who’ve either lost their jobs or faced public floggings for their support of traditional marriage.

The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bullying those who do.

Just ask Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University. She was suspended after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.

Just ask Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of California Musical Theatre. He resigned under pressure after he gave money to support Prop 8. As one activist told The New York Times, “I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”

Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.

Tolerance is a b*tch, ain’t it?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Government bans calling terrorists ‘jihadis’

WWW.WND.COM

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/government-bans-calling-terrorists-jihadis/#fq6WvSu8TZV7CykO.99

Forbidden ad was based on Washington’s own wanted list

author-image

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

A federal appeals court is being asked to reverse a lower court decision that banned the American Freedom Defense Initiative from featuring in a bus ad the faces of men already identified by the U.S. government as suspected terrorists.

“This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom [of] speech guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, which is working on the AFDI case.

“Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, Shariah-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.”

The King County, Wash., transit system, in the Seattle area, had rejected AFDI’s ad that featured a most-wanted list of terror suspects compiled by the FBI. The transit agency claimed the ad was “false,” “demeaning” and “objectionable.”

But the transit agency previously had posted essentially the same ad when it was prepared by the government, which generated political pressure from Islamic groups.

Appealing the ruling from Judge Richard Jones to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyers explained that the ad included “pictures, names and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.”

“The State Department advertisement depicted the ‘Faces of Global Terrorism’ in an effort to ‘stop a terrorist now’ and ‘save lives.’ In addition, the advertisement offered an ‘up to $25 million reward’ for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists,” the appeal explains.

AFLC now is asking the 9th Circuit to reverse the lower court decision and tell King County’s transit operations to run its own ad, which was based on the government promotion.

The lawyers, who have fought similar battles in other cities around the country over the past several years, said that there is nothing materially false about the advertisement. They note the ad says nothing more “than the State Department’s ‘Faces of Global Terrorism’ advertisement, which the county accepted.”

Second, they explain, the idea that identifying terror suspects listed by the federal government as suspects was “demeaning” is entirely subjective.

“What prompted plaintiffs to propose this advertisement in the first instance was the State Department’s willingness to acquiesce to political correctness by accepting the ‘viewpoint’ that it is improper to highlight … (that Islam that is practiced by the jihadis),” the argument explained.

“Indeed, there is ample evidence in the record that these most wanted ‘global terrorists’ are aligned with Islamic terrorist organizations,” the brief explained. “Is it the district court’s viewpoint that those who engage in terrorist acts in the name of al-Shabaab (which is formally aligned with al-Qaida), the Abu Sayyaf Group, the Taliban, or al-Qaida, as examples, are not jihadis? Based on what? As plaintiffs demonstrated below, the use of the term ‘jihadis’ to describe the global terrorists pictured in the advertisement is not only factually accurate, but, more important, it expresses plaintiffs’ viewpoint on the issue of global terrorism.

“It is clear to any reasonable person that the use of the accurate descriptor ‘jihadi’ in the context of global terrorism does not disparage those Muslims engaging in a self-reflective internal struggle. And to further illustrate this point, federal court opinions in cases prosecuting self-described ‘jihadis’ routinely utilize that descriptor.”

The brief said the principle “that has emerged from [Supreme Court] cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.”

“When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant,” the brief said.

“Here, the content of plaintiffs’ message (and thus its subject matter) is permissible in this forum, as evidenced by the fact that the county had previously accepted the same message content that was submitted by the State Department (‘Faces of Global Terrorism’), and the county subsequently accepted another State Department advertisement (‘Stop a terrorist. Save lives.’) that addressed the same subject matter: terrorism.

“Consequently, it is not the subject matter that is being restricted, but plaintiffs’ viewpoint on the subject. This is a classic form of viewpoint discrimination that is prohibited in all forums,” the brief argued.

The ad is one among many that AFDI executives Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have used across America to spread warnings about the threat of Islamic terrorism.

The government’s ad:

The AFDI ad:

The AFDI ad pictured a long list of suspects compiled by the government, including “30 out of the 32 listed terrorists [who] had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.”

Geller and Spencer repeatedly have been forced to fight for their speech rights.

One recent conflict was in Detroit, where Geller, of Atlas Shrugs, co-founder with Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer of the organization that placed the ad, were opposed by Detroit Transit.

The ad stated: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!”

During depositions taken in the case, SMART officials testified that “political,” for purposes of its advertising guidelines, means “any advocacy of a position of any politicized issue.”

But Muise argued there the U.S. Supreme Court has warned “the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is great where officials have unbridled discretion to determine which messages are acceptable and which are not.”

“Indeed, a speech restriction violates the First Amendment when it grants a public official such broad discretion that the official’s decision to limit speech is not constrained by objective criteria, but rests on ambiguous and subjective reasons, as in this case,” he said.

The legal team has pointed out that the Detroit transit system already had accepted political ads, including one from the Detroit Area Coalition of Reason, an atheist organization which, by its own admission, engages in “separation of state and church activism.”

As WND has reported, AFDI has fought other related ad censorship battle in several other locations already.

In each case, efforts to censor the ads have been struck down by courts.

Get Pamela Geller’s “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” from the WND Superstore!

In a commentary on WND, Geller wrote that the original ad was “a publicity campaign sponsored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force for the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, or RFJ.”

“But then the leftists and Islamic supremacists complained that the ads were ‘Islamophobic,’ and they came down – and unbelievably, Seattle is refusing to allow my group, the AFDI, to put them back up.

“We have asked that the ads be put up forthwith, as the county’s refusal to run them is an unconstitutional restriction on our freedom of speech. Moreover, the RFJ program has been successful: Through it, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has paid more than $125 million to more than 80 people who offered genuine information that led to jihadis being jailed and prevented acts of jihadist terror. This program was instrumental in leading to the arrest of jihadist Ramzi Yousef, who is now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center jihad bombing. In short, this program has saved lives,” she wrote.

Geller said the FBI “is putting Americans at risk by submitting to the outrageous demands of Islamic supremacists.”

“It is not the fault of the FBI that the world’s most dangerous terrorists are jihadists. That is the reality. You cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality,” she said.

“Capturing these mass murderers is significantly more important than propping up the fictional narrative of victimhood and the nonsensical hurt feelings. People are being slaughtered every day in jihad attacks,” Geller wrote.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

CAIR Takes Care To Violate My Free Speech

http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/cair-takes-care-violate-free-speech/#Fetp7UQm5hUK57jJ.99

By Audrey Russo / 5 March 2014

Well, well, well…getting around to the little people like moi. CAIR, remember them? They are the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Case. In other words: Funding front for Hamas.

My article on here (ClashDaily.com) titled, Islam: The Only Religion That Tells Everyone On EARTH What To Do, was posted on the website of the Baltimore Radio Station WCBM AM 680.

But CAIR will have none of the truth about the ideology of Islam getting out to the people…so…they began to pressure the station to remove it.

According to Creeping Sharia, Zainab Chaudry of CAIR-MD wrote:

“The Maryland office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MD) welcomed the decision of officials at Baltimore talk radio station WCBM AM 680 to remove an anti-Muslim article that was re-published on its website…The bigoted generalizations in this article are inappropriate for use by a mainstream media outlet and should be rejected for the hatred and intolerance they promote.”

Then CAIR went on to carefully slice my statements up to say what THEY wanted readers to take away with them…then slander the writer…

The article by an anti-Muslim blogger read in part: “The ideology of Islam (a totalitarian system cloaked in the burqa of religion) views itself as above all other religions and systems … Everywhere it invades and conquers, its sole purpose is to convert by force or by numbers. No other religion/culture is equal or tolerated as such. They come to a country and isolate their community … because the Quran demands they do not mix with infidels.

Let’s correct their first LIE, I an not anti-Muslim…I am anti-Islam!

I can back up every so-called “generalization” by witnesses to this corrupt ideology, including: Noni Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Raymond Ibrahim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brother Rashid…and the list goes on. NOT to mention those who have studied and observed the ideology in action, namely: Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Jamie Glazov…the list is interminable.

This is America where my free speech rights are protected (to CAIR’s chagrin). CAIR-MDs accusations are bogus. PROVE what is said in the article is wrong.

They won’t because they CAN’T!

Socrates once said: “When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.”

CAIR-MD has proved they are the LOSER in this case. Sadly, the station bowed to their jack-boot pressure.

Instead of arguing the valid points I make…they slander me with “bigot”…how original. But then again, has anything TRULY original come out of this ideology since its violent inception?

Cricket chirps…

I hope WCBM AM 680 will rethink their removal of the article…their first instincts were correct. CAIR lied and strong-armed them to remove something that CAIR failed to prove was false. They simply bandied about slander and politically correct terms to cause trepidation.

And trepidation is not what built this great nation…the beacon of the Free World.

Shalom through strength…

About the author: Audrey Russo

Audrey Russo is the Host of the weekly REELTalk Radio Show and the co-host of WOMANTalk Radio Show. She handles Middle East Issues/National Security/Terrorism for their eZine and writes on foreign affairs for The Examiner.com. She guests on several radio shows including The Rick Amato Show, The Simon Conway Show, The Pat Campbell Show and The Mike Wiley Show. Audrey is the Managing Editor for the online opinion journal Ediblog.com. Her articles can also be read at The Center for Changing Worldviews and the Gold Coast Chronicle as well as other online journals. She is also an active member of the NYC performing arts community as a singer and actor.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

AMERICA!!!!! If We Are Not Vigilant, This Will Happen Here In America

Free Speech Alert: Islam Rips Ever Deeper Into Europe

By Audrey Russo / 16 February 2014

http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/free-speech-alert-islam-rips-ever-deeper-europe/#JKzmhSfEkYEKYfRG.99

As a wild beast would pull its prey closer to guard it from other predators, Islam is sinking its barbed paws ever deeper into the heart of the European Union (EU). Right under the radar of the EU, the European Parliament is considering a proposal that requires the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being “intolerant.”

The proposal is called, “European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”, and it intends to compel the governments of all 28 EU member states to create “special administrative units” to monitor individuals or groups expressing views that these self-styled sentinels of European multiculturalism assess to be “intolerant”… an unprecedented threat to free speech in Europe. European citizens are already habitually punished for expressing the “wrong” views, specifically concerning Islam.

Remember, it’s all those citizens “Suspected” of being “intolerant”…I guess it depends on who looks through Allah’s microscope…

For those of us who have our coffee every morning, this was predictable. First we had the establishing of an OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) office in Brussels in June 2013. This placed the influential 57 Muslim country bloc (actually, 56 sovereign states, plus the Palestinian Authority [given State status in the OIC]) at an in-your-face position to the European Parliament.

This is a doubling down of their efforts to control free speech in Europe…and the West. Something the OIC has been working arduously to accomplish at the UN. Since 1999 the OIC has attempted to have the issue of religious defamation included in UN Human Rights Council resolutions. And they’ve been making progress with elitists and fools (as if there’s a difference).

What the Sharia machine of the OIC fails to realize is…the Leftist World media/leaders, the little Islamic helper monkeys walking around with eyes wide shut…are not the only kafir out here. There is a growing number of infidels with eyes wide OPEN, who know what they’ve swept under their magic prayer rugs: Sharia Islamic Law forbids questions or criticism of Islam (including the Quran & Muhammed) of any kind. The idea of “questions or criticism” is intentionally vague and is subjective to the offended Mohammedan. It’s considered blasphemy whether it be committed by a Muslim OR non-Muslim. Sharia also calls for severe punishment, even death, for the offense.

Their issue of including “religious defamation” in the UN’s free speech code, is another way of implementing blasphemy under Sharia…and the world would aid them in their enforcement.

But, while the Ummah (global Islamic community) is busy soothing their wounded feelings, the gravest offense is being perpetrated against the Free World. Our life-blood is in peril: Our freedom of speech. An inalienable right recognized ONLY in the Judeo-Christian world….where skin is not so thin, and the only thing we want to kill is a box of Ho-Hos.

So, Islamic supremacists…be not confused. As you continue to force your camel’s nose under our tent, you will be met with a force that only free men, who have tasted liberty, possess. On either side of the Pond, we will band together and push you back into the caves you find so cozy.

And on this side of the Pond, we’ll do it with lead!

Shalom through strength…

Image: Courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/radamantis/6845473959

About the author: Audrey Russo

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The IRS’ New Target: The First Amendment

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/02/06/obamas-irs-wants-to-stomp-on-the-first-amendment

Proposed rules governing political groups are surely unconstitutional.

By Peter Roff, Feb. 7, 2014

President Barack Obama can be forgiven for telling Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that there wasn’t a “smidgen” of corruption involved in the Internal Revenue Service’s treatment of conservative groups applying for non-profit status in the months leading up to the 2012 election. By the Chicago ethical standards with which he is most familiar, all that was just business, nothing personal, and no one should take offense.

The Obama administration likes to do things “the Chicago way,” and then feigns ignorance when someone’s hand is caught in the proverbial cookie jar. South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy said as much when, during a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee hearing looking into the scandal, he asked a panel of witnesses if they remembered “seeing a witness named Lois Lerner, sitting at the very table y’all are sitting at,” invoking her constitutional right not to incriminate herself.

“How can the president say there’s not a ‘smidgen’ of criminality when Lois Lerner” took the fifth, Gowdy asked the panel. “Forty-one witnesses haven’t been interviewed, including the two who are here right now!” he added. “How can (the president) possibly draw that conclusion?”

[See a collection of editorial cartoons on the IRS Scandal.]

It may be he can draw it because it’s the one he wants to draw. To people with Obama’s mindset, the people who oppose his policies are not merely wrong or misguided; they are malevolent, malefactors of wealth and privilege whose influence he must curtail and whose political activities he must bring to an end.

Obama’s on a mission to shut his political opponents down as best he can and he’s using the IRS to do it, an assertion supported not only by the scandalous harassment visited upon those opponents prior to the last national election but in heretofore secret emails recently brought to light by Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, while grilling new Obama IRS Chief John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

According to Camp, the new rules the IRS is preparing to put in place to “correct” the abuses of the current scandal in fact do little more than write the harassment into the IRS code permanently by unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of certain non-profit groups to exercise their right to participate in the political process carved out for them, and everyone else, in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Camp accused the IRS and the U.S Department of the Treasury of fabricating the rationale for the proposed rules change because the timeline now shows the new gag rules were being developed by the Obama administration well in advance of the organized harassment of so-called tea party groups applying for 501c(4) status under the internal revenue code.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

“I want to be perfectly clear – this committee will fight any and all efforts to restrict the rights of groups to organize, speak-out and educate the public, just as unions are allowed to do so. We will get to the bottom of this, and I expect the IRS to produce – quickly – the outstanding documents the committee has requested,” Camp said, emphasizing again that the IRS has stonewalled congressional investigators. The administration’s own internal review, meanwhile, is reportedly being led by a major donor to the president’s campaign activities, raising the specter of a conflict of interest and leading most people to believe the inquiry will end in a whitewash despite Lerner’s having taken the fifth.

Senior congressional leaders, meanwhile, are continuing their call for the IRS to abandon the proposed new rules which, critics say, would “muzzle” the free speech rights of groups in the not-for-profit sector on the left and the right.

In a letter to Koskinen, the members expressed the view that “finalizing this proposed rule would make intimidation and harassment of the administration’s political opponents the official policy of the IRS and would allow the Obama administration to use your agency as a partisan tool.”

“This would be a serious error, especially in light of the recent track record of intimidation at the IRS. It would also cement your reputation as someone who is unable or unwilling to restore the public’s faith in this important agency,” the letter continued. “One of the reasons you have been appointed to a five-year term is so that you will be protected from undue political pressure,” the members of Congress said in the letter before going on to urge Koskinen “to take a stand against this kind of intimidation, abandon this proposed rule, and make it clear to a nervous public that your agency will no longer engage in government-sanctioned crackdowns on speech.”

At the same time groups that might be adversely affected continued their efforts to generate public comments to the IRS before the proposed gag rule can be finalized and put in place.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the tea party.]

Pointing out that, by law, all federal agencies are required to consider public comments on proposed rules and regulations before they are promulgated, the group American Commitment has created a web site, IRSPowerGrab.com, where persons opposed to the new regulations can make comments that will be filed with the agency.

“The proposed regulations would restrict groups from engaging in voter registration drives, candidate debates, voter guides, voting records and key votes. They would restrict any criticism of an incumbent federal, state, or local politician within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and effectively require groups to remove any reference to politicians from their websites during these windows. They even distort the definition of ‘candidate’ to include appointees, so groups weighing in on executive or judicial nominations would be restricted,” the group said on the site.

Indeed, the new rules are so far reaching and, because of their ambiguity, so potentially all-encompassing that, if imposed, they would constitute a serious infringement of individual rights under the First Amendment. The argument that groups with the particular tax status involved are abusing the privilege, are taking advantage of loopholes to employ so-called ark money to partisan ends, simply does not hold water. These groups are prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, not political activity. They are, left and right, concerned with the nation’s general welfare in order to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” That’s a long held and noble effort going back as least as far as 1789. It would be a shame to see it come to an end in 2014 because a weak and thin-skinned president can’t take it as good as he and his allies dish it out.

Corrected on Feb 7, 2014: This post originally misidentified the committee hearing at which Gowdy made his remarks.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

5 Time Boxing Champ Warned His Biblical Views are Offensive

http://lastresistance.com/4325/5-time-boxing-champ-warned-biblical-views-offensive/#sh01cPYylR4TdAM2.99

Posted By Dave Jolly on Jan 10, 2014

Evander-Holyfield-Big-Brother

Evander Holyfield is the only five time world boxing champion there is. Before him, Mohammed Ali aka Cassius Clay held the record with three world boxing titles. Over his twenty-six year boxing career, Holyfield made over $230 million.

What many people may or may not know is that Holyfield is an active Christian and gave millions of dollars to his church and various charities. At times he has been outspoken about his faith and that just got him in hot water with the producers of Big Brother. I need to add here that I have to question any Christian who would consider going on a program that is built upon lies, deception and sex, but nevertheless, Holyfield made it on the show.

In one episode, he is sitting in bed with a girl named Luisa when the subject of homosexuality comes up. During the conversation, Holyfield tells her:

“The Bible lets you know that’s wrong, that’s right.”

Luisa continues to argue with Holyfield and later on in the discussion, he tells her that homosexuality is a choice and that it can be fixed.

After his comments, Holyfield is hauled before the narrator who is most likely acting on behalf of the producer who warns Holyfield about his offensive language in saying that homosexuality is wrong and it’s a choice. The narrator’s chastisement went like this: (Listen carefully to the rebuke of the Big Brother spokesman)

“Big Brother” show warned him: “Before you entered the Big Brother house, the rules regarding unacceptable language and behavior were explained to you. Last night in a conversation with Luisa, you expressed the view that being gay was not normal and that it could be fixed.”

“Well Big Brother understands that these are the views you hold, they aren’t the views that are hold by a lot of sections of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people…”

“Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language and therefore warn you to consider very carefully the effect of expressing such views may have and the harm and offense you may cause by repeating these views inside the house.”

It’s Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson all over again. Anyone can say anything they want against Christians, traditional marriage and family values, but just say one little thing against homosexuality and the world caves in around you. These people claim over and over that they want tolerance, yet they are the most intolerant people out there. From what I’ve seen and read over the past few years, I would say that gay activists are less tolerant about the truth of homosexuality than Al Sharpton is about the truth of racism.

Neither of them wants tolerance. Both of them are demanding preferential treatment. They insist on having the freedom to mock and condemn anyone they want and the protection against others doing the same to them.

No one cares anymore about offending a Christian. And Christians aren’t doing anything to stop it. When are Christians going to start standing up for their rights? Why aren’t we complaining when we’re offended? It’s our silence that has allowed this happen and it’s our voices that need to be heard to put an end to it. Christians need to get off their butts and become warriors for Christ. It’s time every Christian in America becomes an Ephesian 6 Christian:

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

B-Bye! Will We Miss Free Speech When It’s Finally Gone?

http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/will-miss-free-speech-finally-gone/#ky5r7GKrfjmQxKCl.99

By Jeff Mullen / 28 January 2014

Remember when America used to be a free country?

There was a time when we actually made our own purchasing decisions without fear of government interference—let alone outright punishment. The IRS might have been feared at tax time, but there were no dossiers on individuals documenting their most intimate personal details from cholesterol levels to hemorrhoids and vasectomies. And there certainly were no death panels dictating how old you could be and still receive a pacemaker or hip replacement. You could actually pick your own doctor and keep the health insurance coverage of your choice. Remember when?

Ah, the good old days when we could make fun of our President without fear of reprisal. We could speak out against his policies or join an opposition political movement without fear of being audited by the IRS. Remember February 2013 when Dr. Ben Carson spoke eloquently at the National Prayer Breakfast (notice how President Obama is the only one not clapping for Dr. Carson) and found himself being audited by the IRS, not once but twice, simply because President Obama took offense?

I can even remember our presidents poking fun at themselves. Ronald Reagan, for example, saying, “I knew Thomas Jefferson.” Books and movies about ways to kill George W. Bush were considered free speech, if not high art.

My, how things have changed in a few short years. Disagreeing with the President’s policies can get you labeled a racist and excluded from polite society. Disagreeing repeatedly can trigger the dreaded IRS audit, as Dr. Ben Carson discovered. So can calling people who enter our country illegally “illegal aliens.” Such phraseology is now considered racist, offensive, unfair, derogatory and possibly “bullying”. Don’t EVEN get me started on this “bullying” left-wing, progressive, brain-numbing insanity.

Never dare call terrorism “terrorism.” That’s an emotionally charged term that’s an indirect slur against Muslims and Islamic “freedom fighters.” If you want to be invited to the right parties—and not attract unwanted attention from the government—you’ll do well to refer to these incidents as “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence.” That way you’re not casting aspersions at protected classes of citizens and particular minority groups.

Actress Melissa Joan Hart reported death wishes and hateful insults because she tweeted her support of Mitt Romney in 2012. “I got called every name in the book. And told, they hope I die, and that they hope my children are gay which was, somehow, supposed to be some kind of punishment,” Hart said. She also said there is a blacklist in Hollywood against conservatives. As if we didn’t know.

Above all, never ever use the “G” word in public. That’s the word that’s recently been expunged from the U.S. Air Force cadet honor oath, which formerly concluded with “so help me G__.” Thanks, Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for raising our consciousness level on that one.

“That is unpatriotic, it’s un-American, it’s inhuman, it’s a crime, and in the military if it happens, it violates the oath that everyone in the military takes — not to the New Testament, or the Torah, or to the Koran, but to the United States Constitution,” said Weinstein in an interview. “It should be punished vigorously, aggressively, and very visibly.”

GOT THAT?!? It reminds me of a song by Joanie Mitchell, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

Free speech in America? If you ask me, it’s pretty near gone. I hope you are willing to fight for it. Speak UP! Speak OUT! Speak CLEARLY! Speak PASSIONATELY!

Image: Courtesy of: http://hrringleader.com/2010/04/27/wave-goodbye-to-hr-owning-talent-3-ways-to-empower-leaders/wavegoodbye/

About the author: Jeff Mullen

Jeff Mullen is a pastor and patriot. He began ministry in 1989 and in 1995 founded Mega Church, Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa and is also politically engaged in the community. He is a musician with extensive recording and performing experience and is a dynamic, humorous communicator. Jeff is also an avid shooter and enjoys a good hunt. He’s been married since 1989 and has two amazing daughters. You can connect with Jeff at facebook.com/jeffrey.mullen or jeffmullen.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

FAITH UNDER FIRE

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/no-separation-of-church-and-state/#ooDRLFXqp8vdYsqh.99

No separation of church and state

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow examines roots of rallying cry ‘radically changing America’

Published: 1 day ago

Ben Kinchlow

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is “Black Yellowdogs.” He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.

An organization that had been feeding the poor and helping the homeless for more than 30 years was told by a state agriculture department official that they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and stopped giving Bibles to the needy.
In 2011, two men were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside a DMV location.
The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and have closed their business after they simply declined to make a cake for a gay wedding because it conflicted with their Christian beliefs. They learned that’s now illegal.
A student was told by his professor to write the name “Jesus Christ” on a piece of paper and stomp on it. The student refused, and in retaliation a formal disciplinary action was started against him.
A public schoolteacher was forbidden to leave a Bible sitting on his desk “where students might see it.”
A 10-year-old girl who brought her Bible to school to read on the bus was told by the school principal to “leave your Bible at home.”
A fourth grader was told she could not draw crosses in her art project.
A 17-year-old was caught passing a note to a friend between classes. An assistant principal saw and demanded the note (an invitation for the friend to attend an off-campus meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). The “guilty” student was threatened by said principal with suspension from school for “possession of Christian materials.”

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Lest we forget, let us look back at the origin of what has become the rallying cry of a relatively small minority that is radically changing America.

In 1962, a parent, Steven Engel, alleged that a neutral, nonsectarian 22-word prayer violated his child’s First Amendment rights. His attorneys argued this (completely voluntary) prayer constituted “an establishment of religion.” Long story short, the Supreme Court ruled for him in the 1962 Engel vs. Vitale case and God was officially removed from schools, and now He is being banished from every inch of the public square.

Of course, since we all know exactly what the Constitution says, let me ask a question: Where are the following two statements found?

1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

2) “In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship is recognized for all citizens.”

When asked this question, many people who saw the phrase in statement 2 which reads, “the church is separated from the state,” concluded this is the famous “separation of church and state” principle they have heard about ad nauseum. Facts of the matter are,

statement 1 is, indeed, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Statement 2, “the church is separated from the state” is also from the constitution – the constitution of the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, a political system specifically founded on atheistic principles.

After an objective look at what is happening in many of our courts and schools today, one might be forced to conclude the U.S. Supreme Court and other institutions are basing their decisions on the constitutional principles of the old USSR.

Let me reiterate – nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can you find the phrase “separation of church and state.” It simply is not there. Instead, a careful and unbiased reading clearly reveals the founders’ intent –

not two separate clauses but one simple statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).

The moment you tell me I cannot have free, voluntary acknowledgement of God, under the “establishment clause” (so called), you immediately violate my right to do so under the “free exercise” clause.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law passed by a state legislature that allowed privately funded posters of the Ten Commandments to be hung in classrooms to “acquaint students with the moral pillars of the legal code of their culture” (not promote religion).

The Supreme Court struck down the law, and the real irony is, guess what is inscribed on the east side of the building where they read their decision: Moses holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Three Important Articvles from WWW.LifeNews.com

Study: Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops by Half When Planned Parenthood Leaves Town

by Paul Rondeau | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 3:50 PM

A study across the Texas Panhandle, using government statistics from 16 counties, found that the teen pregnancy rates among 13-17-year olds from 1994 through 2010 showed dramatic declines even as Planned Parenthood Federation of America facilities in the region shut down—dwindling from 19 family planning facilities to zero.

For decades, PPFA has publicly maintained that it serves a key healthcare role for the American public by educating teens on “safe sex,” providing contraceptives, and reducing pregnancies. The breakthrough study titled “A Longitudinal Analysis of PPFA and Teen Pregnancy in the Texas Panhandle” refutes that claim. Found within a meta-analysis of Planned Parenthood, the report states that the teen pregnancy rate “reached its lowest point in recorded history two years after disaffiliation of the last two remaining facilities.”

The study analyzed data obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Annual Report, Table 14B, for the years 1994 through 2010: “In 1996, the year before opposition to Planned Parenthood began, the average teen pregnancy rate in the 16 counties where Planned Parenthood operated facilities was 43.6 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 17. By 2002, the rate had dropped to 28.6. In 2008, the year the last two Planned Parenthood facilities disaffiliated from PPFA (Planned Parenthood Federation of America), the teen pregnancy rate was 27.2. And in 2010, two years after the Texas Panhandle became Planned Parenthood-free, the teen pregnancy rate had fallen to 24.1.”

The raw data gleaned from government files shows that with a teen population stable at about 13,000, the actual number of teen pregnancies fell from an average of 544 per year in the five years before Planned Parenthood started closing its doors to an average of 373 in the last five years.

PPFA’s fact sheet, Reducing Teen Pregnancy, proposes to reduce the quantity of teen pregnancies through a number of initiatives. To that end, it calls for initiatives that:

• Incorporate responsible, medically accurate sexuality education and information in the schools and in the media.

• Incorporate improvements in funding for and access to family planning services.

• Incorporate youth development programs to improve the life options of impoverished teens.

PPFA scorns abstinence-based education and praises the Obama administration for effectively defunding it: “In 2009, recognizing that evidence-based sex education programs were effective in promoting sexual health among teenagers, the Obama administration transferred funds from the community-based Abstinence Education Program and budgeted $114.5 million to support evidence-based sex education programs across the country.”

The report does not specifically claim that PPFA presence in a community actually drives up teen pregnancy. The report simply states “The Texas Panhandle statistics show conclusively that neither access to Planned Parenthood ‘reproductive healthcare’ clinics nor PPFA ‘evidence-based, comprehensive sex education’ is a necessary component in reducing the teen pregnancy rate.”

However, when pressed on this point, Jim Sedlak, a recognized expert on PPFA and vice president of American Life League—the organization that underwrote the five-part meta-study in which the Panhandle report is contained—did point to Planned Parenthood’s business model.

“Based on the retention rates that Planned Parenthood published routinely until the mid-1990s, it consistently lost 43 percent of its customers annually. Today, PPFA is a $1 billion business,” said Sedlak. “The only demographic big enough to furnish that many new customers every year is teens and young adults who engage in frequent sex. Planned Parenthood can make millions on preaching safe sex. It goes broke on abstinence.”

Under Obamacare, Planned Parenthood was first in line to start receiving funds for the comprehensive sex education program—funds totaling $375 million.

The PPFA fact sheet also claims that “influential minorities promote unrealistic, abstinence-only programs and parental consent requirements . . . an unrealistic emphasis is placed on preventing adolescent sexual behavior which overlooks the fact that sexual expression is an essential component of healthy human development for individuals of all ages.”

Planned Parenthood argues that comprehensive sex education, including an introduction to homosexuality and all its variations, must start in kindergarten. From kindergarten through college, Planned Parenthood promotes sexual rights, sexual freedom, and even dangerous sexual acts such as anal sex and fisting.

To see where this philosophy leads, one need only look at International Planned Parenthood Federation. It promotes “sexual rights” for people under 18 years of age, even as young 10.

While PPFA decries the spread of HIV/AIDS it simultaneously fights for laws protecting homosexuality and against laws requiring people who are HIV positive to disclose that information to sex partners.

IPPF argues that laws requiring disclosure of the potentially lethal infection to a new sexual partner violates of the sexual rights of the HIV infected person.

So, does PPFA promote “reproductive health” or just peddle sex?

One thing for sure: to Planned Parenthood, sexual pleasure is more important than life itself.

LifeNews Note: Paul Rondeau is the executive director of American Life League.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

House Committee Passes Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 5:32 PM

The House Judiciary Committee today approved legislation that will put in place a complete ban on taxpayer funding of abortions that ensures abortions are not directly funded in any federal governmental program or department.

The legislation combines several policies that must be enacted every year in Congressional battles and puts them into law where they will not be in jeopardy of being overturned every time Congress changes hands from pro-life lawmakers to those who support abortions.

The bill has been around a few years but has only been approved in the House thanks to a pro-abortion Senate. On May 4, 2011, the House passed HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, on a 251-175 vote with Republicans voting 235-0 for the bill and Democrats voting 175-16 against it.

The House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will hold a hearing on H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” this week.

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, informed the House that a study by the Guttmacher Institute, the pro-abortion former research apparatus of Planned Parenthood, released a study noting that one-quarter of women who otherwise would have had abortions chose to give birth when taxpayer dollars were not available to pay for abortions of their children.

The Family Research Council is a strong supporter of the bill and FRC president Tony Perkins applauded Smith’s leadership.

“Chris Smith’s leadership in the cause of life has been historic. Most Americans, regardless of their view on abortion, oppose government funding for abortion. The ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ will make sure that the Hyde Amendment applies across the government, including fixing the abortion funding provisions in Obamacare. H.R. 7 will restore government neutrality on abortion,” he told LifeNews.

“Abortion causes enduring pain to millions of American women, and the revelation that so many of them are so young is tragic. Bringing help and healing to America’s young women and their families has to be coupled with public policies that will curtail this victimization,” Perkins noted.

Smith spoke on the House floor during debate over the last version of the bill about what he said was growing public opinion against abortion. He also praised women who regret having terminated their pregnancies and speak out against abortions.

“For decades, a patchwork of short-term policies have prevented abortion funding in many programs authorized by Congress, but it is time for a single, government-wide permanent protection against taxpayer funding for elective abortion,” Smith said. “Abortion is lethal violence against children and exploitation of women. This legislation would establish a comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for elective abortion in all federal programs.”

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

The bill will also mitigate concerns about abortion funding in the various loopholes in the Obamacare national health care bill that various pro-life organizations warned about during debate on the law. The legislation did not contain language banning funding of abortions in its provisions and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would fix that problem.

The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to House members urging support for the legislation that explains how the bill will help:

“Regrettably, however, the 111th Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). During consideration of that legislation, language was proposed (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to the multitude of programs created by the bill, and the House initially approved that language – but no such provision was part of the enacted law, due to opposition from President Obama and the Senate majority. Consequently, the enacted PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion.”

The National Right to Life letter also commented on another lesser-known provision of the tax-funded abortion ban — it’s language to protect health care professionals who don’t want to be involved in abortions.

“The bill would codify the principles of the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which has been appended to the original Hyde Amendment on every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 2004. This provision would solidify important protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions – which is especially important in light of the Obama Administration’s February 23, 2011 action rescinding the conscience protection regulation issued by the Bush Administration.”

Also, before the vote in 2011, the White House said President Barack Obama would add to his lengthy pro-abortion record by vetoing the legislation. Obama would veto HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, with the White House saying the president opposes the bill because it would supposedly make it tougher for women to obtain abortion coverage from private insurance companies thereby expanding the current Hyde Amendment, which only limits tax-funded abortions under Medicaid, beyond its current reach. Chris Smith

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Irony: Kagan Compares Abortion Clinics to Slaughterhouses at Supreme Court

by Matthew Clark | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 6:09 PM

Do pro-life Americans have free speech rights – the right to quietly talk to willing passerby’s on the street corner – or are the public sidewalks surrounding abortion clinics somehow speech free zones impervious to the protections of the First Amendment?

That is the precise question considered by the Supreme Court today in McCullen v. Coakley.

Pro-abortion legislators in Massachusetts passed legislation making it illegal for anyone to speak on the public sidewalks – otherwise known as exercising the First Amendment – within 35 feet of abortion clinics. Illegal that is for everyone but employees of the abortion clinics.

Today’s case was the epitome of the abortion distortion – the fact that abortion changes the calculus of longstanding legal principles.

It is axiomatic in Supreme Court jurisprudence that public sidewalks are open public fora. In other words, your free speech rights are guaranteed on public sidewalks. For the government to prove otherwise, they would have to show that any restriction is based on some overwhelming or compelling government interest and that the restriction they wish to place on that speech is limited or narrowly tailored in such a way that it imposes the smallest imposition reasonably possible on your free speech.

Just because the government doesn’t like your speech or agree with it does not mean that they get to restrict it – not liking it is not a compelling interest and banning it is not narrowly tailored.

That’s First Amendment law in a nutshell … in every case that is but abortion. Regarding abortion the rules too often become distorted in favor of abortion and against pro-life viewpoints. To some, the First Amendment just doesn’t cover pro-life speech.

That abortion distortion was front and center today.

For years before this pro-abortion restriction passed, Eleanor McCullen, an elderly pro-life sidewalk counselor, had ministered to women seeking an abortion. She would kindly and quietly counsel women approaching abortion clinics about the value of human life, even helping them find assistance from pro-life groups when they chose to keep their babies. She was literally saving lives. And she is one of the nicest women you would ever hope to meet; I had the privilege of meeting her today at our office after the oral argument (pictured above along with a fellow plaintiff Father Eric Cadin, standing behind her).

After the statue passed, Mrs. McCullen’s ministry was essentially shut down. Refusing to be silenced, she challenged this unconstitutional law.

Most disturbing about this case though is that it was not just Massachusetts defending this pro-abortion law, the Obama Administration sent its lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that this anti-pro-life speech law in no way violated the Constitution.

At one point the Obama Administration’s lawyer actually argued that there was no such thing a right to conduct a quite conversation on a public sidewalk. Justice Kennedy was baffled.

In a painfully ironic moment, Justice Kagan compared abortion clinics to slaughterhouses, asking what if this statute had been written about slaughterhouses to keep animal rights activists from blocking the entrance and exits.

Jaws dropped throughout the Courtroom when she said that. The comparison is eerie, as abortion clinics take the lives of millions of unborn Americans each year.

This case should be decided later this summer, and a lot rides on the Court’s opinion. Will it uphold free speech or will it continue to promulgate the abortion distortion?

Fourteen years ago, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow argued an almost identical case, Hill v. Colorado. Importantly, it was a case in which Justice Kennedy issued a stinging dissenting opinion on the side of pro-life speech stating that the court’s ruling upholding a similar buffer zone “contradict[ed] more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.” The three dissenting voices in Hill, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, remain on the Court today.

While it is never safe to make a presumption about a case based on oral argument, there were a number of justices who questioned the constitutionality of this Massachusetts statute.

Today, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito were highly critical of the Massachusetts statue. Even Justice Kagan, seemed concerned about how far this particular law went, asking why a 35-foot buffer zone, why so large, saying that the buffer zone would be almost as large as the Courtroom. However, Justice Kagan, like Justice Sotomayor, took a more nuanced approach in their questions. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who are the only Justices from the Hill majority still on the Court, appeared dismissive of the pro-life arguments.

Justice Thomas, who is traditionally silent during oral argument, did not have any questions, but surprisingly Chief Justice Roberts didn’t say a word during the course of oral arguments.

We filed an amicus brief in this case, arguing in no uncertain terms that Hill was wrongly decided and that pro-life free speech should hold the same place as other free speech under the Constitution.

Pro-life sidewalk counselors like Mrs. McCullen and Father Cadin should not be treated as second-class citizens. The public sidewalks outside of abortion clinics should no longer be speech free zones for those with pro-life views, but should be constitutionally protected free speech zones for all Americans.

LifeNews Note: Matthew Clark is an attorney for the ACLJ, residing in northern Virginia, where this originally appeared. He has been actively involved in Virginia politics for over a decade. You can follow Matthew on Twitter @_MatthewClark.

Category:

Political, Society

Tagged with:

Organization of Islamic Cooperation Seeks to Silence Free Speech Globally Beginning With the US

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/organization-islamic-cooperation-seeks-silence-free-speech-globally-beginning-us/

by John DeMayo

To secure the Muslim worlds common interests, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has formed a new MEDIA advisory committee to foster the creation of international laws criminalizing the criticism of Islam. In other words, Muslim countries want to criminalize and silence free speech globally.

In case you did not know, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, “the collective voice of the Muslim world” is the largest international organization outside the United Nations. The primary target of proposed OIC international blasphemy laws is the United States of America.

The OIC Media Forum’s headquarters is in Istanbul, Turkey. Last month, the OIC announced it would be holding regular conferences to strategize media, legal and political efforts and instituting an aggressive campaign to correct the worlds view of Islam aimed at combating global Islamaphobic speech.

Apparently, the West’s disdain for Islamic terrorism, the reporting of genocide against global Christian communities and attempts to keep the public aware of the ongoing human rights abuses by Muslim governments is leaving an undesirable black mark on the so-called religion of peace.

The Organization of Islamic cooperation—and its 57 member states–has many objectives. All of the OIC’s goals are focused on the dominance of Islam and the shaping of international law to promote social, economic, cultural, scientific, and political and human rights that conform to Sharia or Quranic Law.

Under the tutelage of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and their Muslim Brotherhood operatives, President Barrack Hussein Obama, is keeping an open mind to the adaptation of OIC anti-Islamophia laws, which would make it a crime to disparage Islam for their rampant persecution, torture and murder of the Global Christian community.

This should not come as a great surprise to an America where our government is censoring media reports of acts of Islamic terror, purging references to Jihad and the term Islamic terrorists from terrorism training manuals and is now openly characterizing Christianity and Patriotism as dangerous extremism.

Right wing extremists, myself included, may soon find ourselves arrested and charged as an Islamaphobe, if, we do not write favorably about Islamic female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriages, suicide bombers and Christian genocide.

So where is the entire so-called moderate Muslims—I hear many myopic Americans talking about—stand on Global Islamic leadership plans to criminalize American free speech?

More importantly, where are those misguided Americans on the growing Islamic influence at the United Nations. Perhaps they did not know that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—the largest voting block at the United Nations—is now demanding a permanent seat on the U.N. Security council. That is right folks, the top 57 governments leading the Islamic world are demanding a collective seat at the international law making table.

United Nations Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is in favor of granting the Organization of Islamic Cooperation a seat a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. I suspect President Obama also favors this decision.

While our national discussion is consumed with a dysfunctional government that could hit their butts with both hands, International influences are creepy up on America. Instead of glazing over when presented with facts of our future subjugation, the time to start fighting back is now.

By the time many Americans pull, their heads from the sand there will only two choices. Convert or die.

Editor’s Note: For more information, go to the UN’s website and search “Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

About John DeMayo

Raised in New York, now an adopted son of Texas, John DeMayo is an advocate for the restoration of conservative America. He has been called a “stone thrower” by some and a “sheep dog” by others. DeMayo’s America puts the Constitution and Conservatism first. Everything else is just colored bubbles. Visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/john.demayo.96 or twitter at @DeMayoJohn.

View all posts by John DeMayo →

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Journalism professor says he hopes for murder of NRA members’ children

By Katherine Timpf // http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=5086

A journalism professor at the University of Kansas (KU) turned to Twitter on Monday to suggest he would like to see the murder of children of National Rifle Association (NRA) members at the hands of a deranged gunman.

A journalism professor has defended tweets he sent out which called for the death of NRA employees children.

“#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA,” tweeted David Guth, who is an associate professor of Journalism at the university’s William Allen White School of Journalism.

“Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters, he continued. “Shame on you. May God damn you.”

Speaking with Campus Reform on Wednesday, Guth confirmed it was he who sent the controversial tweet.

“Hell no, hell no, I do not regret that Tweet,” he said. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

Guth also doubled down on the statement when other Twitter users pressed him, suggesting it was was shameful to call for the death of children.

“God’s justice takes many forms,” he tweeted in response.

And on Monday the associate journalism professor echoed those sentiments on his personal blog, called Snapping Turtle.

“I don’t wish what happened today on anyone,” he wrote. “But if it does happen again — and it likely will — may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.”

Also in his interview with Campus Reform, he said that he wished “a pox on our Congress and a pox on the NRA” for not instituting gun control policies to prevent mass shootings.

“It absolutely appalls me that after Newtown, we could not have come to some kind of sane agreement on something as simple as the number of bullets in a magazine or the availability of assault weapons,” he said.

Despite early rumors, the weapon used in the Navy Yard shooting was not an assault weapon, but a shotgun typically used for hunting small birds and wild game.

KU on Wednesday told Campus Reform that they stand by the professor’s right to make such statements.

“Faculty have their own social media accounts and use those to express personal opinions, but those opinions do not represent the university,” spokesman Jack Martin wrote in an email statement to Campus Reform on Wednesday.

While Guth’s Twitter account is personal, his biography includes a link that directs to the school’s website.

“An Eastern Shoreman turned professor and historian,” reads his description. “A devoted husband, father and dog owner. Most important: an independent thinker.”

Official school policy demands all in the community adhere to a standard of “inclusive learning and working environment at the University of Kansas.”

Guth made his comments the same day as the massacre at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC which left 13 people dead including the shooter.

Guth also served as the associate dean of the journalism school from July 2004 to July 2009.

The NRA did not make a spokesperson available to Campus Reform at the time of publication.

UPDATE

‘Disgraceful:’ University suspends prof who hoped for murder of NRA children

By Katherine Timpf // http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=5088

Administrators at the University of Kansas have suspended the journalism professor who suggested on Monday he would like to see the murder of the children of National Rifle Association (NRA) members.

KU’s chancellor, Bernadette Gray-Little, announced the suspension Friday morning, according to a local radio station, KMBZ.

Professor Guth has been placed on administrative leave.

“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation,” he said.

“Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members,” he added.

And on Thursday the school released a statement condemning Guth’s tweet.

“The contents of Professor Guth’s tweet were repugnant and in no way represent the views or opinions of the University of Kansas. “[I]t is truly disgraceful that these views were expressed in such a callous and uncaring way. We expect all members of the university community to engage in civil discourse and not make inflammatory and offensive comment

There is no word whether or not Guth will be paid throughout the suspension.

Guth turned to Twitter on Monday in response the a crazed gunman’s rampage at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C., in which 12 perished.

“#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA,” tweeted David Guth, who is an associate professor of Journalism at the university’s William Allen White School of Journalism.

“Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters, he continued. “Shame on you. May God damn you.”

Speaking with Campus Reform on Wednesday, Guth confirmed it was he who sent the controversial tweet.

“Hell no, hell no, I do not regret that Tweet,” he said. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

Campus Reform has learned that Guth was also publicly censured by the university on October 8, 2010 for “unprofessional, threatening, and abusive behavior towards another faculty.”

“His conduct violated acceptable standards for professional ethics, University policies and Article V.2 and Article V.5 of the Faculty Code of Conduct,” read’s the public notice on the school’s website. “This announcement represents public censure of Professor Guth for his actions.”

SPECIAL NOTE

The following is professor Guth’s e-mail: dguth@ku.edu. If you’re going to e-mail him I ask you to be tactful, although he wasn’t.

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

The Most Offensive Speech Ever

By Mike Adams // http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/offensive-speech-ever/#sbXv8hyMMhAb6TPa.99

There’s nothing more frightening to a liberal college administrator than the gospel message. And I mean that literally. Twice, and only twice, since I’ve been a professor at UNC-We’re Afraid of Jesus, hereafter UNCW, I’ve been warned that there is about to be an exceedingly offensive message broadcast on campus. On both of those occasions, the message was the Gospel. Here’s the latest warning, which was sent out on September 4th to everyone in the university community:

“I wanted to make you aware of a freedom of expression permit that has been approved for this Thursday. Christopher Jude Crowley from ‘Dead 2 Sin Ministries’ will be on campus Thursday, September 5th between 12:00p-4:00p in the Commons Amphitheater. He is not sponsored by a student organization, but he will have a permit from the Office of the Dean of Students. His topic is ‘to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’ Per our procedures, notice(s) will be placed at appropriate locations stating who the speaker/group will be and the duration of time they will be in the location. This will allow for people to reroute their day if they prefer not to hear a speaker they may find offensive or to avoid the area due to congestion.”

This is a grand idea, isn’t it? College is the last place where we would want students to encounter an idea that might be offensive. It would also be insane to assume that they are adults possessed of the ability to take matters into their own hands and divert themselves away from messages they might find to be disagreeable. So I support these “notices at appropriate locations” just like I support these mass emails warning in advance of these potentially offensive situations. I just wish the university would have posted some signs and sent some emails before I encountered some of the following examples of potentially offensive speech, here at UNC-We’re a Bunch of Sanctimonious Liberal Hypocrites, hereafter UNCW:

– Niggas and Bitches for Obama. In 2008, the Obama people set up a booth to urge people to make Obama our first half-white president. The guys at the booth were playing a lot of rap music laced with the b-word and the n-word. The problem is that there were no notices posted or emails sent. So lots of jiggers and botches were getting needlessly offended. We probably need to do something about that in the future. Jigger please!

– The Hate Rock. A few years ago, one of our diversity initiatives involved writing racist words on a giant rock and then spray-painting over them as a symbol of eradicating hate. I think there should have been an email sent out on this one but not because they were spray painting the n-word and then covering it. I think there should have been an email sent warning people about the offensive waste of tax dollars. I mean, it was just so damned stupid. What’s next? Should we pay one janitor to drop trash around the campus and pay a second janitor to follow him around picking it up?

– Greetings Vagina Lovers! We all know that the women who participate in The Vagina Monologues act like sex-crazed frat boys. They get up on stage during the profane play and perform a skit called “Reclaiming C*nt.” It’s a word so dirty, I c*nt even use it on Clash Daily without using an asterisks. These women say the word over and over in this skit based on the theory that repeating the insulting word will reduce its stigma and, therefore, its power to control women. It’s painful to listen to this repetitious profanity. It’s a death by a thousand cu*ts!

Fortunately, if you’re offended by the word, you can avoid hearing it by boycotting (or to avoid being sexist, girl-cotting) The Vagina Monologues. That way, you can also avoid seeing the feminists licking their candied vaginas, which they call p*ssy pops. Yea, that’s right. The feminists actually sell vagina-shaped candy at university sponsored events.

Now, again, all of this potentially offensive vagina speech would be avoidable except that the university sends out a mass email telling people about the event every year. The email always begins with the line “greetings vagina lovers.” So much for giving people advanced warning and helping them avoid offensive speech.

– Naked chicks everywhere! Remember the Century Project I previously wrote about in one of my columns? If not, don’t worry. It’s easy to explain. It’s a collection of pictures of 100 naked women, the youngest being one and oldest being 100. Most of the pictures are tame. Others are more provocative and controversial. For example, one picture shows the fully developed breasts and pubic hair of one under-aged teen. Our Women’s Center once decided to post the pictures in the university library.

When I wrote about this previously, I emphasized their bad judgment in posting the pictures in the lobby right in front of some public access computers some pedophiles had previously been caught using to download child pornography. What I did not write about previously was the fact that there was no mass email sent to the entire university community warning them that there would be pictures of naked women “they may find offensive” or to avoid the library area “due to congestion” caused by pedophiles who may be lurking to see pictures of the naked children without risk of prosecution. (Author’s note: When a professor downloads pictures of naked children, it’s not called pedophilia. It’s called academic freedom).

So let’s stop for a minute and put all of this information into perspective. To do so, I suggest we play a game they’ve played for decades on the children’s program, Sesame Street. It’s called “which one of these is not like the others.” Here goes:

1. Niggas and Bitches. Well, this is clearly inoffensive speech, which is fine, especially when broadcast by Obama liberals.

2. C*nts and P*ssies. This is also inoffensive speech, provided the person using these words is a feminists or, at the very least, a vagina lover.

3. Bushes and Boobies. Well, pubic hair and fully exposed breasts can get pretty tricky. But as long as a professor is promoting it, we’ll call it academic freedom. We’ll also call it inoffensive speech.

4. Jesus and the Gospel. Well, now we’ve gone too far. This one is clearly offensive speech. In fact, it’s so offensive that students need to be protected from it. The truth is that we’re going to need to kill a lot of trees to print flyers and post notices about this one. I hope the tree-huggers aren’t needlessly offended.

On our campus, the Gospel of Jesus is not like the others. The Word of the Lord just doesn’t belong.www.letterstoayoungprogressive.com

About the author: Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Free Speech

Military Chaplain’s Assistant Threatened By Superior Over Her Expression Of Christian Beliefs

by Frank Camp // http://lastresistance.com/2981/military-chaplains-assistant-threatened-by-superior-over-her-expression-of-christian-beliefs/#teBAs9yd0hhtWjQk.99

As society progresses, we lose small pieces of what made us human. We replace these little pieces with dangerous facsimiles of what originally filled us. Above all else, we lose our sense of moral integrity. What comes with a loss of moral integrity is an animus toward others who still hold values which many have left behind. We reach a certain point—which I fear we are quickly approaching—when that animus evolves into hostility, and that hostility into tyranny. Once we have reached tyranny, we cannot go back; we are trapped behind a glass wall, only able to see in our minds what once was possible, and who we once were. We are no longer humans, but animals, fighting for territory and scraps of food.

As we have progressed, we have lost tolerance. The Left will tell you that they are the most tolerant people the world has ever seen. That is, of course, a lie. The Left is only tolerant of those with whom they agree—which isn’t tolerance at all.

According to Town Hall, a Army Chaplain’s Assistant is being targeted for her religious beliefs. After watching a documentary in which a Pastor was condoning homosexuality, telling his gay parishioners to embrace who they are, the Chaplain’s Assistant posted a response on her personal Facebook page. This is the response in full:

“A lot ticked off, now to all my gay friends you know I care about you so don’t think otherwise. I’m watching this documentary and this gay guy went to a church and the Pastor was telling him that he needs to embrace his way and know that it is not a sin. Ok umm wow, dude it is. I’m sick of people making Gods word what it’s not. Yes God loves you as a person but He hates the sin. Tired of hearing about Pastors being ok with homosexuality.”

In response, her Commander told her to remove the post, or face demotion, and a salary decrease. Her Commander said that she was creating “a hostile and antagonistic environment in the unit.”

The Assistant says that she will not remove the post, and that she will not be intimidated into hiding her beliefs. “I haven’t taken it down, and I won’t take it down…

I’ve never gotten in trouble for anything. And there’s nothing hostile or antagonistic in the post…Where does it stop? If they are going to silence me on Facebook, where will it stop?”

Todd Hudnall, her Colorado Pastor, came to the defense of the Assistant, saying:

“I read what she posted and there was absolutely no trace of animus, disrespect or hostility. Instead, she expressed love for her gay friends but insisted that biblical values should not be compromised. Her issue wasn’t with anyone who is gay but with pastors who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching about homosexual behavior…I was struck by the fact that the military was denying her right to privately exercise her freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”

Where is the tolerance on the part of the Military? I can guarantee that if someone of a faith besides Christianity posted something similar to what the Assistant posted, the response would not be the same. That, right there, is intolerance.

Tolerance–in a sense–means dealing with the world around you; it means seeing people for who they are, not what they are. Tolerance means that although you may not agree with someone, you respect them as a human being, and treat them as you would want to be treated. The Military cannot violate freedom of speech. The Assistant has every right to express her beliefs in a way that doesn’t create an uncomfortable environment for her peers. She did that. She respectfully addressed her biblical understanding on her private Facebook page.

Finally, what the Chaplain’s Assistant said is correct. If the Military silences her on Facebook, where and when will they act next? If they can reach their arms into the personal lives of soldiers–specifically and deliberately targeting religious beliefs–what is stopping them from going further? The answer is nothing. Nothing is stopping them. Animus will turn into hostility, and hostility into tyranny.

I don’t care if you agree with the Chaplain’s Assistant or not. I don’t care if you think her beliefs are wrong. If you care about our country, if you care about the future of our liberties, you will stand with her. With this case, a small, fragile piece of our collective freedom is teetering on the edge of a cliff. If it is allowed to fall, it will shatter into a million tiny pieces which we will never be able to put back together. It will be just one more piece of humanity lost, pushing us further toward tyranny.

Category:

Military, Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Fired Tennessee newspaper editor: Termination was political and retroactive

Politics // http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/01/fired-tennessee-newspaper-editor-termination-was-political-and-retroactive/#ixzz2ay2urkO1

Jeff Poor

Media Reporter

On Thursday, the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press announced the termination of one of its editors for what was deemed to be an inappropriate headline criticizing President Barack Obama on the day of a visit to Chattanooga to promote his economic policies.Later that day, Johnson gave an interview to The Daily Caller in order explain his termination, claiming it was unmerited on the grounds that it was for a policy that had not yet been put in place. He explained the circumstances of inserting the headline at the minute prior to publication.

“It’s very common practice at our paper and I’m sure it is at a lot of papers to just plug in a space-holder headline or you know, you have a headline you’re not happy with and you change it at the last minute. And I probably did it myself once a week. In this case, I put in a placeholder that wasn’t good. It got time to publish the piece and I thought, ‘What goes with jobs plan?’ and I thought the Johnny Paycheck song, ‘Take this job and shove it.’ So I put that in there — put the title that you saw and the next day, while it was becoming literally the most read, not just editorial but [most read] thing ever on the paper’s website.”

Ads by Google

Johnson explained that later that day he got called into his editor’s office and they conveyed their displeasure with the headline. And they informed him that going forward changes to headlines would have to be approved by another editor so that this would not happen again in the future.

And despite the alleged offensive nature of the editorial, Johnson pointed out the Free Press kept the editorial up online in its entirety without any adjustments.

“Keep in mind the entire time since they told me that people were offended by the editorial, they had the editorial online and it’s been read by — it’s got hundreds of thousands of clicks and they’ve made money and they’ve made plenty of money on online advertising,” he added. “And it wasn’t offensive enough for them to pull down and stop getting all the traffic.”

However, two days after the editorial had been published he was called in and fired for the piece.

“So I was brought into human resources today and I was told, ‘You’re being fired for violating the policy that you have to have an editor sign off when you make a change to a headline,’” he said. “Well, I said, ‘That’s funny, because that policy wasn’t in place until after I wrote the piece and you guys told me that was the policy on Tuesday. And I wrote the piece on Monday.’”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Militant Atheist Demand A Christian Military Chaplian Be Punished For Doing His Job

By Clash Daily / / http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/militant-atheist-demand-military-chaplian-be-punished-for-doing-his-job/

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: “I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

As reported by Fox News’s Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes’s “anti-secular diatribe.”

MRFF’s letter says that by Reyes’s “use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, ‘no atheists in foxholes,’ he defiles the dignity of service members.” They accuse him of violating military regulations.

My legal research on this issue uncovered no regulation prohibiting Reyes’ speech, which looks like expression protected by the free speech and religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment. Military leaders did not respond to Fox’s inquiries asking the Air Force to identify any such rules.

Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF’s complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.

But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes’s First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, “Faith based hate, is hate all the same,” and, “Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished.” (Emphasis added).

So MRFF is saying that the coercive power of government must be used to punish a military officer, who is also an ordained Christian minister, for making ordinary religious references consistent with his faith.

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council—one of the leaders of a new religious liberty coalition for the military—responded, “A chaplain has been censored for expressing his beliefs about the role of faith in the lives of service members… Why do we have chaplains if they aren’t allowed to fulfill that purpose?”

MRFF is activist Mikey Weinstein’s organization. He called observant Christians “fundamentalist monsters” seeking to impose a “reign of theocratic terror,” and he described sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military as an act of “spiritual rape” that makes believers “enemies of the Constitution” who are committing an act of “sedition and treason” against this nation.

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Hamas-CAIR Attacks Florida Professor’s Free Speech Exposing Connections Between Islam & Terrorism

by Tim Brown / http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/hamas-cair-attacks-florida-professors-jonathan-matusitz-free-speech-exposing-connections-between-islam-terrorism/#ixzz2YgIYZRl2

The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched an attack (no pun intended) on University of Central Florida (UCF) associate professor Jonathan Matusitz for stating his view that these is a connection between Islamism and terrorism. (SEE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cESJ58FyUQ0&feature=player_embedded#t=2s)

The 36 year old professor, according to his bio on the UCF website, came to the U.S. from Belgium in 2000. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma in 2006. He has 95 academic publications and more than 100 conference presentations to his credit and taught at a NATO-affiliated military base in Belgium. He also won an award for outstanding performance form the university, teaches several communication classes. One of those classes is Terrorism and Communication while another is on intercultural communication. He also wrote a book titled Terrorism & Communication: A Critical Introduction that was published last year.

CAIR points to a YouTube video of Professor Matusitz, who was speaking off campus, claiming that he has an anti-Muslim viewpoint. Now, this should be enough for people to recognize that there are many of us out here who have an anti-Muslim viewpoint. It’s called freedom of speech. What CAIR doesn’t point out is their anti-Christian stance.

Matusitz actually presents reasoning for why countries should resist the global spread of Islam as he stresses the link between Islamic culture and terrorism.

“Why do so many Muslims, relative to other religions, want to kill us?” he asks in the video. “The answer is easy, very easy. It is seven letters –culture.”

“How can you change a movement in which you have 1.5 billion members? It’s impossible,” he says. “We just have to resist it and just elect people who are willing just to resist it and just be true American. That’s the only answer. We’re not going to change Islam.”

CAIR, touts itself as a Muslim civil rights group, but found themselves named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas more than a dozen CAIR leaders have been charged or convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

Art Moore, points out CAIR’s response:

CAIR’s chief national spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, told the Orlando paper he does not understand how a publicly funded university could allow a professor to promote hatred toward Muslims.

“What he is teaching his students at UCF is just raw, anti-Muslim hate,” Hooper said. “If somebody suddenly decided they were very fond of the KKK and they were tenured and decided they were going to teach KKK ideologies to the students, I don’t think that would be permitted.”

However, UCF spokesman Grant Heston appears to basically tell CAIR to go where Islamists will find themselves in eternity. Since he was not speaking on behalf of UCF when he made his remarks, Heston said “Dr. Matusitz expressed his opinion, which is his right.”

Perhaps Islamists should learn this lesson or move to a country that wants to be oppressed in what they think and say and just leave us alone.

For Matusitz’s part, he refuses to be “politically correct just to please everybody.”

I like that; a man with some backbone! Perhaps he should consider elected office.

The Clarion Project also adds:

“I think that in academia, I’m sure a lot of people don’t share my views,” he said. “But I also think that a lot of people share my views, but they’re not as open as I am.”

In another YouTube video, Matusitz cites a statistic that indicates the vast majority of victims of terrorism were victims of Islamic terrorism.

“So when my colleagues tell me that Islam is a religion of peace, I tell them that Islam is a religion of pieces: Piece of body here, piece of body there,” he says in the video.

CAIR is merely demonstrating the kind of bullying tactics Islamists use to try and get their way. I’m glad Matusitz isn’t claiming Islam has been hijacked or that it is some “radical Muslims” engaged in these things, but is part of Islamic culture. I’m also encouraged that the university is standing behind right to free speech. Good for them! I hope Professor Matusitz continues helping people understand the truth about Islam in the face of those who want to silence freedom of speech.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Wake Up America. This Type of Persecution is Growing Strength Here

French extreme-right leader Marine Le Pen could face trial for comparing the country’s Muslim community to the Nazi occupation

MEPs have begun process of stripping the far-right leader of legal immunity
French prosecutors want to charge her with inciting racial hatred
Her father was in 1998 stripped of immunity to face holocaust denial charge

By Ian Sparks http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345010/French-extreme-right-leader-Marine-Le-Pen-face-trial-comparing-countrys-Muslim-community-Nazi-occupation.html#ixzz2XA2UfWy8

French extreme right-wing leader Marine Le Pen faces potential prosecution for branding Muslims in France as ‘like a Nazi occupation’.

The National Front chief risks being put on trial after members of the European Parliament’s judicial committee in Brussels voted to lift her legal immunity as an MEP.

Ms Le Pen sparked uproar among in France after a speech at a party rally in December 2012 when she denounced Muslims praying in the street in areas where there are no mosques.

Stripped of legal immunity: French National Front leader Marine Le Pen could now face trial for inciting racial hatred after comparing the country’s Muslim community to the Nazi occupation

France has a population of around five million Muslims, the highest of any European country.

Le Pen told supporters: ‘For those who like to talk about World War II, to talk about occupation, we could talk about, for once, the occupation of our territory.

‘There are no armoured vehicles, no soldiers, but it is an occupation all the same and it weighs on people.’

More…

French prosecutors asked the EU last November to lift the her immunity as a lawmaker so she could be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.

The European Parliament’s legal committee voted overwhelmingly yesterday that Le Pen could be charged and the full parliament is now expected to formally lift her protection in the coming weeks.

British Tory MEP and legal affairs committee member Sajjad Karim said: ‘There is a red line between freedom of speech and inciting racial hatred.

‘I, along with many other MEPs, today voted to drop Ms Le Pen’s immunity and I am confident that the majority of the European Parliament will follow our lead in July.’

A woman wears a burqa as she walks on a street in Saint-Denis, near Paris in 2010: France has a population of around five million Muslims, the highest of any European country

Le Pen, 47, is renowned for her outspoken views on immigration – but is also riding on a wave of popular support and would come second in another presidential election.

Last year she tried to prosecute pop star Madonna for screening an image of her with a Swastika on her head at a Paris concert.

She also recently had a news photographer banned from taking any more pictures of her – because he makes her look ‘ugly’.

Her father and former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was stripped of his legal protection as an MEP to face charges of holocaust denial in 1998.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Free Speech is Only Free When the Government Says it is

By Edwin Leap / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/free-speech-is-only-free-when-the-government-says-it-is/

silenced In the wake of the killing of Soldier Lee Rigby in London a few weeks ago, the police took dramatic action to prevent further violence. They arrested people who posted online comments that were critical of or offensive to Muslims.

I have to admit, after a soldier has been nearly decapitated on a city street, this sort of response is nothing short of courageous! I can only hope they knocked their doors down and cuffed them with zip-ties. Lousy verbal terrorists!

Lest you laugh too soon or too loudly, know that today, June 4, in Tennessee, a meeting is taking place that is meant to explain how your comments on, for instance, Facebook or Twitter could be construed as civil rights violations if they are negative or derogatory to Muslims.

You can read about it here, at http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/05/doj-social-media-posts-trashing-muslims-may-violate-civil-rights/

I find this a darkly disturbing and profoundly fascinating trend. I mean, I have known physicians who told me that they could be fired for speaking certain opinions on certain topics. And it’s very well-documented that college faculty has lost their positions for holding views in favor of Intelligent Design or against Darwinian evolution.

Certainly students are routinely ridiculed by professors for daring to speak in favor of their Christian faith, or for expressing any opinion that flies in the face of the cult of political correctness by opposing same-sex marriage or the latest fashionable political trend.

But I thought all of that was isolated stupidity, confined mostly to academic teaching centers where poor thinking and intellectual bullying are the stuff of greatness and tenure.

I was wrong. The arrests in the UK are hints of what we may face before long. Imagine the scenario. Yet another horrible terrorist event occurs and you, blogger or columnist or Facebook member (and apparent agitator) happen to make some comment about Islamic extremism, or the radicalization of Muslims.

Within a few hours, your online account has a note, warning you to watch your mouth (or fingers). Perhaps your account is frozen, with a nasty note from your Internet provider, more than happy to turn you in to avoid further hassles from the boys and girls in black.

Or, as in the case of the UK, the feds (Homeland Security? Verbal Assault Bureau? National Hurtful Speech Association?) show up at 4 am in response to your 2 am rant and escort you down to the station for a little chat; all the while packing up your computer as evidence. (And leaving your Cheetoh’s and Mountain Dew behind, dang it!)

Welcome to America. Or Amerika! Welcome to the land where inconvenient amendments to the inconvenient Constitution are routinely and systematically swept under the ever-expanding, ornate rug that is Sharia.

Welcome to the future our founders would never have envisioned. Welcome to a multicultural nightmare in which the only response to any predation on freedom is to extol the virtue of the oppressors and their philosophies (or theologies, as it were).

A land where right is wrong, war is peace, freedom is slavery and terrorists are simply misunderstood.

Oddly enough, I would never subject my ideological enemies to this sort of harassment. Let Richard Dawkins call me a cretin and simpleton for my faith.

Let Sam Harris revile everything about Christianity in the most unsavory of terms. Let any and every atheist blame the ills of the world on Southern Baptists or Catholics or whomever they like.

This is still America and I will still defend their freedom to say it.

But the day that we are subject to speech codes for critical comments, for connecting the dots or for simply hurting the feelings of those whose very way of life threatens the essence of American liberty, on that day, to use a medical analogy, our national respirations will cease.

All that will be left will be our submission and our burial in the dusty annals of history, where weakness dies and oppression, unchecked grows stronger.

Because we are a nation that thrives only on the clean, clear air of free speech.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Free Speech

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

By Steve Straub – 59 Comments · In US

Share this:

By Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren For Dailymail.com

Probe: Investigators pull belongings from the back of the truck and carry items inside the complex on Monday morning

Attack: The bodies of shooting suspects are seen next to their vehicle as it is searched for explosives at an anti-Muslim event in Texas on Sunday. The two men had got out the vehicle and opened fire, wounding a security guard in the leg, before they were shot by police

TAPES OF A TERROR SUSPECT: RECORDINGS SHOW SIMPSON’S INTENTIONS TO WAGE A WAR

Winner: Artist Bosh Fawstin (left) is presented with a check for $12,500 by Dutch politician Geert Wilders (center) and Pamela Geller (right) during a ceremony at the Curtis Culwell Center just before the shootings occurred

CONTROVERSIAL CARICATURES: WHY DEPICTING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS BANNED BY MUSLIMS

My Own Two Cents………

Share this:

Posted 10 hours ago by Gary DeMar

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/21601/3-percent-beating-30-percent/#CSj1AGL32k0LTvZV.99

Jesus never got mixed up in politics (so why should we?)

There’s a separation between church and state (even though there isn’t any such constitutional claim)

The Christian’s citizenship is in heaven (it didn’t stop the Apostle Paul from using his Roman citizenship: Acts 22:25-29)

We can’t impose our morality on other people (all law is the imposition of somebody’s view of morality/immorality)

We’re not to judge (what’s forbidden is inconsistency: Matt. 7:1-2)

Politics is dirty (and so is everything else)

Religion and politics don’t mix (then why are murder, stealing, and rape morally wrong?)

Jesus wasn’t a social reformer (He didn’t get married, have children, or own a home either)

Christians should remain neutral (neutrality is impossible and leads to being neutralized)

God’s kingdom is not of this world (God’s kingdom is in, over, and through this world)

It’s never right to resist authority (“We must obey God rather than men”: Acts 5:29)

The church should only preach the gospel. (preaching the gospel is the first step followed by teaching the “whole purpose of God”: Acts 20:27)

We’re living in the last days (How long have we been hearing this claim?)

And the most often used excuse?: “We’re afraid we might lose our tax-exempt status.”

Share this:

Posted by Steven Ertelt Mar 17, 2015, New York, NY

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/17/st-patricks-day-parade-in-new-york-city-bans-pro-life-banner-saying-choose-life/

ACTION: Complain to the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

Share this:

Share this:

Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/27/2014

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/christians-bloodied-by-stone-throwing-muslims-in-michigan/

The case arose from the annual Arab International Festival in June 2012 when Wayne County sheriff’s deputies stood by while a Muslim mob threw rocks at Christians, bloodying them.

The officers then threatened the Christians with arrest if they didn’t leave the event.

The dissent from the panel’s decision that earlier had dismissed the case said: “The majority’s first error is its conclusion that the First Amendment did not protect [the Christians’] speech. This is not only wrong, it is dangerously wrong.”

AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi said the First Amendment “is under assault by both Muslim supremacists and Islamists on the one hand and progressives advocating ‘hate-speech’ crimes on the other.”

See video of the 2012 attack:

Share this:

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

Churches Can Exclude Chemical Baby Killing, But Not Surgical

Share this:

Oct. 14, 2014 7:37pm Oliver Darcy

“Caging students in censorship zones flies in the face of the First Amendment…”

Share this:

Written by Audrey Russo on June 18, 2014

“You grow up the day you have your first real laugh — at yourself.” ~ Ethel Barrymore

Share this:

Case will directly impact political hyperbole on the internet

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | June 18, 2014

Share this:

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/16/14

Share this:

“The ONLY FREE SPEECH the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/ followers of Saul Alinsky are interested in is REPEATING WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SAY, THIS AGREEING WITH THEM. Anything else is grounds for hatred.” JB

“Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”

Share this:

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/13/leftist-thought-police-emboldened-and-on-a-tear/

By: David Limbaugh 5/13/2014 06:00 AM

“Being offended is a CHOICE, not a right not to be offended. I am offended multiple times a day, yet I will lay down my life for the right of the “offending” people to express their thoughts and beliefs. I want the same consideration.” JB

“One more time. “Are we getting to the point that Big Brother not only gets to disapprove of such beliefs but also is entitled to punish and muzzle those who subscribe to them?” “JB

“Well?” JB

Are there any proponents of same-sex marriage out there who are concerned by the utter totalitarianism we are moving toward? Will they stand up against it, or will they allow their views to be merged into the dangerous groupthink that is enveloping our collective psyche like the blob?

“This Christian does.” JB

“Yes I do David. The evidence of Socialism is growing everyday.” JB

Share this:

Church condemns planned satanic mass at Harvard

Event part of series exploring different cultures, religious traditions

“Please read the entire article first, and then let’s discuss this at the end.” JB

“I’d rather fight to my own death their right to do this, so that my rights as a Evangelical, Pentecostal Christian can continue a little longer. It is okay to disagree, and even hate what someone else is saying, doing or believing, and still fight for their right to do so.’

“Silencing them silences us.’

“What do you think?” JB

Share this:

Warning: Explicit content:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.

” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

By: David Limbaugh
5/13/2014 06:00 AM