Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, February 21, 2014

It’s Talk Show Radio the FCC is REALLY After

Don’t get too many shudders from the government monitors of the FCC arriving any time soon at the television newsrooms. They've been there for the last five years.


Canada Free Press, by Judi McLeod, Friday, February 21, 2014 

Dress newsroom monitors of the Obama Regime’s FCC in jackboots and military caps when they come to invade because the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” (CINS) they proposed last May is truly all about image.

Why are they sending monitors into the newsrooms at this particular juncture of the Fundamental Transformation of America?

Because it shores up Obama’s Marxist fear factor.  We’ve got ObamaCare, ready to be propped up with pictures of dogs, cats and other pets in a $1 million advertising campaign aimed at the same young people, dubbed “knuckleheads” by Michelle Obama.  We’ve got ‘Braggadocio Barry’s increasingly loud boasts that he’s got a pen and a phone with which to circumvent Congress.

The Marxist march through all of America’s public institutions is now ready to place a jackbooted-presence down at your local radio and television station.
Here’s the hidden message: Run, hide, cower under the nearest desk, CINS is on the way.
When the KGB and the Stasi invaded the news rooms of Russia and Germany, they killed off any who showed resistance.  In their mad, unquenchable thirst for power the Obama Regime thinks its people are already dead.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

TPN—Judson Phillips: No Free Speech in Charlotte

As America waits for the gathering of losers that is referred to officially as the Democratic National Convention, some people are expressing concerns that the Constitution has effectively been repealed in the convention zone in Charlotte.


From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Starting Saturday, someone walking through Charlotte's central business district could run afoul of the law by carrying water bottles, hair spray, socks or magic markers under sweeping security rules enacted ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

It would take a particularly strict reading of the rules for someone to be arrested simply for possessing one of those items, but the possibility exists — which worries protesters and free speech advocates. They fear authorities could trample on people's constitutional rights in the name of protecting public safety.

The changes to city ordinances adopted earlier this year for "extraordinary events" ban a long list of actions and items that would otherwise be legal from a more than 100-square-block zone. The area includes spots as much as a mile from the sports venues where the Democratic Party events are to be held.

The new rules have already been used for events before the convention and will remain on the books after it's over.

The special rules that went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Saturday could also bar anyone other than government employees from carrying handbags and backpacks or possessing soda cans, drink coolers, scarves, bike helmets, baby strollers or pets not specifically permitted as service animals.

A section banning "a container or object of sufficient weight to be used as a projectile" could be interpreted to include almost anything, from an apple to an iPhone.

Those caught violating any of these prohibitions could be subject to arrest and jail.

Similar prohibitions have been in place at past conventions, especially those following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Outside the Republican National Convention in 2004, New York City police carried out mass arrests, detaining hundreds of people for days in miserable conditions on a Hudson River pier. Most of those charges were later dropped or thrown out, triggering dozens of lawsuits against the city.

At the rain-soaked Republican Convention in Tampa earlier this week, officials banned umbrellas, baseballs and puppet-making materials. There, the rules went largely untested after only a fraction of the expected protesters showed up due to worries about Hurricane Isaac.

Charlotte's Uptown business district is home to the headquarters of Bank of America and substantial operations for Wells Fargo, two of the nation's largest financial institutions. The "March on Wall Street South" scheduled for Sunday is expected to draw thousands of protesters.

Members of Occupy Charlotte, who are helping to organize the march, said turnout for that and other protests could get a boost from demonstrators deterred from Tampa by the weather. At the other end of the political spectrum, tea party activists and other right wing groups are also planning protests.

The Democrats always claim to be champions of civil liberties until they become burdensome for the Party of Treason.

In case no one remembers, Charlotte is a part of the United States. We have a Constitution that guarantees freedom and liberty. While the Democrats prefer the police state, that is not America.

At this point, these rules are so draconian, I hope Charlotte is sued early and often. Perhaps if the city is bankrupted through civil rights lawsuits, no other city will be so anxious to try and act as if citizens do not have rights.

http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%3A2186766&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic


Sunday, August 19, 2012

Separation Of Church And State: Then And Now

The term “separation of church and state” is being thrown around more every day, but it seems that its origin and meaning still escapes many Americans, even those who should know better. Even among Christian conservatives, there are now some who constantly check themselves at the door of separation of church and state before making private or public decisions or statements, readily accepting the popular understanding of the phrase.

The problematic reality of the situation is that they are being misled by those whose intentions are dishonest and far from the promotion of free speech and religion. Most political conversations now initiated, concerning the separation of church and state, claim that the separation they speak of is based upon the U.S. Constitution. In reality, this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution; neither is their argument. The anti-freedom argument of separation of church and state contends that no reference, audible or visible, to any biblical or Christian tenet should be allowed in any federal or state facility (or in any decision made therein.)


Their unfounded claim is made in citation to the First Amendment to the Constitution, effective December 15, 1791. Amendment I states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Obviously, the exact phrase that is so popular among this crowd is not present in this amendment. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” actually originated from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802. This religious group, like many today, had learned just enough about the governmental terminology that had been established concerning the church and the state to entertain the possibility that the government meant to turn completely away from the interests and influences of Christianity and Bible teaching. That was their fear. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to remove their fears and to assure them that this “wall” was being erected to protect their religious freedom, in that it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. The respect or display of Judeo-Christian faith is not the sort of “establishment” being addressed in the First Amendment. This faith had already been established long before the writing of the Constitution.

It’s easier to put the true intent of the nation’s founders into perspective when we consider their plight in the earlier American colonies and, for some of them and many of their ancestors, in the mother country of England. There, under the British monarchy, the Church of England and the government were one in the same. Both entities infiltrated the other, causing citizens’ lives, well-being, and freedoms to suffer. This “establishment” of a state religion is what the founders wished to avoid in the independent separation of their young nation of the United States from British control. Their intention was never to remove the free expression or practice of religion from public or private American life. Quite the contrary was true.

In fact, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established colonial orthodox churches. As the very first Supreme Court justice, John Jay, in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797, said that “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In 1798, John Adams said, We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Based upon historical record, these views were also shared by others, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. Although the nation was not officially founded to be a Christian nation, in that it was not penned into founding documents that “the United States of America is to be solely representative and influenced by Christianity,” by the very nature of the Founders’ faith and actions, it should be clearly understood that America was, from the beginning, a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times and clearly states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By any contextual interpretation, it can only be concluded that the “Creator” being spoken of in this document is the God of the Holy Bible.

Other evidence of the country’s traditional Christian heritage can be clearly observed in the nation’s Capital and in other public institutions elsewhere. The words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court building, built in the 1930’s, contains a carved monument above its East entrance featuring Moses holding stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. God is mentioned, including Bible verses, in the stone architecture of various Federal buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. The liberty bell also contains an engraved Bible verse. In every presidential swearing-in ceremony, prayers have been offered, and every U.S. president has uttered the words “So help me God” as they were sworn in on the Bible. Every president who has given an inaugural address has invoked the name of God in their speech. Other courtroom oaths have also always invoked God, and chaplains have always been included on the public payroll. God is mentioned in the original Constitution of all 50 states. Including official festivities under every administration at the White House, our nation has also always celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth.

CONTINUED:  http://www.westernjournalism.com/separation-of-church-and-state-then-and-now/

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: What you don't know, by CCTA Member Lou Call

August 1st



The Sun Journal
Letter to the Editor

What you don’t know….

Languishing in Congress is a little known House Joint Resolution 88 which has been introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and supported by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It is known by its name, ‘Peoples Rights Amendment’ and declares that:

(1) the rights protected by the Constitution are intended to be the rights of natural persons; and


(2) the words "people," "person," or "citizen" as used in the Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and that such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the states. Prohibits this Amendment from limiting the rights of freedom of speech, the press, exercise of religion, association, and all such other inalienable rights of the people.

On the surface it sounds innocuous enough until you consider what the sponsor had in mind when he proposed this amendment to the Constitution. As its author, Rep. McGovern explained,””..all corporate entities – for profit and non-profit alike-are not people with Constitution rights”.

Under the People’s Rights Amendment anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitution rights collectively with other people would be “subject to such regulation as Congress deems reasonable”.


So who would be affected by this resolution? Americans for Prosperity, Citizens United, National Rifle Association, American Family Association etc…


Even MSNBC and the New York Times come under this ruling.....assuming you can find someone in Congress to challenge them.

The only purpose of this amendment to our Constitution is to ‘muzzle’ organizations from speaking out for its members regardless of who is control of Congress. A dangerous and unnecessary precedent.

Before you dismiss this as some radical leftist pipe dream consider this. At least four States-Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont and Rhode Island-have already passed resolutions calling for this amendment.

Perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts summed it up when he wrote in the Citizens United case, “The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soap box and the lonely pamphleteer. “

We need to remember this in November for there is much more at stake than just the office of President.

The very survival of our Republic hangs in the balance.

Louis Call
River Bend, NC

Monday, June 18, 2012

Barack Obama’s Totalitarian Plan to Destroy Free Speech

Obama's chief political adviser, Alinskee radical David Axelrod, said on national TV that they plan to change the First Amendment.

Mr. Obama doesn't like Freedom of Speech the way it currently works, so if he wins a second term, he wants to remove some of the protections that it holds for all of us. And can you guess what conveniently happens right around the time that these new rules will kick in?


Not content to simply ram legislation down the throats of Americans without the input of Congress, King Barack Obama the First (and hopefully the Last) has now openly announced that the First Amendment to the Constitution needs to be amended. His main radical adviser said on national television that they want to do away with free speech provisions in the Bill of Rights, in order to silence the opponents of hope and change. That’s you, by the way, if you’re reading this and all of us here at the Beat Obama Committee. We can’t stress enough how serious this issue really is.

Below is what Senator Mitch McConnell told NewsMax.TV this week:

“David Axelrod – [Obama’s] principal political adviser – said a few days ago that the administration wanted to amend the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This has never been done before in 235 years, to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country. A truly radical, astonishing to say out loud, even if you believed it.”

This is the most fundamental threat to our way of life in America since we fought our war for independence from Britain.

Picture this in 2013.

CONTINUED:  https://beatobama.us/1st-amendment/barack-obamas-totalitarian-plan-to-destroy-free-speech

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Letter to the Editor: Our Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

April 4, 2012

At the risk of being called a racist by WJ Gould and others who worship at the altar of Obama, I intend to speak up against what I consider the biggest threat of modern times, and that would be the reelection of the radical hack now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As long as the First Amendment still exists I don't intend to sit idly by as our Country is destroyed by a bunch of so called “progressives”, wrapping their hearts and minds around an ideology that is closer to Marx than Madison.

For someone portrayed as a Constitutional scholar Obama has total disdain for our Founding Documents. He glibly misquotes the Declaration of Independence, not once, but twice. He decries the Constitution as it doesn't give him the power he believes he so richly deserves, failing to realize the Constitution was intended to protect the citizens from the tyranny he embraces, not to allow power maniacs the right to ride rough shod over the People.

The Declaration lists all the injuries suffered at the hand of King George. It could easily be rewritten for modern times with a list of grievances against Obama and his regime.
  • He has entered us into war situations without approval from Congress.
  • He has apologized to other Countries for injustices that no one presently alive is responsible.
  • He thinks we are no more exceptional than Greece, failing to understand that freedom and liberty are exceptional ideas of which some can only dream.
  • He makes appointments without Senate approval on a regular basis.
  • He appoints tax cheats to high office.
  • He appoints known socialists and others wishing to destroy the free market to high office.
  • He assaults the free market and capitalism, bastions of a free society.
  • He appoints an Attorney General who openly opposes the Second Amendment, and is interested in justice for only “his people” rather than equal justice under the law.
  • He appoints a Secretary of Energy who wants gas prices to be equal with Europe.
  • He funnels taxpayer money to green energy companies who are dubious for future success.
  • He presents a budget so onerous that it gets no votes, not even from his own party.
  • He interjects into situations of which he is ignorant or uninformed (the police acted stupidly).
  • He has dalliances with fringe elements (Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, ACORN, George Soros).
  • He has insulted our friends, and cozies up to our enemies.
  • He has increased the national debt at a rate unequal in our history.
The list is far from complete, but space is limited in this forum. I implore citizens to advise themselves of the danger posed by one who dictates rather than leads, and the current threat to our liberty as we head down the road of serfdom and tyranny.

Nancy Murdoch
Havelock, NC

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

How can you help? Glenn announces 'We are all Catholics Now'

How can you help? Glenn announces 'We are all Catholics Now' movement as attack intensifies --The Obama administration has not backed down on its attack on faith and conscience, instead giving a non-concession concession in their push to mandate birth control & abortion coverage. Senator Roy Blunt (R) has added an amendment to the Highway Transportation bill that would allow employers to decide whether they want to cover contraception or not. What can you do? It's easy -- time to hit the switchboards. Phone numbers in the link - CLICK HERE & CALL.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/02/15/details-glenn-to-kick-off-we-are-all-catholics-now-campaign/

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

URGENT: Tell Your Senators to Vote YES on the Blunt-Rubio-Ayotte Amendment to Protect Conscience

URGENT: Tell Your Senators to Vote YES on the Blunt-Rubio-Ayotte Amendment to Protect Conscience


Tell them to vote YES on Amendment #1520

Last Friday, the President Obama announced a new “accommodation” for religiously-affiliated organizations under the ObamaCare mandate that requires all health plans to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. This so-called compromise, however, is nothing but an accounting gimmick that still forces religiously-affiliated organizations, like Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities, to provide abortion-inducing drugs to its employees. This mandate remains a gross violation of the First Amendment which forces these institutions to either abandon their essential beliefs or not provide health insurance to their employees and pay a heavy fine.

Take immediate action by contacting your Senators to vote in favor of Amendment #1520 to S.1813, put forward by pro-life hero Senator Roy Blunt and supported by Senators Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte and others. Amendment #1520 would ensure that religiously-affiliated organizations are not coerced by the government to provide abortion-inducing drugs that violate their religious and moral convictions.

Act Now!  Send email or print letters from here for free!
http://capwiz.com/sbalist/issues/alert/?alertid=61000461


Senator Burr:  DC: 202-224-3154; Rocky Mount: 252-977-9522

Senator Hagan:  DC: 202-224-6342; Greensboro: 336-333-5311;
Raleigh: 919-856-4630

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

REPORT: Craven County Commissioners Meeting, February 6, 2012

Dear CCTA Members and Friends,


The last meeting of the Craven County Board of Commissioners was held on 6 Feb 12 at the River Bend Town Hall. I believe it was attended by the most people I have ever seen at a CC BOC meeting except the one at Havelock where the football team was introduced. Team members and family and fans made a big crowd. Anyway, I am proud to say that many CCTA members were at the River Bend meeting to protect the principles we believe in.

The meeting got off to a strange start in that the traditional invocation was missing. It was a while before we found out why. The reason is that the ACLU had just won a big victory over Forsyth County and the taxpayers of that county ended up picking up the tab for the ACLU's legal fees of $200,000. The County Attorney, Jimmy Hicks, said he had already been informed by the ACLU of possible lawsuits against two other counties he represents (not Craven). Our Board of Commissioners do not want to risk being involved in such a lawsuit, thus the lack of an invocation.

I feel angry at the ACLU and disappointed in our Board of Commissioners that they have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and yet allow a bunch of lawyers to facilitate this infringement on our 1st amendment rights by prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. I realize that among those lawyers are Supreme Court judges. I believe that the Congress should impeach any federal official who flouts the Constitution. Apparently, Forsyth County Commissioners have decided to continue to have prayers that are to God only (not to Jesus). I don't like that either, but, in my mind, it is a better solution than completely eliminating the invocation. At the very least there could be a moment of silent prayer.

A Mr. Michael McMillan gave a good account of activities of the Religious Community Services organization that he heads. They do a great deal of very worth while work, there is no disputing that. At the end of his presentation, Commissioner Dacey reminded him that he and his organization had been forewarned that the county may not be able to continue it's financial support in light of the belt tightening needed for fiscal prudence in these tough time. Commissioner Dacey asked what measures they were taking to obtain private financing to replace the taxpayer funding. The answer he got was that they raise money privately and had done some belt tightening themselves, but had not given up on taxpayer support. I believe I speak for most CCTA members when I say that the government should get out of charity work. It is not right to take what one citizen has earned and give it to another. When will we ever have enough elected representatives with the courage to live by that to affect a change?


The Commissioners also adopted a Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation. It was obviously written by a strong advocate of spending as much taxpayer money as possible on this program. You would think from reading it that child abuse can not possibly be prevented except by a large financial commitment from the community as a whole. For instance "child maltreatment occurs when parents find themselves in stressful situations without community resources and unable to cope." I dare say that kids get slapped around without the offender even thinking about seeking community resources. And the proclamation itself asks several community groups and organization to increase their participation in our (the Board of Commissioner's) efforts to prevent child maltreatment. I think the word "our" should have been struck and hoped a commissioner would suggest that, but none did.

The Tax Administrator, Mr. Ronnie Antry asked the Board to credit back almost $12,000 of taxpayer money. One item was $3,259 to one taxpayer for personal property taxes on a boat. Mr. Antry said they had assessed the boat too high. Commissioner Dacey asked if they thought it was the Queen Mary. The tax man sure wants to hit us hard. He seems determined that if he errs it will be on the side of too high.

A public hearing has been set for the James City Community Development Block Grant program again. This time at the next meeting which is at 8:30 AM on Monday, 20 February 12. I thought most public hearings were set for the evening meetings when more people can attend. Anyway, some good changes have been made in this program. Taxpayers will no longer pick up the tab and just hand someone the keys to a new house. Instead, taxpayer money will buy lots in the James City area, and a group of citizens such as Habitat for Humanity will build a house on it. The anticipated owner will have to either help build the house or have volunteers who do. Then there will be an affordable mortgage on the house. Most taxpayer money will be expended on the infrastructure such as drainage, public water and sewer, streets, lighting, etc. All appropriate functions of government. Personally, I wish the federal government would just get out of that business and leave local communities alone, but this is a step toward eliminating the total rip off of the taxpayer by this program.

The Department of Social Services found another $252,708 of State taxpayer money lying around, and the Board voted to spend it in Craven County as it has been offered up to us. Aren't we lucky? And, oh yeah, Health Family Planning got another $25,000 to spend on Contraception to include birth control pills, depo-provera (a birth control shot). I wonder how many kids get this stuff so they can have sex without fear of pregnancy. I'm glad I was born 50 years before kids had the freedom to screw their lives up like this. Aren't we taxpayer lucky to be able to pay for this?


Last, but not least, was the appropriate calling of the Sheriff on the carpet (in absence) for the terrible safety record of his department, poor accident investigation, and his refusal to do anything about it. It seems Commissioner Taylor is leading the charge on this with some help from Commissioner Dacey and others. There seems to have been seven wrecks involving deputies lately causing one death and the destruction of at least two vehicles belonging to the taxpayer and the Sheriff says "well, they drive a lot of miles and stuff happens." Well, that is not good enough. I was there when the Sheriff did appear before the Board and gave a toe tap around instead of really presenting a driver training program. Now he is just defying the Board. I hope he sees the light when the Board reviews his budget in the coming months. It also came to light that the Sheriff's department is short about $10,000 of funds in an account set up so that prisoners could make purchases at the prison canteen. Prisoners put money into the account and spend it somehow at the canteen. The account is now empty and, as I said, should have about $10,000 in it. Someone obviously absconded with the funds. It is being investigated.

I'm sure I missed a few transgressions, but I guess that will do for now.

Hal James
Watchdog and Issues Chairman
CCTA

Friday, January 6, 2012

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech. “That could never happen here.” When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for “denigrating religion,” that’s how some people respond. Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or “no go zones” in France. And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right? The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what’s coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy. Of course, that could never happen here.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

CCTA AT THE NEW BERN ALDERMAN MEETING

SUN JOURNAL NEW BERN
by Eddie Fitzgerald    (Lynn's comments in blue!)
November 9, 2011
In a split decision Tuesday night, New Bern aldermen approved a resolution limiting time for citizens to express their concerns to the board.

Mayor Lee Bettis and aldermen Bernard White and Dana Outlaw voted against the proposed four-minute time limitation that will be imposed during the public-comment period of the first regular board meeting each month. (YEAH and THANKS!)

The resolution passed 4-3. Alderman Victor Taylor made a motion to adopt the resolution; it was seconded by Alderman Dennis Bucher.

Alderman Sabrina Bengel said it was important for her as a citizen and alderman that people have the right to speak on issues, but there needed to be more order during the public meetings.

“You have the right to call any of us and I encourage you to do it,” Bengel said.

When groups speak during the public-comment periods, it delays the meetings if everyone is saying the same thing. One person needs to be appointed to speak for the group, Bengel said.
(Freedom of Speech squashed again!)
Bengel said she supported the resolution.

White didn’t. He said when he ran for aldermen he told people sitting in the audience they were sitting in a living room and he wanted them to feel comfortable and be able to express themselves.

“Our job is to listen to the people,” White said.  (CHEERS FOR YOU ALDERMAN WHITE!)

Bucher said although he “totally agreed with this free-speech concept,” he also agreed with Bengel and welcomed emails and telephones comments from citizens.  (YES, BUT YOU DID NOT DEFEND IT!)

If people could not express their concerns in four minutes, Bucher said they could return and speak at the next meeting. (LIKE, AFTER THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED?)

Alderman Johnnie Kinsey said he supported the four-minute rule.  “We are trying to conduct a meeting as well as serve the people,” he said.




  TSK, TSK, Aldermen Bucher, Kinsey and Taylor!  Shame, shame Alderwoman Bengel!
Don't you believe in the First Amendment?


Bettis said he really didn’t know how to respond. Constitutionally, it was “a really important” issue, he said.  “But how do you balance that,” Bettis said. (YOU FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, PERIOD!)

At least one citizen has taken advantage of the public-comment period and had to be escorted from the podium several times, he said, later adding he didn’t know what to do when a person “doesn’t respect the city’s living room.”

Hal James, a member of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, said the First Amendment of the Constitution not only gives people freedom of speech but also the right to address government.

James said although he did not have a problem with the four-minute rule he was concerned that the resolution also says the Board of Aldermen has the right to adopt “additional, reasonable rules to govern the conduct of the public-comment period.”

“I don’t think that is right,” James said. “And I think citizens concerned with tax burdens should be allowed to talk longer than four minutes.”

Scott Davis, city attorney, said the resolution would only regulate the regular board meetings, not public meetings like budget hearings.

Eddie Fitzgerald can be reached at 252-635-5675 or at efitzgerald@freedomenc.com

© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/alderman-101922-resolution-aldermen.html

Thursday, November 3, 2011

CANADA FREE PRESS: Separation of Powers: Responsibilities/Misuse of…

Open letter to our legislators…


By Online Bill Shimukonas, Sr. Wednesday, November 2, 2011


Dear Sirs, Mesdames,

Given the fact that many of you have not been upholding the promise you took when you were sworn into office, I thought I would remind you of your duties as a United States Congressman/woman and/or Senator. This country is going to the dogs and many of you, regardless of political party, are aiding and abetting that demise because you are not fulfilling your end of your work contract.

Because you, collectively, have conceded many of your sworn duties to the executive branch and therefore to a President who obviously and presumptuously misuses his executive privileges, and because you remain silent when he sanctions his perceived authority with pen and paper with no apparent regard for legitimacy of constitutional protocol, there are some among us who consider you guilty of conspiracy in what appears to be a blatant attempt to defraud this nation of its Constitutionally-bound sovereignty. This President and his administration have made it clear about where they wish to take this country. It does not include a destination where the Constitution is used as a road map. And for those representatives who are far too casual in their motives or otherwise own motives that are specific to the malicious intent of voiding America‘s bedrock foundation, our Constitution, the word conspiracy is just a little too mellow.

Remember, too, that we are still a Republic. Until we become something else, and we are obviously on the way to doing so, the mathematical formula for our basic form of democracy is still based on the concept of one person, one vote. That mathematical equation has changed dramatically, most particularly over the past number of decades. The electorate is now being subsidized more by the influence of lobby and, of course, profligate legislators who cater to self-serving interests rather than submitting to the favor of continuing liberty and underlying freedoms for all Americans. It’s time to get back to the basic dynamics of rule as fostered in our Constitution. Forget the political correctness crap. Put the special interests in their rightful place. Some issues of those groups are legitimate and do indeed deserve consideration in the appropriate forum; most, I submit, belong in the trash bin. Bottom line: Deal with reality head-on. And for those of you with conscience, keep in mind that there are legislators without conscience among you who will continue in their attempts to deflect the course of our history. I encourage you to Stand To. For those of you who legislate with forbearance and intellectual curiosity within the context of our form of Constitutional governance, no offense intended. I wish you well.

However, insofar as the warm bodies who simply take up space in the halls of Congress for reasons other than those that command allegiance to our Constitution, and then raise their hands to affirm linkage to issues that directly countermand the weight of traditional America’s historical sense of individualism or for personal gain, yes, I do hope you are offended. Thus, for you, for those committed to desecrating the vehicle through which so many American Dreams have been born, there is but one way to put it. You are undeserving of occupying chairs where once so many men and women dedicated to the preservation of our truly unique American identity once sat. The stink of your vicious, hateful anti traditional American values diatribes and your votes that endorse a Socialist agenda cling to you as does the pungent, hold-your-breath-as-you-pee, overused, sloppy, wet, paper-strewn floored outhouse. Your lack of respect for and your obvious ignorance of our history scream for redress. Were those of you who I collectively accuse of disrespect, disloyalty and, let us not forget incompetence, were you officers of the state in the Dumas of Josif Djugashvili’s Soviet Russia, you would be sent to Siberia for re-education…if he liked you. And you complain about water boarding. Give us a break.

However, since you live in this once great country where such things as the First Amendment still apply, paid for in blood lest you had forgotten, you are given a pass regardless of the venial rhetoric and your disaffected voting records. And, for whatever it may be worth, every time you do so, you spit on the graves of all the men and women who passed onto us a gift, one already paid for, bundled, packaged and delivered. For the uninformed or in the case of so many of our belligerent so-called leaders in Washington as well as others who occupy lesser seats at the state and local levels of government, it’s called freedom. Imagine that? Yes, comrades of Alinsky/Lenin doctrinal values, and it implies a form of governance that was founded on (wow, now get this), free will. And we don’t have to do squat other than manage it. That’s why you were elected. That is your job.

I urge you, all of you, to review the tasks that clearly define your responsibilities as noted at the end of this text. That is just a small part of the package, our gift from Americans past. Don’t throw it away for convivial concepts of often false ceremonious writs of mutated doctrine that history without exception defines, at best, as mediocre governance that suppresses, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, “the spirit of man.” It really is quite simple. It’s all about the Constitution, the root of our laws, and your oath to preserve that document. You need only follow the guidelines and then stand up vigorously, angrily if you must, to those who violate the same. You do that and a whole bunch of us will, as we say in the military, watch your back. It’s an honor thing. We’ve also taken the oath. But, I daresay, unlike many who simply put voice to the words, that oath is coded in our blood; and for many throughout the entirety of our short history, it was left on the battlefield. Therein lay the true worth of that document. No treasure, no intrusive or insidious argument contrary to the stated intent of those words in our Constitution can justify the cost of prohibitive change. And your oath, your conviction as to its worth, as is ours, is the key to preserving that treasure for all who follow.

Congress has General Powers of Legislation:

•To provide for the raising and disbursement of revenue.
•To borrow money; to coin money and to regulate its value; and to fix the standard of weights and measures.
•To regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
•To declare war, and to maintain an army and a navy.
•To establish post offices and post roads.
•To enact patent and copyright laws.
•To enact uniform naturalization and bankruptcy laws.
•To provide for the punishment of crimes against the United States.
•To establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
•To provide for organizing and calling out the militia.
•To admit new States into the Union.
•To provide for the government of the Territories.
•To exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, public lands, public buildings, forts and navy yards. (Granted, some legitimate amendments here).
•To enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States.

Powers and Duties of the President:

•Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.
•Communicates with Congress by message.
•Approves or disapproves Acts of Congress.
•Makes treaties with advice and consent of the Senate.
•Commissions Public Officers of the United States.
•Grants reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

Spes sibi quisque . . . Let each man’s hope be in himself; let him trust to his own resources.

Have a nice day,
Bill Shimukonas, Sr.
De oppresso liber

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/41982

Monday, September 26, 2011

Pastors Unite Against IRS Restrictions on Political Speech in the Pulpit

September 25, 2011

A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 (The Johnson Amendment) has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.

The Speak Up campaign (launched by the Alliance Defense Fund) addresses this important issue, while working to “protect and promote” the rights of American churches. In addition to making faith leaders aware of their constitutional right to free speech, the movement encourages pastors to stop self-censoring and to start making their political voices heard.

But in addition to legal help, pastors can also join in on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event the coalition has launched to encourage pastors to preach sermons that to examine candidates’ stances. Aside from exploring candidate opinion, churches are encouraged to look at what Scripture says about each issue. Then, they will make specific recommendations about whether or not the congregation should vote for or against specific candidates.

Following the event, each pastor lets the IRS know about his or her sermon. The hope is that making the government aware of the code violation will spark an audit. Then, the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment can be hashed out once and for all.

In 2008, only 33 pastors participated; this expanded to 80 faith leaders in 2009 and then nearly 100 in 2010. With the movement rapidly growing, even more leaders are poised to take part in this year’s
Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 2, 2011.

http://patriotupdate.com/12556/pastors-unite-against-irs-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit

MORE ON THE BLAZE:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/

Note:  LBJ said the amendment was not aimed at churches--rather it was retailiation by Johnson against two business men who had the gall to criticize him!  More info on this on GBTV.COM--September 22, 2011 episode of the Glenn Beck Show.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Member's Corner: Spike Haired Grandma (Cheryl Switzer)

A National ID Card For American Citizens?
Get Ready – The Real ID Act Goes Into Effect On May 11


For a moment, imagine a future where you are not able to drive a car, get on a plane, get on a train, vote, enter a federal building, open a bank account or get a job without a national ID card. You don't think that could ever happen in America? Well, you might want to brush up on the Real ID Act because it is going to go into effect on May 11, 2011 unless something is done to stop it.

When I first learned this, I was absolutely stunned. After all, wasn't the Real ID Act supposed to be "dead"? A few years ago state legislatures across the nation were in an uproar over this law. The Department of Homeland Security was forced to delay implementation of it several times. But now it is back. You see, this is what the federal government often does. They will try to push something very unpopular through, and if they meet resistance they will "play dead" until the uproar has died down and then they will come right back and implement it anyway. This is what is happening with the Real ID Act.

As of May 11, all driver's licenses across the United States will be required to conform to federal national security standards. In essence, our licenses are now going to be federalized.

Yes, this is really happening. A Fox News article from a couple weeks ago confirmed that these "national ID cards" will be required to board airplanes and enter federal buildings....

States must be in compliance by May with the regulations laid out in the 2005 REAL ID Act. The law, a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks, creates a national security standard for state-issued identification cards to be used for purposes like boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings.

Isn't that great?

Now security goons will be able to ask us for our "papers" just like they used to do in Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Back in 2008, former U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote the following about how not having one of these new national ID cards will automatically strip us of some of our most fundamental rights....

"A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."

Of course the Department of Homeland Security insists that the Real ID Act is just here to "help" us and to make life "better" and "more secure". According to their website, some of the goals of the Real ID Act are "to help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents."

But is this really what we want America to become?

A nation where we are constantly passing through checkpoints and where security goons are constantly checking our national ID card?

What kind of liberty and freedom is that?

Eventually these national ID cards will likely be required for virtually every single interaction that we have with the federal government.

Can you imagine the kind of power that the federal government will have to watch us and track our activities if this thing gets fully implemented?

The more you really think about the notion of a national ID card for Americans the more repulsive it becomes.

Eventually, without a "Real ID" you will not be able to be hired by most employers. So in essence, you will be required to get the permission of the federal government before you can work.

Without a "Real ID", your ability to travel will be greatly restricted. Eventually there will be very few modes of public transportation that you will be able to use without having a national ID card.

And what if you lose your national ID card? Talk about a headache!

Hey, eventually they might just decide to solve that problem by putting a microchip directly into our hands.

Wouldn't that be convenient?

Can you see where all of this is headed? Many of the people that are attempting to implement this thing may have "good intentions", but we all know what they say about "good intentions".

We do not need a national ID card to have a nation that is safe and secure.

Please contact your representatives in Washington D.C. and let them know that you want the Real ID Act repealed once and for all.

If we put up with a national ID card, then the Obama administration will be emboldened to try to implement the "universal Internet ID" that they have been talking about.

The sad truth is that America is no longer "the land of the free". The government has decided that in order to keep us "safe", everything that we do must be watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled.

It doesn't matter whether the Democrats are in power or if the Republicans are in power - every year the United States becomes even more like a prison camp.

Hopefully the American people will wake up and will realize that this is not what our founding fathers intended.

Cheryl Switzer


Related Articles: 
Florida's Implementation of the Federal Real ID Act of 2005

States Revise Rules on Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants as National ID Approaches

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Open Mouth, Insert Tea Bag

Open Mouth, Insert Tea Bag


by Diane Rufino, Jan. 12, 2010 [ http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/ ]

On Saturday, January 8th, the country witnessed a tragic and horrific act of violence. Six innocent individuals were killed at a shopping center in Tucson, Arizona - Christina-Taylor Green (only 9 years old), Judge John Roll (age 63; chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Arizona who was named to the bench by President George H. W. Bush in 1991), Dorothy "Dot" Morris (age 76; a retired secretary), Phyllis Schneck (age 79; homemaker), Dorwan Stoddard (age 76; retired construction worker), and Gabriel "Gabe" Zimmerman (age 30, community outreach director for Rep. Giffords). Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the shooting, was shot through the head at point-blank range and is thankfully expected to survive. Within hours of the shooting, Sheriff Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik addressed the media for the first time saying that “vitriolic political rhetoric” heard on the radio and TV caused the killer, Jared Loughner, to go on his bloody killing spree that also left 14 wounded. "When the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates, and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it has impact on people, especially those who are unbalanced personalities," he said.

In his official capacity as a Pima County sheriff, Dupnik had no authority to speculate as to the cause of Loughner's acts. He had, of course, no facts ... and no proof. And he readily admitted this.

It is amazing how politicians never cease to talk out of both sides of their mouths. Just over a week ago, on January 6th, the day the 112th Congress was sworn in, we heard Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress pledge to unify and work together for the good of the American people. But only two days later, on January 8th, as soon as news of the shooting reached political ears, Dick Durbin was out there blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks. And every left-of-center group has continued to use the Arizona shooting incident to divide the nation once again along political lines. For example, following the shootings, the NY Times wrote "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." ¹

And Keith Olbermann made this comment on his MSNBC show on Jan. 8: "If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bulls-eye targets on 20 representatives, including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part - however tangential - in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics. She must be repudiated by the members of her own party. And if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling."

When it comes to politics, it sounds like they are taking their cue from Rahm Emanuel's playbook - " Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

I, and apparently a growing majority of Americans, are getting more frustrated each day over comments by the news and others that it's because of the tensions caused by the Tea Party movement and by people like Sarah Palin that Jared Lee Loughner went to the shopping center that afternoon to shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I think the left has sunk to a new low.

I think those that hide under the protections of freedom of the press should take the time to research before they report and comment. I think that politicians who have sworn to uphold the Constitution should reflect upon the true meaning of freedom of speech, which is this: the freedom to have a free and robust political discussion where all ideas make it into the marketplace of ideas where they are able to compete. It is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas. The "marketplace of ideas" is just like any other free market model - ideas and viewpoints compete against each other in theory, truth, and rationality and the best ideas will prevail.

A cursory look at Loughner would show anyone that he has no allegiance whatsoever to the values that America stands on. He has spent years challenging both conservative principles and religion alike. He praises books like Brave New World, the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and worships a shrine built of a human skull in the back of his yard. He had been arrested several times for making threats against others at the local college, he made students and teachers uncomfortable, he was registered politically as an Independent, he smoked dope regularly, and he blogged about the government performing "mind control." I hardly see where the likes of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party caused him to become deranged. Sounds like he was already there. It looks as though he took his inspiration from Columbine and the rampant violence promoted on TV, movies, and in computer games rather than the peaceful marches on Washington. Furthermore, to say the Constitutionally-minded, Christian-loving group, the Tea Party, is creating a dangerous climate in this country which is leading to increased violence is simply irresponsible. If he were to suddenly start going to church and reading the Bible, then I could understand the Tea Party being to blame, but not the senseless violence he committed. What about all those years of Bush-bashing? How many times did we hear death threats against Bush (prompted by the hateful and malicious sentiments of the left)? How about the Liberal online journal that called for the death of Sarah Palin? ² Has no one taken the time to listen to a rally headed by the Reverend Al Sharpton? What about the new Black Panthers? They certainly don't foster the Kumbaya sentiment, do they? To them, politics means confrontation.

Sheriff Dupnik himself polarized the political climate in Pima County more than any group could do. He publicly announced that Arizona's new immigration policy was outright "racist." He also publicly commented that the Tea Party "brings out the worst in America." Who is really fueling tempers here ? Who is really fueling hatred and bigotry?

Barack Obama is also no stranger to confrontation. On May 4, in a public forum, he called Tea Party activists "tea baggers," a horribly derogatory term which is associated with oral sex. Everyone knows that Tea Party activists loath the term “tea baggers,” and in fact, most members consider it so offensive that they regard it as the rough equivalent of calling an African American the "N word." As Fellowshipofminds.wordpress wrote: "Barack Obama repeatedly sprinkled his political campaigning with words more appropriate to a street thug than the President of the United States." In June 2008, during his campaign, he was asked how he would counter Republican attacks. He answered: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Then in September, he said: “I want you to go out and talk to your neighbors. . . . I want you to argue with them, get in their faces.” ³ I could be wrong, but those lines sound like they could have easily come out of Robert DeNiro's mouth in the movie The Untouchables where he played the notorious mobster Al Capone. Not exactly words of respect and understanding. Not exactly the "toned down rhetoric" that Democrats and liberals are now all of a sudden calling for.

In fact, Fellowshipofminds.wordpress lists many instances of frenzied vitriol by the left that leaves one with a new appreciation for the word "hypocrite." In fact, if a member of the Tea Party were to ever issue such public comments, the party itself would openly condemn them before the court of public opinion could even weigh in. The list is quite impressive (for a mobster):

(1) Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, wrote on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens.

(2) Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, columnist for the Washington Post, wrote: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel.. the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”

(3) In December 2009 during the health care debate, Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote, “A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.”

(4) After 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, President Bush suddenly became as unpopular as Bill O'Reilly with most women of The View. The left really came into their own at this time. In fact, the sentiment was so pervasive that it was given a name - the "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Michael Moore was infected with it and so were other celebrities. A movie (TV docudrama), "Death of a President," was made about the fictional assassination of President Bush and allowed to be shown on American TV. As one commentator wrote: "We've seen from early in his presidency the extremes that the political Left are willing to go to vilify him. This takes this vilification to a new and disturbing level."

(5) In 2006, as contempt for President Bush continued to build, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) at a commencement ceremony at NYC's Queen's College as “the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.” New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said Thursday that a fellow New York Democrat would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."

(6) Michael Feingold of the Village Voice wrote: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”

(7) Liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy suggested someone should hang Internet king Matt Drudge, writing, “Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about 6 feet in the air and watch him bounce.”

(8) Greenpeace advocated mass civil disobedience last April (2010) with this blog item on its website: “The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism. . . . If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

(9) In June 2010, Nathan Tabor, a business owner, head of the Forsyth County Republican Party, Tea Party activist, and a former candidate for public office assembled with 25 others to peacefully protest government bailouts in front of Rep. Mel Watt's (D-NC) Greensboro, NC office. Soon thereafter, a man walked around the corner and intentionally walked into the middle of the crowd saying 'It's all George W. Bush's fault. It's all Dick Cheney's fault." The man then pushed Tabor several times, to which Tabor did not retaliate. Then the man pushed Tabor's wife. When Mr. Tabor told him to keep his hands off his wife, the man punched Tabor in the face. This happened right in front of Mr. Tabor's young daughter. I watched the footage.

(10) In August 2009, members of the Service Employees International Union beat up Kenneth Gladney for distributing “Don’t Tread On Me” flags at a Missouri town hall meeting. 4

Judge John Roll, the federal judge who was killed by Loughner, drew sharp political criticism in 2009 -- and several death threats -- when he ruled on a pre-trial motion in favor of illegal immigrants in a civil case involving an Arizona rancher. At the time, the threats, online and otherwise, were significant and persistent enough to warrant full protective status from the U.S. Marshal's Service for Roll and his family. Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva had to close his office because of so many death threats from racist callers over his opposition to the state's immigration bill, S.B.1070. Congresswoman Giffords herself had the glass door to her office shattered right after she voted for the healthcare bill. And then there was the bullet that was shot through the window of Eric Cantor’s Richmond office.

The fact is that there is a lot of tension and frustration in this country simply as a result of the recent action and policies themselves of our government. The government's position on immigration, as exemplified by the threat to Judge Roll's life, alone is a great source of tension. Although there is an immigration policy, the government refuses to enforce it. Furthermore, the government has spent a year showing blatant disregard for the wishes of the American people. Power is vested in Czars who run the country at the whim of the President and the people have no power to do anything about that... yet. Just as frustration built up in this country after President Bush took the country to war in Iraq and that frustration led to violent outbursts and aggressive confrontations in cities all over the nation, those who have taken the nation down a similar unpopular path can't cry innocence when tensions again come to a boil. It's the spirit that gave birth to our independence and that has managed to keep the pendulum always closer to center rather than to either extreme of left or right.

Doug Rufino wrote an article to the local Greenville, NC paper, The Daily Reflector, in which he criticized those who blame the Tea Party for the shootings in Tucson. He wrote: " The recent change in the Washington landscape is not due to preachers of hate. Our Constitutional right to vote did that. You insult the American people throughout this country that elected the historic new Congress. Maybe you are still wondering how this happened. Look no further than to Americans who decided that government was getting increasingly out of control. It was our Founders who instructed us to be wary of government, not Beck and Rush. Our very Declaration of Independence tells us “…..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”…

Robust political debate and engagement is the ultimate display of patriotism and democracy. After all, democracy is the first leg of our republicanism. But it is only a "leg" Our nation was set up as a republic by our Founders for one basic reason - to prevent mob rule... to prevent those types of outcomes that result from a hot-headed majority which might unreasonably burden the minority. Robust political debate is what helps us make sure we send the best representatives possible to conduct the nation's business.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party - they are the embodiment of patriotism - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty." They have never advocated for anything other than the peaceful return to the values that our country was founded on. Anyone who has taken the time to attend a Tea Party rally can attest to that.

In speaking about patriotism, Adlai Stevenson wrote: "When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect." He also wrote: "America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality."

While others are so willing to sell out our Founders for notions that history has proven corrupt and destructive, the Tea Party echoes those words of Carrie Latet: "May I never wake up from the American dream!"

You can love your country, but that doesn't necessarily make you a good American. You can love your country, but if you open your mouth to squash someone else's right to speak freely and honestly, you are not a good American. If you use an occasion like the shooting in Tucson to demand further restrictions and regulations over fundamental liberties, you are not a good American.

We should always abhor violence - especially when it targets the innocent. But a "good" American will not try to use an occasion like this - one of random violence - to change the political climate in this country. After all, it was a political climate like this that led a group of Bostonians in the middle of the night on Dec. 16, 1773 to dump the tea on board British ships into the Boston Harbor to prevent it from being unloaded on shore and hence being taxed so that Colonists would be forced to support the King without representation in Parliament. "No taxation without representation" was one of the cries which led to our independence. It was a political climate like this that led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. And it was a political climate like that that led to the civil rights of African-Americans. Whenever there is a tense political climate, there are critical issues facing the American people at play. It may not be your particular issue involved this time, but next time it might. Robust discourse often creates a charged environment but here in America, we welcome it rather than try to suppress it. That is what being a "good" American is. That is what America stands for. But using guns rather than words and trying to persuade by acts of violence rather than persuasive dialogue is the sign of a civilized nation like the United States. No decent human being supports violence for political gain.

The fact is that Jared Lee Loughner is a social misfit who no doubt sought to vault his stature by associating himself with mass murder and immense personal sadness. It was the ultimate cry for personal attention. He harbored malice in his heart for Congresswoman Giffords. [He met her once in 2007 and called her "stupid and unintelligent." He was also angered when she refused to acknowledge a question he submitted to her]. We've seen his type throughout history - Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley Jr., David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), and Charles Manson.. Loughner is not mentally unstable. We know he meticulously planned his actions. The sad realization is that due to political correctness in this nation and the persistent attitude that we shouldn't make any single person feel uncomfortable, even though Jared Loughner posed a likely threat and fit the profile of a lone looney likely to do something bad (no one seemed surprised that he carried out the killings), no one sought to get him the help he needed. It would have been inconsistent with our current climate of compassion and aversion to profiling for people to have tried to intervene and prevent that final chip in his brain from flipping. And now Christina Green, a 9-yr-old girl who brought joy to those who loved her and who hadn't even lived long enough to have a first kiss, is dead. Now a federal judge, a young, newly-engaged civil servant, and 3 grandparents are dead. Families are left to grieve and wonder what they ever did to deserve to suffer such senseless slaughter. And a Congresswoman is left bandaged in a hospital wondering if she can ever recover from all the scars - physically, emotionally, and socially.

Ronald Reagan, himself a victim of a lone deranged sociopath (John Hinckley Jr.) once said: "We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his [or her] actions."

So enough of the mudslinging and name-calling; enough of the meritless accusations. Why don't we leave the name-calling to those who at least can be excused for it - our children. Running a country requires adults.

References:

¹ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?

² http://bigjournalism.com/taylorking/2010/12/20/salon-publishes-call-for-torture-murder-of-sarah-palin/

³ http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/death-threats-made-by-liberals-and-democrats/

4 http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/death-threats-made-by-liberals-and-democrats/

Friday, January 14, 2011

Right to Prayer, Andy Rooney

With comments from my friend Gail,

You know, I don't always agree with everything Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes says, but this is one time he is right on the mark. When are we going to stand up and not let those who will trash our Faith, our CONSTITUTIONAL government and our right to freedom and liberties continue to rule our lives. God gave us his grace and will give us the strength to defend our rights to practice our faiths openly and honestly. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to their own opinions but not going to stop us from OPENLY being believers in God. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of atheists and non-believers (who are in the minority) dictating to believers what we can and cannot do when it comes to prayer.


The Constitution of the United States of America states in the 1st Amendment that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Personally, I feel we have allowed our government and others who don't believe in our Christian faiths to prohibit us from the free exercise of our religion. We can't have even a moment of silence for our children to start their day in PUBLIC school with a prayer to our Creator; we aren't allowed to put up nativity scenes in or at our public buildings at Christmas; every time we turn around the liberal media, elitest or non-believers are influencing our government to not allow us to even mention the name of God or Jesus Christ in every thing public that we do. Our belief in God is the very fiber of our being both in our private and public lives. It doesn't stop when we are in or at public events. It is time to put God were he should be and that is, FIRST IN OUR LIVES AND IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES. He is the one who gave us life in the first place through our parents.


May God forgive us and may God Bless us and America. Gail

Right to Prayer, Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney says:


I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America , a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer...
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad , I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China , I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.


When in Rome .....


But what about the atheists? Is another argument.


What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority


Rules! It's time we tell them, You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!


God bless us one and all ... Especially those who denounce Him , God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

http://www.sodahead.com/entertainment/right-to-prayer-andy-rooney/question-661583/

Thursday, September 23, 2010

CALL TO ACTION

URGENT: VOTE ON DISCLOSE ACT TODAY, September 23, 2010


Once again, we must fight for our basic rights that the liberals want to take away from us. Today, Harry Reid is going to try and shove the DISCLOSE act through the Senate. This must be stopped.

The DISCLOSE act is the response to the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court ruled much of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The Democrats don't have a problem with corporations spending money on political speech. They have a problem with anyone engaging in political speech that disagrees with them.

The DISCLOSE act puts restrictions on spending for political speech, but amazingly enough only for those who generally disagree with them. Certain groups, Democratic constituencies, like Unions, are exempted from the requirements of the DISCLOSE act.

The DISCLOSE act is another attack on free speech and must be stopped. Call your Senators this morning and tell them to vote against the DISCLOSE act.

Two Senators who seem to be on the fence on this one are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Call their offices and tell them to vote against this bill.

Collins numbers are: 202-225-2523 or 207-945-0416.
Snowe's numbers are: 202-225-5344 or 207-874-0883.

Call today, while we still have a First Amendment to protect!