Criminalizing Free Speech and Religion

THURSDAY 7-03-08…So far this week, we have examined laws enacted by various states that fly in the face of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights established as part of the U.S. Constitution. Late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court laid to rest the right contained in the Second Amendment regarding an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The high court made it abundantly clear that the right of gun ownership shall not be infringed. Exactly as the Constitution states.

 What about the right of religious freedom? It states that the government shall not prevent the free exercise thereof. It also states “free speech shall not be abridged.

Ah…but the ACLU says when a religious person enters the public square, that person loses the right of free exercise of religion and free speech. The Constitution doesn’t say that. Politicians and activist judges and the ACLU have come to that conclusion….but the Constitution doesn’t read that way.

 In Oregon, SB2 has been passed and signed into law over the objections of a majority of the electorate. SB2 is part of a package of bills approved by lawmakers which created “lookalike same-sex marriages” along with other special rights for certain people.

A group calling itself “Restore America” is but one of the Oregon groups working on petition plan which would put the matter before the voters. However, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to make a decision on the wording of the petition to repeal SB2….and time ran out for collecting the required signatures from 100,000 voters.

 Craig Myers is a spokesman for the group and says it’s even more alarming to consider that the homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and cross-dresser privileges now enshrined in Oregon law criminalizes free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and other basic rights and civil liberties guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution.

And that’s why I said at the beginning of this week….maybe now is the time to challenge these attempts to over ride the freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights. Gun Owners of America and the Nat’l Rifle Association did…and won!

 

WEDNESDAY 7-02-08…In Colorado, Senate Bill 200 was passed and signed into law, and speaking out against it in public can get you charged criminally with a hate crime. SB200 allows men to use ladies restroom facilities and locker rooms.

Tom Minnery is the senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family and he says “there are multiple problems with this new law, but the problem of restrooms is the most breathtaking one. With SB200, we no longer have two sexes. We enter a brave new world with a myriad of sexual orientations that must not be discriminated against upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalties contained in the bill.”

In an interview with the Denver Post, he said “Woe to the first women’s fitness facility or mall owner who objects to a man dressed as a woman who wants to enter previously forbidden territory. And what an opportunity for sexual predators. Every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner is now under threat.”

 Even though SB200 has been signed into law, there are those gearing up to test the right of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Steve Curtis is president of American Right To Life political action committee. He says “We are not going to hire someone cohabitating outside of marriage, let alone a homosexual. SB200 also makes it a crime for us to publish biblical teaching on immorality, so we are prepared to violate this anti-Christian government censorship.”

So, this could be the beginning of testing whether the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says, when it comes to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

 In Tomorrow’s report, Oregon law in SB2, criminalizes free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and other basic rights and civil liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.

 

How About 1st Amendment Rights?

TUESDAY 7-01-08…The US Supreme Court has laid to rest any question about the Second Amendment regarding a person’s right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. And it says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Case closed. Now, it’s time for the high court to take a closer look at First Amendment Rights…the right of free exercise of religion, and Freedom of Speech.

Just what is the definition of freedom of speech? It’s the liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially, without fear of punishment. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads: congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech.

Perfectly self-explanatory I would think. But, look where we are today. In Colorado, SB200 was passed and signed into law. What does the new law do? It allows men to go into ladies restrooms and locker facilities. During the debate and prior to the bill being signed into law, World Net Daily reported that the law was being promoted as an “anti-discrimination” plan favoring alternative sexual lifestyles and gender perceptions. Now signed into law, it is a criminal offense to discriminate against someone based on those lifestyles or perceptions.

One Colorado resident writing in an anonymous letter to the editor (withholding his name for fear of recrimination) wrote “Now, as I stand outside of a movie theater bathroom or a swimming pool shower room door, and guard the most precious thing in my life…my wife and daughter’s safety, modesty and privacy, I can no longer stop a man from entering a woman’s domain. I contacted my attorney who told me that I would have to be careful not to express my convictions in public, because you give up some of your rights when you go into the public square.

Whoa! A person gives up free speech rights when they go into the public square? Strange. I can’t find that anywhere in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. More on this in tomorrow’s report.

 

2nd Amendment–confirmed!

MONDAY 6-30-08 …The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the right to keep and bear arms has sent shock waves throughout the Liberal community. But it shouldn’t have. Author Hal Lindsay says “This isn’t difficult to understand. What was difficult to understand was that anybody ever found it difficult to understand.” The court ruled that the Constitution means the same thing today that it did when it was enacted back in 1791. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now the question has been settled and it should be time for the Supreme Court to tackle another issue which has made a mockery of the Constitution: Freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. The first freedom of the First Amendment reads like this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is nothing in that First Amendment, nor anywhere else in our Constitution that provides freedom from religion.

So, how has this issue made a mockery of our Constitution? One only has to look at Colorado’s Senate Bill 200 which passed and was signed into law. During debate on the bill, Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the ACLU, in testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee said “One may practice one’s religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others.”

 Whoa! There is nothing in the Constitution restricting the expression of religion depending on how it impacts others. It says “nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Constitutionally, the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited….and I think it’s about time this issue landed squarely in the hands of the U S Supreme Court so it, too, can be put to rest, just as the gun ownership issue has been.

 In tomorrow’s report, we’ll take a closer look of another mockery of the Constitution; Freedom of Speech.

Two Peas in a Pod

FRIDAY 6-27-08…Watching the two presidential candidates snipe at each other on the campaign trail is sorta’ like watching Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Laurel and Hardy were inseparable, and so much alike. Both dumb as a post.

We’ve got McCain who was against the Bush tax cuts, before he was in favor of ‘em. (Kinda’ like John Kerry who once said “I voted for it before I voted against it.”) Then, there’s Barack Obama who early on in the campaign said he would rescind the Bush tax cuts, but now says he’ll cut taxes for the middle class and increase ‘em for the wealthy.

 McCain has changed positions on things so many times I can’t keep up with ‘em all and I’m not sure where he stands on issues now. Barack Obama said early on that he would rely on the federal public financing system in the general election as long as McCain did too. But now, Obama says he’ll bypass public financing and rely on private donations. Now, McCain says he probably will too.

Both candidates support giving legal status (amnesty) to millions of illegal immigrants, but neither of ‘em has made it the centerpiece of their campaigns…..unless they’re speaking to specifically immigrant groups.

 McCain just last week assured Hispanic leaders that he would push through legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected. Overhauling immigration laws is just another way of saying “comprehensive immigration reform” which died a well-deserved death last year. Barack Obama, speaking to the homosexual community says as commander in chief, he would end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In other words, both candidates are telling selective audiences what they want to hear, but neither has the guts to go on national television and be really…..you know…..honest!

 Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic (as well as a conservative Republican) said of McCain “He’s one John McCain in front of white Republicans, and he’s a different John McCain in front of Hispanics.

 That does not bode well for voters come November as they look at their ballots and try to discern the difference between the two candidates. It’ll be like trying to decide between a hamburger and a ground beef patty.

One Tough Sheriff

THURSDAY 6-26-08…The name Joe Arpaio is synonymous with the toughest sheriff in America. That’s because he IS, the toughest sheriff in America. You may have heard the name associated with his tent city, pink panties for prisoners and bologna sandwiches, chain gangs, no smoking, no air conditioning in those US Army surplus tents.

You may think his techniques constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment….but when he hears those comments from his prisoners, he just replies “then don’t come back.” When they complain about the lack of air conditioning during the hot Arizona summers, he points to American GI’s in tents in Iraq. He asks his prisoners, “you think you’re better than they are? You’re not. You’re here. They’re there.

 Sheriff Joe has a new book out titled “Joe’s Law: America’s Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs and Everything Else that Threatens America.” It certainly should be a “must read” for other sheriffs. Arpaio was interviewed by the folks at Newsmax.com and was asked what he’d do if it were up to him to secure the border from illegals.

He said “I would erect tent jails right on the border, and courts –convict and jail ‘em for six months. You can’t work and send money back to your loved ones if you’re in jail. That’ll take away a lot of their incentive for illegally entering the U.S.” When asked about the federal border fence, he said “you might sell more shovels and ladders –that’s about it. If you’re going to spend billions of dollars on a fence, why not just put some jails along the border and dump ‘em in there?”

 On the subject of amnesty for illegals, Sheriff Joe says “I’m against it. It’s a matter of fairness. Why should someone who is here illegally be rewarded with an easy path to citizenship? However, with McCain and Obama as the presidential candidates, I predict there will be some form of amnesty in this country. But, I took an oath to enforce the law and so did politicians. Why aren’t they enforcing immigration laws?”

Yep, he’s a tough sheriff. He’s outspoken, and not afraid to tell it like it is. It’s too bad not a single politician has approached him asking for his advice on securing our borders. My guess is, he would’ve had it done by now. Maybe that’s why they haven’t asked him.

 

Thank God for Free Speech

WEDNESDAY 6-25-08…You might call today’s Tidbit “A Lesson in Two Cultures.” Let me explain: Northern Ireland’s first lady, Iris Robinson, has been accused of “hate crimes”. She was being interviewed on BBC Radio Ulster. During that interview, she described homosexuality as “disgusting, nauseous, shamefully wicked and vile.” She said “Homosexuality is not natural, it is an abomination. It is an offense to God and nature.”

 

She urged homosexuals to seek psychiatric counseling to help them re-focus their sexual lifestyles. Now….she has been accused of hate crimes and is facing both a police investigation and the possibility of a civil complaint filed by the group “Gays and Lesbians Across Down.”

 

Meanwhile, here in the USA, General Peter Pace has been selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Two homosexual advocacy groups immediately criticized that decision because of comments he made during an interview with the Chicago Tribune. The general said “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

The spokesman for one group said “There should be no medal for bigotry and intolerance.” Another calls the award outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful.

 

Fortunately, we live in country where our constitution declares speech to be a protected right. It was John F. Kennedy who said “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

TUESDAY 6-24-08…Do you believe members of Congress should be required to read each and every bill on which they vote? What’s that? You say “don’t they read ‘em already?” This may come as a shock….but no they don’t. They pass bills that none of ‘em have read, and sometimes, printed copies aren’t even available when they DO vote.

Sometimes, they have members of their staffs do the reading and then recommend how the Senator or member of Congress should vote. All too often, no one knows what these bills contain, what they really do, or how much they really cost. Additions and deletions can be made at the last minute, and in secret.

But wouldn’t it be nice if members were actually required to read each and every bill before voting on it? I do, and fortunately, there is a movement underway to bring that about. It’s too bad that such a movement is necessary but there’s a basic principle at stake. Remember the slogan “No taxation without representation.” Members of Congress, were voted into office to represent “We, The People”. Those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have NOT represented their constituents. They have misrepresented them!

If you agree why don’t you check out the web site at http://www.downsizeDC.org  

The Read The Bills Act would require members of congress sign an affidavit stating they have read and understand the bills they vote on. Passage of a bill that doesn’t abide by the provisions of RTBA, will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court. What a great way to re-emphasize the words “We, the People.”

 

 

31,000 scientist skeptics

MONDAY 6-23-08…When I’m asked why have so many jumped on the global warming bandwagon, I usually reply “just follow the money trail, starting with Al Gore.” That hasn’t seemed to have changed anybody’s mind, probably because it’s easier to go along to get along. But last week, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel had a better explanation as keynote speaker at the annual San Diego Chamber of Commerce dinner. Here are a few excerpts:

 ”So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a myth. So, how has the entire global warming frenzy become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth?

 ”That is the most amazing part of the story. To start with, global warming has the backing of the United Nations. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President. Third, it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It’s their tool to combat fossil fuels.”

“The media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all, the media loves a crisis. From Y2K to killer bees, the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. So, who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now, the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, elected officials on all levels of government are riding the Al Gore Global Warming express.”

 ”I suspect you haven’t heard this because the mass media didn’t report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made global warming side of this issue. On May 20^th, a list of the names of over 31,000 scientists who refute global warming was released. Think about that. 31,000! That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year alone, five hundred more scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.”

 Thank you John Coleman, for having the guts to stand up and tell it like it is.

Saving The Planet To Death?

FRIDAY 6-20-08…It wasn’t too very long ago that I pointed out how “great minds” were coming up with crazy ideas to stop global warming. Remember the giant space umbrella to reflect sunlight? Or how about shooting giant rockets into the atmosphere containing aluminum shavings…or “seeding” the ocean with iron?

 

The theory there was the iron would create a giant algae bloom and suck up CO2 by the ton. One company actually started doing the iron droppings in the ocean in order to prove the theory. Fortunately for all of us, the United Nations has issued a moratorium on the practice. Why? According to NewScientist.com, the latest research suggests seeding will trigger the buildup of an acid that can be lethal to marine organisms and humans.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity says the potential dangers outweigh any benefits.

 

Too bad the UN didn’t stop the cockamamie idea of throwing all those old tires into the ocean to provide habitat for the fish. It ended up scrubbing the ocean floor and scaring all the fish away….while also scrubbing the coral reefs clean. The US Navy had to be called in to retrieve millions of old tires.

There’s an awful lot of cockamamie ideas being bandied about in order to “save the planet.” This planet has been around for a lotta’ years and does a pretty good job of saving itself. We puny humans need to quit trying to play God before we end up destroying that which we claim to be trying to “save.”