+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 45 to 55 of 57
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Free Speech - unless we don't agree with you ...

  1. #45
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge View Post
    Opinion: I disagree with Adam, and you should too
    Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:21 pm Megan Dunbar


    A student wears a shirt reading "I Agree With Adam," as part of a Christianity awareness campaign going on around campus.

    http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/o...a4bcf6878.html


    ‘Adam’ campaign prompts debate
    By Caroline Savello Wednesday, April 5, 2006

    Students around campus in daffodil-colored T-shirts with the slogan “I Agree with Adam” are showing their support for a statement of Christian faith made public by Yale Students for Christ member Adam Meredith ’08, whose manifesto has provided the force behind this week’s Christianity awareness campaign of the same name.

    Organizers and participants said the campaign’s mission is to promote discussion about Christianity and faith and to raise religious awareness on campus, but some students said they have found the campaign’s tactics obtrusive.

    YSC staff member Sang Yun ’93 said Meredith was asked to be a representative of the Christian organizations sponsoring the campaign and that although his statement is personal, YSC, Athletes in Action, Yale Christian Fellowship and Living Water have signed on to his campaign. Hans Anderson ’09, a YSC member and campaign organizer, said the campaign also endeavors to make Christianity more accessible to other students and to clear up any misconceptions.

    “Our hope in this is to prompt honest and open dialogue about Christianity and faith in general,” Yun said. “We want to bring to the campus’ attention that there are a good number of Christians around and it’s something we want to be talking about.”

    The campaign’s large-scale publicity has gone further than the yellow shirts, including daily table tents in dining halls, advertisements in the News with Meredith’s personal statement, campus-wide fliers and a Web site. The site, doyouagreewithadam.net, features Meredith’s statement and an online forum. In one post, user “JasonGL” declared his own statement of faith, writing “I believe that we can take a stand on moral issues without handing any one organized religion a monopoly on light and truth.” Other recent posts have brought up questions about gay marriage and pornography within the context of Christian theology and doctrine.

    As of Tuesday night, the “I Agree with Adam” facebook.com group had at least 31 members, the message boards posted 17 registered users and 96 articles, and Yun estimated that more than 250 students are wearing the yellow shirts.

    Meredith describes his statement of faith as representative of the Christian student body as a whole. “We’re all longing for something, all seeking to be satisfied or fulfilled in some way,” he said. “For me, I have to go back to God’s love and it being the only thing that will satisfy us.”

    But according to some students, the campaign’s four sponsoring groups represent only a particular bent of Christianity and religious belief on campus, a fact that some said is detrimental to the organizers’ cause. Andrew Beaty ’07, a member of the Battell Chapel Council of Deacons, said the campaign’s Web site does not include Battell Chapel, the Episcopal Church at Yale, or the Church of Christ on its list of area places of worship. “I think it’s too bad that it seems as though it’s a little bit consciously outside of the mainstream,” Beaty said. “I think some of the efforts in the end may be counterproductive, but if they feel that this is the best way to go about it then more power to them.”

    Although Becky Dinerstein ’09 said she has no personal problems with Meredith’s message, she said she does take issue with the tactics being used. “Entirely aside from the message and beliefs at hand, I find the omnipresent propaganda to be excessive and obsessive,” she said. “I feel like a lot of personal space is being invaded.”

    Dinerstein said she objects to the fact that YSC members were stationed at the entrances of dining halls distributing information about the campaign and Christianity.

    Despite some strong reactions to their activities, campaign organizers and participants said they do not consider the week’s mission to be conversion or proselytizing. “We’re not doing any more or less than a group that’s campaigning to raise awareness about a certain political, social or environmental issue,” Yun said. “The dialogue we hope to foster is such that people can try to persuade one another in a very respectful, open-minded manner.”

    Philosophy professor Greg Ganssle, who will be moderating a “Should We Agree with Adam?” panel tomorrow evening, said the campaign addresses issues important to the intellectual discourse of the University. “There is a moderately strong sense that deep faith is irrelevant to the work or nature of the University — even if there is plenty of room for people to have deep faith (or not) personally,” Ganssle said in an e-mail. “So I think a week like this is a good thing.”

    Those involved in the campaign said they have seen a variety of reactions, ranging from candid questioning and constructive discussion to laughter to outright hostility. “People are very skeptical,” one YSC junior, said. “Usually campaigns like this try to invade people’s life, but it’s not like we’re walking around with ‘Jesus is the only way’ shirts on.”

    She also said some students unfamiliar with the campaign have thought the date on the back of the shirts — April 7, 2006 — is when the wearers believe the apocalypse is coming. Others have thought that Adam is a reference to the biblical Adam and Eve, and have taken the campaign as a support of intelligent design or creationism. Ellen Ray ’09, a YSC member, said some have even asked why there are no “I Disagree with Adam” T-shirts available. “It seems like a kind of passive evangelism,” Lee Seymour ’09, who is an atheist, said. “They’re not aggressively recruiting people, and its actual message is very non-confrontational, which is why it’s very easily spread.”

    “I Agree with Adam” representatives have been tabling on Beinecke Plaza from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. this week, asking passersby if they agree with Adam and inviting them to write their opinions on the subject on one of two large poster boards — “Agree” or “Disagree.”

    The current campaign comes five years after YSC’s last awareness campaign, “I Agree with Dave,” which was designed by Dave Farrell ’03. Similar campaigns have taken place at other universities, including Pennsylvania State University and Ohio Wesleyan.

    Though the campaign coincides with LGBT Pride Week ’06 and Human Rights Week, Yun said the overlap was unintentional, as the campaign’s organizers had sought to avoid campaigning during Holy Week, which begins next Sunday.

    The week will conclude Friday afternoon with a rally and testimony from Meredith on Cross Campus.

    http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2006/0...rompts-debate/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #46
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    "Liberals on Hobby Lobby: Corporations can't exercise personal values."
    "Liberals on Mozilla: Corporations should exercise personal values."

    -Rep. Steve Stockman, R-TX



    Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues
    AP 8:30 p.m. EDT April 4, 2014

    SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — The resignation of Mozilla's CEO amid outrage that he supported an anti-gay marriage campaign is prompting concerns about how Silicon Valley's strongly liberal culture might quash the very openness that is at the region's foundation.

    Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich stepped down Thursday as CEO, just days after his appointment. He left the nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser after furious attacks, largely on Twitter, over his $1,000 contribution to support of a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban in California.

    "There was no interest in creating an Internet lynch mob," OkCupid co-founder Sam Yagun, whose dating service site was among those engaged in online protest, said Friday. "I am opposed to that with every bone in my body."

    But Eich's abrupt departure has stirred the debate over the fairness of forcing out a highly qualified technology executive over his personal views and a single campaign contribution six years ago. And it raises questions about how far corporate leaders are allowed to go in expressing their political views.

    Some are also questioning whether the episode undercuts the well-groomed image of Silicon Valley as a marketplace of ideas and diversity of thought, and whether, in this case, the tech world surrendered to political correctness enforced through a public shaming on social media.

    OkCupid never demanded Eich resign, and after discussing the issue with Mozilla, Yagun ended the call for a Firefox boycott Wednesday afternoon.

    In retrospect, however, Yagun said he wished he had framed the Firefox boycott in a slightly different light.

    "I would have loved to have engaged in a debate over what happens when freedoms collide," Yagun said. "We have freedom of speech, which I would defend to the end. And we have what I believe is a fundamental liberty of people to marry and love whoever they want. We took a stand that matters to us personally and as a business — and I think the world will be a better place because of it."

    Eich's departure didn't end the controversy, it just changed it.

    The National Organization for Marriage, which backed California's same-sex marriage ban, called on consumers to boycott the Firefox browser.

    Organization President Brian Brown said Eich had been the "target of a vicious character attack by gay activists who have forced him out of the company he has helped lead for years."

    While a handful of workers at top tech firms including Apple, Yahoo and Google supported the gay-marriage ban, the vast majority gave money to oppose it.

    Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker touched on the delicate balancing act in her Thursday blog post announcing Eich's resignation.

    "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech," Baker said. "Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

    Eich' s technical reputation is strong. He created JavaScript and helped write the code to run Netscape's Navigator web browser before co-founding Mozilla.

    Mozilla, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., declined to make any further comment Friday. Eich did not respond to requests for comment.

    Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairman of the California Republican Party, said Silicon Valley can be intolerant, and noted 52 percent of California voters supported the anti-gay marriage measure.

    "Many people have told me they're afraid to identify themselves as conservatives," she said. "We face issues of political correctness all the time."

    Eich's resignation should serve as a chilling reminder to workers at all levels that their off-duty behavior or personal opinions could still cost them their jobs if their employers are worried about a backlash hurting their business, said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute.

    New York and a few other states prohibit employers from firing workers for political activity, but even those protections are limited.

    Some firings of lower-level employees have raised even more troubling questions about worker rights than Eich's resignation, Maltby said. Some women have gotten fired for Facebook pictures showing them wearing a bikini on the beach, and a teacher lost her job for another Facebook photo that showed her holding a beer.

    Most employers are vague about their restrictions on what workers are allowed to share online.

    "There is no clear line," Maltby said. "The line is whatever offends your boss or the CEO."

    Chick-fil-A Inc. President Dan Cathy's opposition to gay marriage has created controversy for the Atlanta-based company best known for its fried chicken sandwiches and closing on Sundays. But he has maintained his position.

    While many gay-rights activists and commentators welcomed Eich's departure, there were dissenters.

    Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay blogger, railed against the pressure that led to the resignation.

    "You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others' views as the Christians?," he asked. "You've just found a great way to do this. It's a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it."

    Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group, took issue with Sullivan.

    "I don't believe this is a question of suppressing free speech," he said. "It's a question of the market regulating itself."

    Had Eich stayed in his job, "a tsunami of negativity was going to eventually overwhelm him and the company," Sainz said. "It's entirely a measure of our success as a movement that we are now part of that long list of issues that CEOs have to consider."

    Robert P. George, the Princeton University professor and conservative intellectual, said Eich's case was another example of how religious conservatives who only support heterosexual marriage are being victimized for their views. George has dubbed the incident "Brendan Eich's defenstration."

    "Now that the bullies have Eich's head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer," George wrote, in a post on First Things, a conservative journal on religion and public policy. "They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy."

    Russell Moore, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the Mozilla case signaled "very hostile times" for anyone who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Eich was "hounded out of office," he said.

    Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who was the first openly gay bishop elected in the Anglican Communion, said in a phone interview that a corporate board has a right to take stock of how executives' views shape a companies' reputation.

    But Robinson noted that Eich said his personal beliefs would not affect his performance as CEO.

    Still, Robinson said he disagreed with the idea that Eich served as an example of bullying by liberals, as some conservatives claim. "It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it's not intolerant to insist upon that understanding," Robinson said.

    Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network, which works to build bridges with evangelical opponents of same-sex relationships, described himself as "a passionate supporter of marriage equality." But Lee said he didn't think Eich should have left or been pressured to leave because he donated to Proposition 8. "As much as I disagree with the donation, this is America, and I believe he has a right to support the political causes he believes in," Lee said.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...peech/7328759/
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 04-07-2014 at 04:12 PM.
    hblueeyes likes this.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #47
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Pro-Life Business owners: If you don't like the causes we support, you can still work here, but you don't have to. You may have to pay for your own contraceptives.

    Liberals: If you support causes we don't like, you won't have a job at all, other than menial labor, and certainly no position of leadership.

    So... who is enlightened in the above scenario?
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #48
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Supreme Court Declares Christians the New Slave Class

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from Christian photographers who were fined and admonished by the New Mexico Supreme Court for declining to work a same-sex ceremony, in what could be a blow to religious business owners.

    The high court decision not to take up the appeal means the New Mexico ruling against them stands. That ruling is only binding in New Mexico, but could set a precedent that can be cited in subsequent cases.

    In this case, Elaine Photography, owned by Jon and Elaine Huguenin of New Mexico, was brought to court for refusing to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony in 2006.

    The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in August that the business’s refusal to photograph the ceremony celebrating a homosexual union did violate the state’s Human Rights Act.

    Lawyers for the business, though, argued the ruling violates the business owners’ free speech rights by compelling them to “express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

    Read the full story at FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...king-same-sex/

    This precedence also establishes that the whims of any random homosexual have precedence over the firmly held religious beliefs of Christians, and Christians can be forced to participate in and thereby endorse any form of immoral behavior Homosexuals can think of. No word yet when we Christians will be asked to be fitted for a leather thong or whatever else we will be required to wear when we are forced to march in the next “Gay Pride” parade.

    ...

    This is bad from a freedom standpoint. It's most unfortunate that the "winners" here don't even realize that they've lost.

    ..

    I wonder if a gay photographer would be required to take photos for a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church? I kinda doubt it.


    http://liberallogic101.com/?p=9405


    Court won’t review gay-ceremony photo case
    Robert Barnes | The Washington Post
    First Published Apr 07 2014 07:15 pm


    Washington • The Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether a New Mexico photographer had a free-speech right to refuse service to a same-sex couple who wanted her to record their commitment ceremony.

    Without comment, the court said it would not review a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court that the denial of service violated the state’s public accommodations law, which bans discrimination by those offering their services to the public.

    The New Mexico decision had prompted some states, such as Arizona, to propose laws that would protect companies and individuals who say providing some services to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs.

    The case at the court came from Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, whose company, Elane Photography, refused service for the 2007 commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth.

    The Huguenins said they would "gladly serve gays and lesbians" by taking portraits. But photographing same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies would "require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," according to their petition to the court.

    The state human rights commission found that the Huguenins violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and the state supreme court unanimously upheld the decision.

    "When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said.

    In their petition, the Huguenins and lawyer Jordan W. Lorence of the Alliance Defending Freedom mentioned religion frequently. But their plea did not cite constitutional protection of their right to freely exercise their religion. Instead, they rely on another part of the First Amendment: their right to free speech.

    Elaine Huguenin’s work is artistic expression, the petition said, and she cannot be forced to "communicate messages antithethical to her religious beliefs . . . through government coercion."

    Tobias B. Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing Willock, pointed out in his brief that the Huguenins acknowledge that courts are not split on the questions they raised, normally a prerequisite for Supreme Court action. He said the issue is a simple one: "Whatever service you provide, you must not discriminate against customers when you engage in public commerce."

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/5...rvice.html.csp
    hblueeyes likes this.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #49
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Car With “Co-Exist” Bumper Sticker Runs Over Pro-Life Display
    by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC 4/9/14 3:06 PM



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

    As Bristol Palin notes in a blog post, that level of open-mindedness apparently doesn’t apply to abortion backers. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristol...-life-display/

    A student’s pro-life display caused one of his fellow students to go sort of nuts. According to FIRE President Greg Lukianoff: http://www.thefire.org/when-campus-i...ver-literally/

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

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

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


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

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

    A group in Ohio has seen their pro-life display trashed for a third time now. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/12/p...-a-third-time/

    In 2011, a pro-life display of crosses meant to memorialize unborn children killed by abortions was the latest to suffer from pro-abortion vandalism following an incident at a Pennsylvania college. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/05/p...ion-vandalsim/

    Student vandals at Missouri State University wrecked a pro-life cross memorial on the school’s Blair-Shannon Lawn in 2008. http://www.lifenews.com/2008/10/10/state-3545/ And in 2010, abortion advocates at La Crosse University in Wisconsin vandalized a pro-life student the pro-life campus group erected. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/18/state-5566/


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=AD9J67RvDt4
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #50
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Obama’s 40 alarming quotes about Islam and Christianity

    Written by Allen West on April 21, 2014



    Over the past week, we’ve shared the blessings and remembrances of Passover and Easter. Of course this is a very special time of reflection for Jews and Christians. And in America, there cannot be any debate that this nation was founded upon a Judeo-Christian faith heritage — notice I did not say religion.

    And so it was yesterday afternoon that I came across a very interesting piece written on April 17th by Thomas Lifson in the American Thinker that I’d like to share. It’s a comparative listing of 40 quotes from President Barack Hussein Obama, 20 each on Islam and Christianity from a blog called Now the End Begins.

    As Lifson states, “Collectively, (the quotes) create quite an interesting picture. I admit that there may be instances of the president speaking as favorably of Christianity as he does of Islam, but I am not aware of them. I do remember in the 2008 campaign that he said he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, and that was in response to public awareness of his attendance at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, Trinity United. What the president left unsaid is the nature of Jesus as understood in Black Liberation Theology.”

    Here are the first five about Islam:

    #1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

    #2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

    #3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

    #4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

    #5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

    #6 “Islam has always been part of America”
    You can read the full list here. http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=15200

    I am offering no commentary other than this: I don’t recall anywhere in my Sunday school studies or Biblical teachings any story of Isra where Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed joined in heaven in prayer. But this is how we can be easily co-opted into believing something if we fail to understand our own faith and actual history. I read all the quotes several times and remember when many of them were spoken.

    In my assessment, there is a very clear and evident bias, and when combined with certain actions — as in Libya, Egypt, and towards Israel — well, you assess for yourself. Be an American Thinker. And then be a Guardian of the Republic

    http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/obamas...GV3zy6IyE1A.99
    hblueeyes and boopster like this.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #51
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Chuck Schumer: Let's amend the Constitution so Congress can restrict free speech
    Dan Calabrese on Wednesday May 7th, 2014


    reining in of freedom.

    Oh those New York Democrats! First we have Hillary (OK, only a New Yorker in a carpetbagging sort of way, but still . . .) wanting to "rein in" our notions that we have real Second Amendment rights. http://www.caintv.com/hillary-gun-laws-are-out-of-ba But that's the Second Amendment. That's not as important as the First, right? So for that one, we need Chuck Schumer, Hillary's senior as a senator before and after her tenure, to launch the attack.

    And he is: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...?mg=reno64-wsj

    The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowing unions and corporations to donate to independent political groups has driven liberals to such fits that they now want to amend the First Amendment. At a Senate Rules Committee meeting last week, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer announced a proposal to amend the Constitution to empower government to regulate political speech.

    "The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections," Mr. Schumer said. The Senate will vote this year on the amendment to "once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court." He even rolled out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to pronounce his unhappiness with freedom's bedrock document.

    According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison's 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the "raising and spending of money" through a wide range of means "to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all."



    A Chuck Schumer attack on free speech is hardly a big surprise. He's one of the senators who goaded the IRS into going after Tea Party groups based on the rationale that they were undermining confidence in government. Oh no, not that!

    To amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the ratification of 38 states. That is not going to happen. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about here. When a U.S. senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment - and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech - what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politician hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.

    This is all cloaked, of course, in language about "dark money" and so forth. You know what that's about, right? What has been the leading Democrat theme this year? It's sure as hell not how wonderful ObamaCare is. It's attacking the diabolical Koch Brothers. Democrats have decided to turn major donors to conservative causes and candidates into objects of public disdain, and they don't like it when they can't do so. They also don't like it when they can't put any restrictions on such individuals, groups or corporations.

    But the Constitution was not written for the political protection of incumbent politicians. It was written to protect the rights of the people who have to live under the governance of such people. If that's creating problems for Chuck Schumer, then I'd say it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do. I hope enough of the citizenry still understands that sufficient to recognize what an obscene power grab Schumer and his allies are attempting.

    http://www.caintv.com/chuck-schumer-lets-amend-the-c
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #52
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    NPR Asks if Allowing Prayer at Government Meetings Is ‘Essentially Oppressing Religious Minorities’
    By Jeffrey Meyer | May 7, 2014


    On Monday May 5, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government meetings can include an opening prayer without violating the United States Constitution and NPR did its best to spin the ruling as severely troubling for religious minorities. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...eetings-n97221

    On Monday’s All Things Considered program, reporter Carrie Johnson asked “The question before the Supreme Court, whether Greece did enough to respect that diversity or whether the town crossed a line by embracing Christianity and essentially oppressing religious minorities.” http://www.npr.org/2014/05/05/309840...nment-meetings [Click here to listen to the full story. http://newsbusters.org/sites/default...R-RELIGION.mp3 ]

    Johnson introduced her piece by hyping plaintiff Susan Galloway’s complaints:

    Sometimes you don't feel very welcome. I don't feel like I'm welcome at my town government anymore...My grandmother had to leave Russia 'cause of the Cossacks, my father had to leave Germany 'cause of Hitler. We have to stand up and make sure that our government and religion are separate because we are a diverse country.
    The Galloway quote was a replay from a November 6, 2013 story http://www.npr.org/templates/transcr...ryId=243290108 in which reporter Nina Totenberg mentioned “The town of Greece has, in fact, gotten more diverse in its prayers since the lawsuit was filed in 2008. Among those who've offered prayers are a Jewish layman, a Baha'i and a Wiccan priestess. But still, the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian."

    Neither NPR story bothered to point out that Galloway’s Hitler analogy went out the window when the town of Greece, New York included a Jewish layman to lead a prayer at government meetings. Instead of pointing out the major flaw in Galloway’s claim, both Totenberg and Johnson promote her objections to the ruling as central to both stories.

    The rest of Johnson’s piece was fairly benign, with quotes from both sides of the issue given ample time in the story. Unfortunately, NPR made an editorial decision to feature the plaintiff’s erroneous Hitler analogy, and made it the focus of the report.

    See transcript of the full story below.

    All Things Considered
    May 5, 2014


    ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Well a major decision today from the U.S. Supreme Court on prayer in public settings. By a five-to-four vote, the justices ruled that a town in upstate New York did not violate the Constitution by inviting chaplains to deliver prayers before its meetings - that's even if the chaplains and the prayers were almost all Christian. NPR's Carrie Johnson has the story.

    CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Two women - one Jewish, another an atheist - sued the town of Greece, New York for infringing on their First Amendment rights by featuring prayers at the outset of town meetings. They said town leaders overwhelmingly favored Protestant and Catholic clergy to give those prayers.

    SUSAN GALLOWAY: Sometimes you don't feel very welcome. I don't feel like I'm welcome at my town government anymore.

    JOHNSON: Susan Galloway is one of the plaintiffs. She talked with NPR last winter about her case.

    GALLOWAY: My grandmother had to leave Russia 'cause of the Cossacks, my father had to leave Germany 'cause of Hitler. We have to stand up and make sure that our government and religion are separate because we are a diverse country.

    JOHNSON: The question before the Supreme Court, whether Greece did enough to respect that diversity or whether the town crossed a line by embracing Christianity and essentially oppressing religious minorities. In a five-to-four ruling, the court's conservatives sided with the town. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cites the nation's long tradition of prayer to open legislative proceedings. To prove a constitutional violation, Kennedy says, people need to uncover a pattern of prayers that proselytize or denigrate another religion. That wasn't the case in Greece, he says. But dissenters on the court point out that from 1999 to 2010, Greece held 120 town meetings. Only four of them featured prayers from non-Christians. Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia, represented the plaintiffs.

    DOUGLAS LAYCOCK: This is a green light for local majorities to impose their religious practices on their fellow citizens. And, you know, if Greece didn't go too far it's hard to imagine what town is going too far.

    JOHNSON: But in Greece, town supervisor Bill Reilich offers a very different take on the ruling.

    BILL REILICH: It's all about freedom of speech, freedom to pray to the god that you believe in without having concerns about censorship.

    JOHNSON: Reilich says the town will go on praying before its local meetings the same way it has for years. People who don't like it, he says, can simply enjoy a moment of silence.

    REILICH: I don't see how anyone can feel offended by somebody praying, whether it's exactly what they believe or not. They don't have to partake in it, if they don't they wish to not.

    JOHNSON: Reilich adds that the town's open to hearing from chaplains of other faiths, but it won't actively solicit such views. Lawyer Thomas Hungar, who represented the town, says a search for diversity is not required under the Supreme Court analysis.

    THOMAS HUNGAR: Towns don't have to sort of ensure an equal time opportunity for multiple different faiths. As long as people have equal opportunities to pray, there's no sort of percentage requirement that every faith get a certain amount of time.

    JOHNSON: As for the words in the prayers, the court majority said putting courts and lawmakers in charge of policing language - substituting references to a generic god for references to Jesus, for example - would lead to government censorship. But the plaintiff's attorney, Douglas Laycock, says the U.S. Congress and many statehouses already have broad guidelines in place.

    LAYCOCK: But trying to make these prayers more inclusive is not nearly so difficult as the court makes it out to be. Greece made no effort whatever, absolutely none. If they would simply instruct the clergy that they invite, tell them this is a prayer for all the citizens, not just for Christians, it should be broadly interfaith and inclusive - clergy know how to do that.

    JOHNSON: Thomas Hungar, who represented the town of Greece, says the decision is a resounding reaffirmation of the right to pray and a signal to deter lawsuits elsewhere around the country where some residents might object to the prayers they hear at public meetings. Carrie Johnson, NPR News, Washington.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey...#ixzz317rSZwnN
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #53
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    MSNBC’s Capehart: Tolerance ‘Should Not Be a Two-Way Street’
    What THIS liberal said about TOLERANCE was so SHOCKING...EVEN the other liberals on the program disagreed!

    By Paul Bremmer | May 13, 2014 | 17:19


    Liberals often say they’re big on tolerance, but apparently tolerance must flow only one way – toward liberals and their favored identity groups. So says MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart.

    Appearing as a guest on Monday’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Capehart rebuffed the idea that supporters of Michael Sam, the first openly gay player drafted into the NFL, should have to tolerate the views of those who don’t agree with Sam’s lifestyle. [Video below. MP3 audio here.] Capehart argued:

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-s-...two-way-street

    [T]olerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It's a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced -- not forced, but not be made to understand that what you're saying and what you're doing is wrong.


    That’s the perfect encapsulation of liberalism – they will make you to understand that you are wrong and they are right. You will tolerate whoever they like, but as for you – tough luck. If you don’t share their “tolerant” beliefs, they will not tolerate you. Tolerance, in its true classical definition, is intolerable. Real "tolerance" according to Capehart, looks more like a posture of unquestioning acceptance and a self-imposed gag rule whereby social conservatives dare not say anything remotely critical of homosexuality.

    But Capehart was surely surprised to find himself locked in a rare argument on The Last Word. That’s because the other guest, New York Times sports columnist William Rhoden, departed from MSNBC orthodoxy with a call for two-way tolerance. The typically liberal sportswriter offered:

    I think that to deal with things openly there has to be an open back-and-forth dialogue. Tolerance can't just work one way. You can't just be one way, that anybody who speaks out... this cannot turn into a Gestapo-type situation where if you express discomfort with something, then you're cast as a homophobe and you're fined by the league. I think that there has to be a back-and-forth.
    That was a good moment of sanity from Rhoden, who does not always think or speak this way. Just a few weeks ago, you may recall, he told NPR that every newsroom or stadium press box without a black journalist is essentially guilty of Donald Sterling-level racism. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...hout-black-sho

    Below is a transcript of the segment:
    WILLIAM RHODEN, The New York Times: Yeah, there was a lot of kissing. No question about that. I was at Radio City Music Hall when it happened. And it was a stunning moment because again, this big linebacker, you know, and his boyfriend kissing. And I think it caught everybody off guard. Now people argue, well, what happened -- I'm not a big fan of it even when it's like, you know, the guy and his fiancé. I’m like, you know, okay, enough is enough. But I get it. This is a barrier that's been broken. We have to deal with it. One thing I would say is this, however. That when you are the first, okay? When you are the first, it can't be just a one-way street. I mean, you have to expect to get pushback. And there's going to be pushback. And –

    ARI MELBER: What kind of pushback do you have to expect?

    RHODEN: Well, what we saw on Twitter, you know? Now that was ignorant pushback. A lot of that was ignorant pushback. But we have the same problem about racism in this country. And it's interesting that as we speak now, we have two dynamic things going on. In the NBA they're dealing with racism. The NFL is now dealing with sexuality. And I think that to deal with things openly there has to be an open back-and-forth dialogue. Tolerance can't just work one way. You can't just be one way, that anybody who speaks out -- now, I think you can speak out a certain -- if you speak out of ignorance you can -- but I think that people -- this cannot turn into a Gestapo-type situation where if you express discomfort with something then you're cast as a homophobe and you're fined by the league. I think that there has to be a back-and-forth.

    MELBER: So speaking of back and forth, let me go to Jonathan.

    JONATHAN CAPEHART: Okay. So what you're saying is that Michael Sam has to put up with people disrespecting who he is, that Michael Sam has to put up with people who don't like who he is and he just has to put up with it and take it? That's not--

    RHODEN: As opposed to what? As opposed to what? I mean, this is the real world.

    CAPEHART: But he’s supposed to – what you're saying is he's supposed to be silent. That he's supposed to stand silently by and let people disrespect –

    RHODEN: I didn't say that. No, what I said, there has to be a national back-and-forth discourse. It can't just be a one-way thing that if anybody expresses discomfort then they're cast as a hom--

    MELBER: Well, Bill, let me ask you -- let me jump in and ask you a question because you're talking about discomfort. And I think I understand part of what you're saying, although we also have to be careful not to use euphemisms to make some of the so-called discomfort better than it is. Some of these players put up messages on the Internet saying they were disgusted by this, this is gross, this is wrong. Yes, we have an open public square.

    RHODEN: Right.

    MELBER: But haven't we learned something through these controversies of the past few weeks that it's helpful to have institutions assert responsibility and accountability?

    RHODEN: Yeah. Again, there has to be an intelligent discussion. Going on Twitter and Instagram and being ignorant, whether you're talking about sexuality or racism, is not acceptable. But you have to be able to -- but this is new. I mean, this – it's not like this happens every day. This is a historic moment. All right? It's not like there's a precedent for this. There really is not a precedent for this.

    MELBER: Jonathan?

    CAPEHART: But hatred's not new. Bigotry's not new. Ignorance isn't new. And so when someone denigrates somebody else for who they are, it's not -- I understand you're saying that it has to be a two-way conversation. But tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It's a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced -- not forced, but not be made to understand that what you're saying and what you're doing is wrong.

    MELBER: We're out of time. So briefly.

    RHODEN: Your question, and I think it was an important question, is does he have to take it? All I'm saying is that when you are a pioneer, whether you're Jackie Robinson -- when you're a pioneer, there's a certain responsibility that's going to come with being a pioneer. A certain weight that you've got to carry.

    CAPEHART: Right. That I get. But then the person who's doing -- who has the hate in their heart or the bigotry in their heart or the homophobia in their heart has to be made to see that the way they think and feel is wrong.

    MELBER: Right. And I think that's an important point to pause on and also goes to whether we learned from Jackie Robinson. He endured a tremendous amount. As we go down this road, can we as a society stand up and actually ask people who are breaking barriers to endure less because they are doing the right thing? I mean, that’s also part of this. Jonathan Capehart and Bill Rhoden, thank you both for joining me tonight.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-br...#ixzz31eZwFz2g
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #54
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Michael Sam Saga Proof That Leftist Thought Police Are On a Tear
    By David Limbaugh | May 13, 2014

    Before I begin, I want to pose a question to the powers that control our society today: Am I allowed to comment on issues that pertain to homosexuality if I don't echo the views of our masters? Will people who read this column willingly twist what I say to justify condemnation of anyone who disagrees with them? They certainly do it to many other people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-l...#ixzz31kKBmMEU
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #55
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    58,716
    Thanks
    2,649
    Thanked 4,898 Times in 3,016 Posts
    Democrats Move To End Free Speech
    43 Democrats in the Senate have signed onto a bill to effectively repeal the First Amendment.

    S.J.Res.19 would effectively give Congress the power to control any political speech in the United States. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...lution/19/text

    Led by Harry Reid, the bill would eliminate the ability of campaigns, political parties and outside groups to spend money in elections. We would all like to see corruption via campaign spending to end, but to eliminate the 1st Amendment is not the way to do it.

    Limiting or ending your rights is often initiated under the guise of addressing a problem ‘we all agree on’ and this is no different.

    “What the amendment [to the Constitution] would do if adopted is give Congress plenary authority, absolute authority, to regulate all political speech,” stated Ted Cruz, who warned us last week this was coming. http://www.truthandaction.org/ted-cr...1st-amendment/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=k-iRLFYyZzg

    Saying the foundations of democracy are threatened, Senate Democrats took the first step Tuesday to rewrite the First Amendment, holding a hearing to rally support for their proposed constitutional change that would give government the power to ban all spending on political campaigns.

    The effort drew vows of resistance from Republicans, who harangued Democrats for abandoning free speech rights for political gain. Republican lawmakers said the solution was for Democrats to improve their arguments, not to silence their critics in an assault on fundamental freedoms.

    “Where are the liberals today? Why is there not a liberal standing here defending the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment?” Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, demanded of his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Forty-three Democrats are sponsoring the amendment, which would give Congress and the states powers to set strict limits — or eliminate — the ability of campaigns, political parties and outside groups to spend money in elections.

    Democrats said they were spurred by several recent Supreme Court rulings that have freed up outside groups to spend money advertising for their points of view in elections, leading to a flood of cash, much of it spent anonymously, in the 2012 election.
    testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Examining a Constitutional Amendment to Restore Democracy to the American People” focusing on campaign finance on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Tuesday, June 3, 2014. (Andrew Harnik/The Washington Times)

    Enlarge Photo
    testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Examining a Constitutional Amendment … more >

    Signaling the stakes in the fight, the Senate’s top Democrat and Republican testified at the hearing, mounting feverish attacks on each other.

    “We sit here today with a simple choice: We can keep the status quo and argue all day and all night, weekends, forever about whose billionaires are right, whose billionaires are wrong, or we can work together to change the system, to get this shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic principles of one American, one vote,” Mr. Reid said.

    Mr. Reid acknowledged that he felt “so unclean” after his hard-fought 1998 Senate campaign, when one major donor contributed a quarter of a million dollars to the Nevada Democratic Party and let Mr. Reid know he had done so — apparently an effort to curry favor.

    “I hope that didn’t corrupt me, but it was corrupting,” Mr. Reid said.

    He continued his assault on the conservative Koch brothers, two billionaires who fund conservative causes and who have become special targets for Mr. Reid.

    But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said Mr. Reid was attacking the Koch brothers as a smoke screen for “how incredibly bad this proposed amendment is.”

    He said even liberal lions such as the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy voted against this kind of effort. Indeed, a 2001 effort to amend the Constitution on campaign finance was defeated by a 56-40 vote, and a 1997 effort was defeated by an even wider 61-39 vote.




    Mr. McConnell said Democrats’ push this year is an election strategy, not a serious effort to work through constitutional issues.

    “This proposal is never going to pass Congress. This is a political exercise and that’s all it is. The goal here is to stir up one party’s political base so they’ll show up in November,” he said.

    The amendment Democrats are pursuing is strikingly broad. If ratified, the amendment would let federal and state governments set limits on how much money could be contributed to campaigns, spent by candidates or raised and spent by outside interest groups such as the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club.

    Source: washingtontimes.com http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS

    http://www.truthandaction.org/democr...d-free-speech/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts