Democrat Attempts to Gut First Amendment

Monday, September 15, AD 2014

a jealous faith



The contemporary left gives lip service to freedom of speech, but where they are in power they actively seek to ban the speech of those who disagree with them.  We see this clearly on campuses where speech codes, anathema to any concept of freedom of speech, are the order of the day.  It is no accident, as Marxists used to say, that representatives of the Democrat party are busily seeking to jettison the concept of free speech when it comes to elections.  Kevin Williamson gives us the details at National Review Online:



Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Dissent is the lowest form of crime. If you are a drone in the hive of the Left, it is possible — easy, in fact — to believe both of those things at the same time.

Free speech just won an important victory in a federal courtroom, though it is shameful that the case ever even had to go to court. Ohio had enacted a plainly unconstitutional law that empowered a government panel to determine whether criticisms offered in political advertisements were sufficiently true to be permitted in the public discourse. Those who have followed the IRS scandal, the Travis County, Texas, prosecutorial scandals, or Harry Reid’s recent effort to repeal the First Amendment will not be surprised that this measure was used as a political weapon against a conservative group, in this case the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. SBA List criticized a Democratic House member for having voted for the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the law will implicate American taxpayers in the funding of abortions, an entanglement previously minimized through measures such as the Hyde Amendment. Despite the fact that the ACA regime would, among other things, permit federal subsidies for abortion-funding insurance plans, the Ohio Inquisition ruled the ad impermissible, and banned it.

So much for free speech.

Fortunately, an Obama appointee whose ability to read the letter of the law had not been utterly drummed out of him ruled that the Ohio Inquisition obviously violated longstanding free-speech protections, the First Amendment notable among them. Last week, a similar case in Minnesota came to a similar conclusion.

Which is why Harry Reid wants to repeal the First Amendment.

Democrats pushing the measure to repeal free speech pretend that it is a campaign-finance measure, but the only criteria it establishes for Congress to ban an advertisement — or a book, or a film, or a television show, or a magazine — is that money is expended in an attempt to influence a political outcome. Under those rules, the Ohio Inquisition’s successful move to ban billboards critical of an embattled Democratic congressman would have been totally acceptable under the provisions of a gutted First Amendment.

The Ohio Inquisition, and the Minnesota Inquisition, and Harry Reid’s war on the First Amendment are hardly isolated episodes. Consider that the same Texas prosecutor that has indicted Governor Rick Perry on two felony counts for the so-called crime of exercising his constitutional authority to veto a bill — a bill providing funds to that prosecutor’s office — is now preparing to indict University of Texas regent and whistleblower Wallace Hall, on charges of . . . hmm.

The charges against Mr. Hall are odd even by the standards of Rosemary Lehmberg, the vodka-pickled Texas prosecutor whose videotaped tirade after a DUI arrest — she threatened to have sheriff’s deputies jailed if she was not given special treatment — led to Governor Perry’s veto of funds for her office, on the theory that he could not in good conscience sign off on funding for an agency under such non-credible leadership. Mr. Hall is accused of leaking private information regarding academic records; short of that, prosecutors want to charge Mr. Hall with the crime of leading people to “speculate” about certain information protected by privacy rules. For the record, I should note that, though I never have spoken to the man, the party to whom Mr. Hall is accused of leaking information and whose speculation he is accused of encouraging is me.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Democrat Attempts to Gut First Amendment

  • O’Rourke, as always, makes the arcane digestible. Or something.

  • They are remarkable like Islam – whining about their rights when out of power, crushing everyone else’s when they are in.

  • “…the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes.”
    – Twain, Letter fragment, 1891

  • c matt: They are remarkable like Islam – whining about their rights when out of power, crushing everyone else’s when they are in.”
    “My sentiments exactly. How often I have thought these thoughts, but I am forbidden by the thought police to think these thoughts, much less express them out loud. You have given words to my thoughts.

  • What amazes me is that it never occurs to liberals that the pendulum might someday swing back and all the anti-dissent machinery they have built will be in the hands of their opponents.
    If they are truly haunted by nightmares of a “Republic of Gilead” it could arise much more easily once the Bill of Rights was repealed.

  • What else is new?

    This is what the modern Democrat does. Silence, or attempt to silence any opposition.

  • Liberalism, aka. progressivism is so full of itself it cannot conceive the possibility of being in error. Utopian zeal embodies an insatiable appetite for control. This is the fundamental basis for the totalitarian state. To the liberal progressive, free speech is a means to an end. When that end is achieved, free speech is banned.

  • Café Hayek quote of the day: “is from page 82 of Alain de Botton’s delightful 1993 volume, On Love (original emphasis):

    “’Amorous politics begins its infamous history in the course of the French Revolution, when it was first proposed (with all the choice of a rape) that the state would not just govern but love its citizens, who would presumably respond likewise or face the guillotine.’

Greece v. Galloway

Tuesday, May 6, AD 2014


Yesterday, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Supreme Court reached the stunningly obvious conclusion, under the text of the Constitution, the views of the Founding Fathers and the historic practice in this country, that prayers prior to town meetings are not unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  Go here to read the text of the opinion.  Of course the four liberals on the court, for whom the text of the Constitution is so much Play-Doh, dissented.  I was going to write a post on the decision, but Christopher Johnson,  a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels for the Church so frequently that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has beat me to it:




I’m not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one on the Internet so I apologize if there’s too much technical jargon in this post.  But yesterday, CNN’s Daniel Burke reported that the United States Supreme Court told people who claim that the mere sight of a Christian cross compels them to become Christians or who claim to break out in a cold sweat whenever they hear someone say “Jesus Christ” to grow a pair and man the hell up:

If you don’t like it, leave the room.

That’s the essence of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s advice for atheists and others who object to sectarian prayers before government meetings.

In a 5-4 decision written by Kennedy, the Supreme Court allowed Greece, New York, to continue hosting prayers before its monthly town board meetings – even though an atheist and a Jewish citizen complained that the benedictions are almost always explicitly Christian.

Many members of the country’s majority faith – that is, Christians – hailed the ruling.

Considering the intellectual vacuity of court rulings on the Establishment Clause over the years, any schadenfreude yesterday, Chris?  Yeah, a little bit.  I’d use “wailing and gnashing of teeth” here but that’s Biblical and I don’t want to offend anyone.

Many members of minority faiths, as well as atheists, responded with palpable anger, saying the Supreme Court has set them apart as second-class citizens.

Groups from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism to the Hindu American Foundation decried Monday’s decision.

“The court’s decision to bless ‘majority-rules’ prayer is out of step with the changing face of America, which is more secular and less dogmatic,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which litigated the case.

If you don’t like it, step out of the room for a few moments.

But what about people who like their local government meetings to be religion-free?

“Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand out as disrespectful or even noteworthy,” Kennedy writes.

Elections matter, folks.  Because they can result in stupid people getting lifetime jobs.

[Justice Elena] Kagan, writing for the dissenting minority, sharply disagreed.

She suggested that the five justices who formed the majority – all of whom are Catholic – don’t understand what it’s like to belong to a minority faith in America.

Did Burke happen to mention that the majority in this case was Roman Catholic?

The Supreme Court’s Catholic majority seems to think that, because many prayers before government meetings take on a ceremonial aspect, the actual content of the prayers doesn’t really matter, Kagan continues.

Just checking.

In essence, she said, the majority is arguing “What’s the big deal?” and making light of religious differences while conferring a special role on Christianity.

“Contrary to the majority’s apparent view, such sectarian prayers are not ‘part of our expressive idiom’ or ‘part of our heritage and tradition,’ assuming that ‘our’ refers to all Americans. They express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to others – and because of that they carry the ever-present potential to divide and exclude.”

Ellie?  Have you ever actually read the Establishment Clause?  It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  That’s it.

There’s nothing in there about division or exclusion or any of the rest of that hippie crap.  Put it another way.  What if that town board brought in a Muslim to offer a prayer one evening, he opened with “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” and mentioned Mohammed a time or two, using that “peace and blessings be upon him” line?

Know what I would do if that happened, Ellie?

Absolutely nothing.

I wouldn’t make a scene or anything.  But I wouldn’t pray.  I’d sit there quietly and respectfully until the gentleman finished and then I guess we’d proceed with town business.  The fact that a Muslim publicly prayed while I was in the room neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as Mr. Jefferson once put it.

And it certainly doesn’t constitute an establishment of the Muslim religion in that town, Ellie, your tortured reading of the First Amendment notwithstanding.

One more thing.  Atheists?  What is the deal with you people?  Why do you always turn up in stories like this?  You don’t believe this stuff or at least you claim that you don’t so why legally force people who disagree with you to keep quiet?  What difference does it make to you if someone publicly expresses concepts that you find absurd?

Sounds REAL insecure to me.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Greece v. Galloway

  • “One more thing. Atheists? What is the deal with you people? Why do you always turn up in stories like this? You don’t believe this stuff or at least you claim that you don’t so why legally force people who disagree with you to keep quiet? What difference does it make to you if someone publicly expresses concepts that you find absurd? Sounds REAL insecure to me.”

    There is no “God”. And I hate him. ~ Atheists

  • “stunningly obvious conclusion” – Not quite so stunningly to four of them, credentialed cretins.

  • It feels like they are throwing us a bone. That they are may sing wincing a bit at their own record. That they know the continuing trajectory and don’t see that they can really do anything about it and cannot or will not muster the intellectual arguments to Really change the trend, hence the graceless throwing of the bone. A bit of salve.

  • The Supreme Court has no group mentality Anzlyne. Rather it consists of two factions with Kennedy as the effective arbiter. If you think that is a sad way for a great country to run its affairs, you are absolutely correct.

  • Liberals would allow public prayer to Allah, Buddha or even Zeus or Odin, but never to Jesus Christ.

    Liberalism is a sin:

  • “people who claim that the mere sight of a Christian cross compels them to become Christian”
    Atheists, or people who adhere to atheism, deny the immortal, rational, human soul; the human being composed of body and metaphysical soul. In denying the human being as he is created by “our Creator”, atheism denies all human rights, alienable and unalienable, but especially the practice of free will, that part of the man who most resembles and images the Supreme Sovereign Being, WHOM atheism denies. To allow man to practice his freedom identifies the human being, exercising the unalienable civil right to freedom, in this particular case, freedom of religion, man’s response to almighty God for his freedom; identifies the human being exercising the free will endowed to his soul by God, but not by the state, as a creature of God, making of the atheist, a fool, and of atheism, a trick of the devil, who does indeed believe in God, his Creator.
    The state, constituted by the citizen with his God-given sovereign personhood, cannot, by reason of the rational soul, own the citizen, the sovereign person, except by consent of the individual who makes his free will choice in freedom, never through coercion, makes a free will consent to serve the state, as statesmen.

  • In the British Houses of Parliament, prayers are read before each day’s business.
    There is a charming custom that those members present may reserve their seats on the benches during the rest of the day by leaving their Order Papers on them, which others may not. If there is a major debate in the afternoon or evening, Prayers tend to be very well attended.

  • Our founding principles inscribed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America must be taught in all schools. Education into the real freedoms of man ought to be in the hearts and minds of each and every person. If the atheist does not like it he may go someplace else. The USSR did not allow Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist, entrance. Only one dictator to a gulag.
    Yes, God created time for evolution to evolve, and God created man for Himself…and man created the Supreme Court to dispense God’s Justice and Truth. Atheists who do not believe in Justice and Truth need not apply.

  • “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” affirms the human being in his freedom, confirms the human being’s freedom as separate from the state, defines the individual human being as a moral being, as the state must prosecute crime, “the free exercise thereof ” is acknowledgement by the state that man is created a moral being, a righteous being.

  • The religion clauses reach in different directions and are necessarily a bit vexing. Their imprecision, while appropriate for a constitution, is always going to give rise to debate regarding boundaries and their contours, some of it quite reasonable. But the irony that has always been obvious to me is how the rather narrowly phrased establishment clause has been so expansively interpreted while the comparatively broad exercise clause has so often been given a cramped understanding.

  • I know you are right Donald. No real group think. I guess there’s a real identifiable difference in the way liberals and conservatives think. I mean their “method” of thinking. but maybe just common sense won the swing vote this time ?

  • Or maybe that swing voter just threw us a bone

  • For believers this is good news. It is the latest decision from SCOTUS [no relation to Blessed Duns Scotus btw lol] concerning the delicate relationship between “Church and State”. Thw tradition of the Court concerning the First Amendment has been all over the place, and probably will in the future. This, however, was a positive development.

  • “Judicial liberals are simply unable to understand they are judges and not legislators. Their views on good or bad public policy are simply irrelevant.”

    I can recall Catholic judges and at least one Jewish judge sitting as Lord Ordinary in Teind Causes. Until 2004, the Teind court dealt with matters relating to church teinds (tithes) and stipends (the financial burden on land payable to the Church of Scotland). The judges of the Court of Session sat in the Teind Court on a rota. No one imagined for a moment that their personal affiliations were of any relevance whatsoever.

  • “….our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian.” Kagan

    This may be one of my dumber questions but: is that true? do minority opinions matter just as much in a democracy? does the majority rule?

  • I don’t mean do they MATTER… of course we care about them. I just mean are they just as important when setting up civic procedures and protocols etc as what the majority of people choose. I don’t think Kagan is right on this.

  • Kennedy: “Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.” I agree with his warning here- yes- there is a danger of this “civic religion” being established.

    In 1992 Kennedy said that Christian prayer at a high school graduation is unconstitutional. After Monday’s opinion he said that civic meetings are different from high school commencement because of the age of the audience and the freedom to leave if they do not like the prayer. Seems like a weak justification for his change of heart, but thank God for it.

    Could it be that the swing voter is “evolving” ?

  • Godless liberal Democrats will always support a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist, but not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic Christian, even and especially if the Justice making the decision is a so-called Catholic Christian like Kagan or Sotomeyer. In the eyes of a Democrat, individual rights matter for everyone but a Christian. Nothing has changed since the Democrats advocated slavery in the 19th century.

  • Atheists should shut up and leave the rest of us alone. I find atheism repugnant and so many of its adherents are obnoxious.

    Atheists point fingers at Christians and, as William Bennett once said, “beat us over the heads with our own virtue”.

    Dostoyevsky (sic) put it very well in The Brothers Karamazov. If there is no God then there is no right or wrong. When Man decides for himself what is right or wrong Man will find ways to justify evil and call it a choice.

    Atheists really don’t like it when guilt by association is plastered all over atheists.

  • What I don’t get-on the surface-is why they get so upset at God etc. If He and all the rest are myth, etc why hould they care? Do we get upset at the tooth fairy or Easter bunny?

    However, on the deeper level, they know well why they care. Atheism is in fact a morphed variation of the most ancient of religions: pantheism [root of polytheism—>paganism etc] They might sound different, look different, but they actually are the same crowd we were facing in the first three hundred years of our history in the Roman Empire (including Emperor worship) and later in the rest of Europe. In short… they’re baaaaaacccccckkkkk!

  • In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court went looking for the human “person” to not abort, but did not find the person to not abort. The Constitution must be taken as a whole and not made piecemeal. Any member of the human species is a human being, embraced or tolerated, the human being is an entity unto himself and the Law of the Land is every bit one person’s as it is all persons’. E Pluribus Unum”
    The newly conceived has constitutional law on his side in behalf of his unalienable human rights. All generations to be conceived have constitutional law on their side. How can next year’s generation have constitutional law on their side but not this year’s generation? Roe v. Wade was and still is mob rule.
    The sovereign person constitutes the government with his sovereign personhood from the first moment of his existence. Since the state did not create the human being’s existence, the state cannot claim right to destroy human existence. The individual worships God in thought, word and deed and his freedom to love God is inscribed in our First Amendment.
    Roe v. Wade never proved that the newly begotten was not loving God and thereby not fulfilling his First Amendment civil rights. For an individual, the newly begotten, yet unborn, loving God is exercising his freedom of religion and his right to speak and assemble peaceably with God. As he grows arms and legs, he is peaceably assembling. No pun intended.
    In the final analysis, it is the school shootings after the removal of “Thou shalt not kill”, Ten Commandments, that has energized the Supreme Court to return God to the public square.

  • “Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand out as disrespectful or even noteworthy,” Kennedy writes.”
    The person elected to chair any public meeting is the person delegated to choose and say the prayer. If a Muslim is elected, the body will hear a Muslim prayer. Why do our judges have such impervious ignorance?
    The atheist chooses his position in this matter and must live his choice. Nobody makes of him a second class citizen. Framing himself as a victim, the atheist is starting to get wearisome.

  • Mary De Voe,

    Your reasonings & logic are superb! Here! Here!

    ( you wouldnt happen to have a single son over 40 would you?) 😉

  • “In the final analysis, it is the school shootings after the removal of “Thou shalt not kill”, Ten Commandments, that has energized the Supreme Court to return God to the public square” Great point Mary De Voe

  • About atheists:

    This malarkey will continue until the courts, which have already made ‘secular humanism’ a de facto religion for the purpose of conscientious objection to military service, decide to make ‘secular humanism’ a religion for the purpose of the establishment clause. The atheists would howl: “Atheism is not a religion!” Perhaps not in a theological sense, but there is no doubt that atheists want atheism to be the state religion of this country. Sorry guys, the legal precedent is already there, you wanted your belief system to be treated as equivalent to a religion to escape conscription, so there is no reason why your belief system cannot be treated as the equivalent of a religion in the Constitutional prohibition of a state religion. PDQ.


Wednesday, April 30, AD 2014

I rarely read Hot Air much these days, though it is fortunate that I decided to take a look this afternoon or else I would have missed this insightful post from Ed Morrissey, as he absolutely nails it on two distinct issues.

First off, Morrissey calls out the Democrats for their attempt to amend the first amendment. Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico has introduced an amendment inspired by recent Supreme Court decisions that curtailed certain campaign finance restrictions. Morrissey notes that not only does this amendment not have a prayer of getting anywhere near the two-thirds vote required, it’s simply not something that very many Americans are clamoring for.

If Democrats think this will allow them to ride a wave of Occupy Wall Street populism, they’d better look again at the polling this week. Despite spending weeks on the Senate Floor ranting about the Koch Brothers, Harry Reid’s McCarthyite campaign of Kochsteria has resulted in … almost nothing. In the NBC/WSJ poll linked earlier, only 31% had an opinion about the Koch Brothers at all, and only 21% thought of them negatively in a poll where 43% of the respondents admit to voting for Obama in 2012. Michael Bloomberg, one of the left’s multibillionaire activists, got a 26% negative score, and the Democratic Party got a 37% negative score. (The GOP got 44%.) Nearly twice as many respondents think of Barack Obama negatively than they do the Koch Brothers, despite weeks of hard-sell demonization from top Democratic Party leaders.

Well, the Democrats are trying just about everything to prevent the electoral thumping that they will undoubtedly receive this Fall, and this is just one more act of desperation that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. But at least it lets us know the truth about what they think of the first amendment.

But I’m even more impressed with Morrissey’s final paragraph, as he brings up a Supreme Court case that I’ve long contended was the impetus for all of the craziness that the federal government has spewed forth over the past seven decades.

If Democrats (and Republicans) want to act seriously to take billionaires out of the political game, they’re aiming at the wrong Supreme Court decision. They should pass an amendment repealing Wickard v Filburn‘s impact on the interstate commerce clause. That decision shifted massive political power from the states to Washington DC by defining practically everything as interstate commerce — including non-commerce. Killing Wickard would shift most regulatory power back to the states, and take the corruption out of Washington DC as the stakes would become too small for billionaire investment. Don’t expect Senate Democrats to do anything meaningful on crony capitalism, though … or anything meaningful at all, if this stunt is all they have.

Other than Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Wickard stands out as the absolute worst decision in the history of the Court. As Ed points out, it essentially allowed the federal government to intervene in every nook and cranny of our lives under the justification of “interstate commerce,” even where the action under consideration was neither interstate or commerce.

Ed’s also correct in noting that this expansion of the federal government is the prime reason that so much money is being pumped into federal elections, lobbying, and other activities. Last week I heard Russell Simmons spouting about how all of the evils of our world are due to the corrupting influence of money, and that’s why he supported Occupy Wall Street. Yet Simmons and his ilk are the very ones seeking to augment the powers of the federal government. They don’t see the inherent contradiction in this approach. As the federal government grows and grows and grows, it only increases the avenues for monied interests to wield their influence. It is the massive expansion of the federal government that has inspired this massive spending by outside groups. Of course interested stakeholders are going to want to influence the federal government in areas that affect them. The solution to diminishing their influence is not in curtailing the first amendment, but in restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government. The Koch brothers (and George Soros for that matter) will immediately lose interest in spreading their wealth around to hammer away at the federal government if the federal government would simply get out of everyone’s business.

Like that will ever happen.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Bingo!

  • Protesting against crony capitalism as the Occupy Wall Street flea baggers do while crying for more and more centralized government in Washington, DC to provide bread and circuses to the undeserving only increases moneyed interests while raping the middle class of its wealth producing ability. It is Democrats and their RINO cousins who benefit from such corporate socialism, as the peepul laud their godless, wicked messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, man of idolatry, perverted filth and murderous intent, no different in substance from his predecessor King Mannaseh of Judah.

  • Paul Zummo–I caught that post on HA. The notion of constitutionally limiting speech, particularly targeting political speech, is worrisome simply in its articulation. And, while it now seems remote, Congress has in the past and will continue to work toward limiting political speech as it serves comgress’ self interest. Remember–liberty is the constituent of no politician.

    Paul Primavera–I enjoy the passion manifest in your colorful language. It reminds me to not be so timid about God’s love and His gift of freedom to us all.

Freedom of the Press is for All of Us

Friday, February 14, AD 2014

Freedom of the Press Under Obama

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

Thomas Jefferson

Hattip to Instapundit. Josh Stearns at Huffington Post reports on the fact that the media in the US isn’t quite as free as it used to be.


According to a new report from Reporters Without Borders, there was a profound erosion of press freedom in the United States in 2013.

After a year of attacks on whistleblowers and digital journalists and revelations about mass surveillance, the United States plunged 13 spots in the group’s global press freedom rankings to number 46.

Reporters Without Borders writes that the U.S. faced “one of the most significant declines” in the world last year. Even the United Kingdom, whose sustained campaign to criminalize the Guardian’s reporters and intimidate journalists has made headlines around the world, dropped only three spots, to number 33. The U.S. fell as many spots as Paraguay, where “the pressure on journalists to censor themselves keeps on mounting.”

Citing the Justice Department’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers, including its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records, the authors write that “freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.”

The threats facing newsgathering in the U.S. are felt by both longstanding journalists like New York Times national security reporter James Risen, who may serve jail time for refusing to reveal a source, and non-traditional digital journalists like Barrett Brown.

Brown is a freelance journalist who has reported extensively on private intelligence firms and government contractors. He now faces more than 100 years in jail for linking to stolen documents as part of his reporting, even though he had no involvement in the actual theft.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Freedom of the Press is for All of Us

  • Only truth has freedom of speech and press, so help me God.

  • An open society is still usually a very good thing. Sometimes error just needs a little light to show it for what it really is. To be honest. The freedom of speech is likely the last weapon we have to defend ourselves against progressivism. On an equal playing field virtue, truth, and beauty should defeat permissiveness, propaganda, and crassness every time.

  • Mary de Voe wrote, “Only truth has freedom of speech and press, so help me God.”

    Certainly not for those Robespierre called, “the mercenary libellers subsidised to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fires of civil discord, and to prepare political counter-revolution by means of moral counter-revolution—are
    these men less culpable or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?”

  • Thank you Michael Paterson-Seymour: ““the mercenary libellers subsidised to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fires of civil discord, and to prepare political counter-revolution by means of moral counter-revolution—are
    these men less culpable or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?””
    “…the mercenary libellers” call vice virtue to kill public virtue by means of moral-counter revolution.
    The right to choose, the right to privacy, equality, social Justice are words that beget human sacrifice, sodomy, redistribution of personal wealth without consent and taxation without representation all denying the human person and the soul and our God as Supreme Sovereign. The “useful idiots”, Lenin’s description of his own henchmen are quick to take credit for establishing a new order with man as a beast of burden. Jesus said to test everything. Two witnesses establish a judicial fact. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God is the only justification for the freedom of the press and speech and peaceable assembly, for invoking Divine Providence drives evil away. The First Amendment must be taken as a whole. Freedom of religion is a relationship with our Creator acknowledged by the state. Speaking, writing and assembly to exercise our relationship with our Creator, “Wherever there are two or more people gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” is from God, not from the state. From an infinite God come unalienable human rights.

  • And the 1st Amendment is protected by the 2nd (which Obama and his demonic minions of darkness are trying to erode and nullify):

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Prayer and the First Amendment

Friday, June 7, AD 2013

Bravo to Roy Costner IV!  Valedictorian of his class at Liberty High School in Liberty, South Carolina, he tore up his approved speech which did not mention God, and spoke about his Christian faith, reciting the Paternoster:

After speaking for a bit, the senior cut to the quick.

“Those that we look up to, they have helped carve and mold us into the young  adults that we are today,” Costner said in his speech. “I’m so thankful that  both my parents led me to the Lord at a young age. And I think most of you will  understand when I say…”

Costner then proceeded to recite a full-length version of the Lord’s Prayer,  the pivotal Christian prayer that is attributed to Jesus in the both the Gospel  of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.

The audience members began to cheer tentatively and then heartily once they  realized what Costner was saying. The applause eventually became so loud that it  drowned out Costner’s voice.

At the end of the prayer, after Costner says, “Amen,” the audience breaks  into another round of wild applause.

Go here to The Daily Caller to read the rest.  The absurdity of Federal judges acting as censors of student speeches at commencement stems from a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) in which the majority banned student led prayer at football games as an establishment of religion.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a scathing dissent that began:


The Court distorts existing precedent to conclude that the school district’s student-message program is invalid on its face under the Establishment Clause. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court’s opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” Presidential Proclamation, 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (J. Richardson ed. 1897).

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Prayer and the First Amendment

Of Bible Verses, Cheerleaders and the Constitution

Thursday, May 9, AD 2013

4 Responses to Of Bible Verses, Cheerleaders and the Constitution

  • These cases are just absurd. Do the rule of procedure require the ‘public interest’ shysters and their straw plaintiffs to pay the court costs and the defendants’ legal bills?

  • Unless there is a provision under a statute awarding fees and costs Art, a court would have to find that a suit was completely without merit before assessing fees and costs. I agree with you that these types of suits where activist groups drum up a straw plaintiff would be brought far less frequently if the losing party had to cough up fees and costs routinely for the prevailing side.

  • Donald R. McClarey,
    Agreed. I noone would complain if the cheerleaders put up a Mark Twain quote. Why should the court waste its time on this? Its not as if courts are despirate for cases.

  • Taxes are owned by the taxpayers even while being administered by the administration. All public square, land and waterways are owned in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen. Government does not own the public square, the people do and the people are a free people. with a free will and a free soul endowed by our Creator. Anyone who rejects our founding priciples, rejects his country, his citizenship and commits treason.

Shut Up, They Explained

Wednesday, March 6, AD 2013






Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy takes a look at a bill in Minnesota that would have caused many of my classmates back in my school days to stand mute.



use of one or a series of words, images, or actions, transmitted directly or indirectly between individuals or through technology, that a reasonable person knows or should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of interfering with the ability of an individual, including a student who observes the conduct, to participate in a safe and supportive learning environment. Examples of bullying may include, but are not limited to, conduct that:

  1. places an individual in reasonable fear of harm to person or property, including through intimidation;
  2. has a detrimental effect on the physical, social, or emotional health of a student;
  3. interferes with a student’s educational performance or ability to participate in educational opportunities;
  4. encourages the deliberate exclusion of a student from a school service, activity, or privilege;
  5. creates or exacerbates a real or perceived imbalance of power between students;
  6. violates the reasonable expectation of privacy of one or more individuals; or
  7. relates to the actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, national origin, immigration status, sex, age, marital status, familial status, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, academic status, disability, or status with regard to public assistance, age, or any additional characteristic defined in chapter 363A of a person or of a person with whom that person associates, but the conduct does not rise to the level of harassment.
Continue reading...

3 Responses to Shut Up, They Explained

  • 7) “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression,” Sexual orientation and gender identity, are physical conditions. “expression” is an act of the will and the person may be held accountable for it. For the government to protect “expression” is prejudiced and biased of the law for vice and against virtue. Confounding the act of free will exercised by the homosexual individual to act out his homosexuality, with the condition of homosexuality of the homosexual individual, prohibits the freedom of all men to act out the Justice of God, and the virtue of Justice among the constituents of the government, and their freedom to exercise their free will. This regulation criminalizes every human response to the evil of anal penetration, the evil of homosexual behavior and the evil of the act of free will to choose to commit the vice of sodomy.

  • Just received a USCCB Media email in Spam rather than the usual Inbox.

    Also, National Review.

    A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The William Whatcott decision presumes that the person is guilty of malicious intent before being charged in a court of law for distributing WARNINGS AGAINST A PATH TO PERDITION taken from the Bible. The Bible is a warning and a path to a decent life. If the warnings go unheeded and souls are lost, whose fault is it? The person who warns or the person who chooses to live an unholy life of fornication and the court that chooses to deny the warning? People reading the Bible as HATE SPEECH are hateful people.

    Censorship of the Bible as HATE SPEECH cannot be legalized because the Bible belongs to the church. The Bible does not belong to the state. If sinners do not repent and accept the warnings of the Bible and the path to heaven spelled out in the Bible, censoring the Bible as hate speech, as the state is doing, will not prevent or forestall the damage souls have done to themselves on their way to perdition. “I put before you a blessing and a curse, choose life then.”

    There is another matter and that is this:
    If the recipients of the warning of the Bible accepted the warning, the flyer on which it is printed:
    1) The have freely entered into a conversation about a lifestyle against which they are being warned. If the person who accepts the flyer does not agree, he is free to return it to the giver. This too, is free speech. This law infringes of free speech between giver and recipient.
    2) The persons who accepted the flyer are also censored in the manner of protective custody. The flyers were of a warning. The recipients are being denied their free speech. The Bible belongs to all people and the state may not decide for Bible readers their choice between blessing or curse, that is, their point of view. The principle of separation of church and state explicitly frees men from such tyranny.

    God created man, woman, gender, race, color, etc. Man distorted God’s creation into a transgendered creature and protects their monstrosity. Bathrooms for Male, Female and Altered are in short supply.

Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

Archdiocese launches Campaign for Religious Liberty

Let me explain, in as clear and precise terms as I can, why social conservatives are not going anywhere, nor should they go anywhere, but should remain right at the heart of the conservative movement and gain acceptance among libertarians as well, and should reject as the foolish garbage that it is all suggestions to the contrary.

First, our principles are not electoral losers. Leftists believe they are on “the right side of history”, comparing the campaign for “marriage equality” with every civil rights struggle of past eras. They believe that this fact is reflected in the way the youth vote splits and the purported reasons why. At the same time, they gloat and brag about the size of the Democratic share of the minority vote.

The merits of the “marriage equality” campaign don’t need to be discussed here. I’ve discussed them to death on this blog in previous posts. The fact remains that minorities are opposed to “marriage equality.” If Hispanics can be won over to the GOP on the immigration issue, it will put a stop to this “wrong side of history” nonsense for a generation. The uncomfortable alliance between racial minorities who hold socially conservative views and white liberals will finally be blown apart. Unlike them, when racial minorities finally do side with the GOP en masse, we won’t attribute white liberal hatred for them to “racism” (even though it sure looks like it sometimes). This is a battle of values, not skin colors, and a failure to see that is one of the reasons why the white liberal left will never win the future they mistakenly believe to be theirs.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

  • This is a good post, Bonchamps. This is subject matter in which you are very knowledgeable and very articulate. Thank you.

  • I think this minorities are really social conservatives thing is bunk. When you have aroung 65 to 70% of black children in this country born to sinhle mothers, calling thme social conservatives is grossly ignorant at best. The situation with Hispanics is similar As Heather MacDonald points out:

    “I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

    The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

    Now, this is not to say we should jettison social issues. Not at all. Anyone who even has a cursory knowledge of how economics and culture affect one another knows that it would drive the final nail in the GOP coffin if they further capitulated on this issue. After all, the left understands the connection very well, which is why their push for a nanny state has ahd a symbiotic connection with their push for “liberalization” of socila issues.

    As and far as the Akin and Murdoch situations are concerned, the biggest problems weren’t their gaffes but the way the republican party under the leadership of Mitt Romney this election cycle, threw them under the bus.

  • They still come out to vote against gay marriage and still oppose abortion. California Hispanics voted for Prop 8. I think the Church’s influence had a lot to do with this as well.

    Perhaps these positions alone are not sufficient to consider them reliable social conservatives, but it ought to be enough to consider them potential occasional allies. The point is simply that if the outstanding immigration issues are addressed (in a way that does not compromise border security), the real bunk will be found in the line that social issues are what harm the GOP. Hispanics may not be as solid on social conservatism as whites, but white social conservatism will not be a deal breaker for them as it is with white liberals – and really, white liberals alone. Black voters are even more socially conservative than Hispanics.

  • Oh, I do not think that social conservatism hurts the GOP either. In fact, as I said, to operate under that misconcption will be the death knell of the party. It’s just that this idea of minority social conservatism as a means to pander to them vis-avis social conservatism is non sense. What these pro-illegal immigration repulicans are trying to do, in effect, is sell them a knock off item when they can get the real thing at the same or even a cheaper price.

  • I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues. I agree with Greg that this is overblown, but I do note that most elected officials who are Black or Hispanic and Republican tend to be quite solid on the social issues.

    If we can stop illegal immigration, a big if, I think the Hispanic population over time will trend Republican like most immigrant groups if they prosper. Blacks are a much greater problem for the Republicans making inroads but they are a shrinking section of the population, largely due to an atrociously high abortion rate, something that quite a few Black leaders used to be concerned with until quite recently in historical terms.

    One of the factors that may impact on Black allegiance to the Democrat party long term is the shrinking of Black urban centers in the North as Blacks move out to multi-racial suburbs and the South.

  • My point is simply that social issues aren’t a deal breaker for Hispanics. Neutralize the immigration issue and I guarantee you the Hispanic male vote and married vote will break for the GOP, and more women will come along as well. They don’t have to be hardcore social cons and we don’t have to pretend they will be.

    I’m not saying open the borders, either, by the way. But if we address the cartels as the national security menace they are, far beyond a normal criminal problem, we can come to some agreement on the situation within the US.

  • “I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues.”

    I cdertainly blacks and Hispanics in the lower income brackets who vote republican do so mainly because of social issues. Whether or not this is true of blacks and Hipsanics in the upper income brackets do so I don’t know.

    Whether or not we can stop illegal immigration outright is, as Donald says, a big if. But we can secure the border to where we get it under control. Problem is, the federal government, regardless of party, lack the will to do so. To get a good insight into how bad the problem is, particularly in Arizona, I would urge readers to read Jan Brewer’s book, Scorpians for Breakfast. Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.

  • Surely, a fundamental conservative ideal is free and consensual relations between individuals and groups, as expressed in the great Physiocrat principle, “trade knows no frontiers.”

    In other words, the free movement of labour and capital are the conservative default positions. Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

  • In the words of the populist comic strip Pogo, “We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.”

    “the problem is not with our values, but with their articulation.” That, right there, is the heart of the matter. Why was Reagan popular? He wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing!

    [Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]

    It has to start in the primaries, where people will run who don’t give a rat’s patoot whether they win the nomination as long as they get the ideas out there, articulate, principled and clear.

    We must abandon the left’s “groupthink” politics (even as they are being used here) and formulate ideas and propositions, based on principle and character, that can be articulated in such a way as to appeal to individual people as individuals. The Left herds us into groups and then creates issues that put us into contention with each other: Classic “divide and conquer.” That tactic itself needs to be exposed and blared from the rooftops and when opposed, blared even louder. The evidence is damning and the counterpoint automatic.

    Just as a shift from peacetime to war can mean a wholesale change in leadership (remember Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short,) the key now is to identify and “hand out gold watches” to GOP establishment members who can’t get by their shopworn stereotypes and “Ken” doll notions. We did not ask for this war but it is here, “and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    All that need be done is what Bonchamps spells out in the last section. We need warriors who are fully aware of the enemy’s tactics and capabilities. The sine qua non of political candidacy should be an at-minimum-conversational familiarity with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Clausewitz as well as Scripture. Drop the silver-spoon whitebreads and get some honest to gosh scrappers in there. Stick to policy but pull no punches. Stir up passions! Speak to the people as people and not demographics.

    Like all bullies, the Left is confident only when it thinks its target is cowed and suppliant. It is time to dispel this illusion.

  • Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

    A country is not a hotel. The social and political disruption which would attend open borders would be a nightmare. There are two sorts of countries which can tolerate free immigration:

    1. Societies of migrants with a great deal of unsettled lands (with the proviso that it helps if the migration streams are not from irreconcilable groups).

    2. Countries which are unattractive in which to settle.

  • Art Deco

    In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

  • In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

    The fundamental neoclassical theory predicts gains from trade in factors of production. Econometric analysis of the dimension of those gains reveals (with regard to trade in labor) the following:

    1. The gains are small
    2. They accrue predominantly to the immigrant populations themselves (the residual to the extant population amounting to around 0.1% of gross domestic product).
    3. The benefit to the extant population is crucially dependent on welfare policy.

    The main brain for this sort of empirical study in this country is George Borjas, who is not an advocate of unrestricted immigration.

    Also, the social and political challenges which derive from ‘diversity’ are not captured in economic statistics.

  • In discussing minorities and values voters, keep in mind that 73% of Catholic Latinos and 95% of black Protestants voted for Obama. They did this knowing, well some of them knew, Obama’s support of infanticide, abortion, gay marriage, anti-religious freedom and secular humanism. These groups may be values voters, but self-interests trump all other interests.

  • Kyle has a point, but it isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports the murder of your unborn children. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports curtailing your most cherished freedoms into the closet while parading filth out in public for your children to emulate. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate whose economic policies keep your people shackled to the public treasury instead of being able to stand up independently without government telling you what to do. Truthfully, I do not think that these people really know what their self-interests are. 🙁 I don’t mean to detract from Kyle’s point – they vote for what they think is in their self-interests, but not for what is really in their self-interests. And then we conservatives are called closed-minded, hateful, intolerant racists because we think its immoral to murder a black or Hispanic baby – or any baby for that matter.

  • “[Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]”

    I’m not sure of what you mean by this question. But the fact of the matter is that Hispanics and blacks are not nearly as socially conservative as those who tell us we need to pander to them are. When you have up to 70% out of wedlock birthrate among blacks and 53% out of wedlock births among Hispanics, you cannot honestly claim that they are predominately socially conservative. Just because you attend Church doesn’t mean you are socially conservative. There are many regualarly mass attending Catholics are not social conservatives.

  • There’s a difference between being a social conservative and being a moral person. I wouldn’t use rates of sin to decide who is and isn’t a social con. If you read Charles Murray’s analysis of white America in “Coming Apart”, he reveals one of the paradoxes of our time: that the poor tend to claim social conservative values while not practicing them in real life, while the wealthy reject social conservative values while actually practicing them in life. He calls upon the new elite to preach what they practice for the benefit of society.

  • By “not practicing,” I would include voting as a practice that has not shown to follow social conservatism some are perceived to espouse. Voting and lifestyles are becoming bedmates. Voting is less driven by what we should do and more driven by what I want. It wasn’t always this way, but more of America is willing to go off the moral cliff. If America showed as much concern for the moral cliff as it does for a hyped up fiscal cliff, there would be no fiscal cliff. But worrying about social values is such a “what’s good for society, the country as a whole” issue. That can’t stand up to the self-interest draw of a fiscal cliff hot topic. That will affect my pocket book!

  • I’m sorry, Bonchamps, but this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. If yu want to support this or that immigration policie, do it on the basis of its merits, not as a means to pander to a particular racial or ethnic group. To do so would kill the GOP.

  • “this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. ”

    What are you talking about? This is my post. I made it the issue.

  • Blacks and Hispanics are much like the “Catholic” vote: an illusion.

    Some people are going to be socially biased against the GOP because they’ve been lied to, and some people just want handouts. It would be much more useful to start sorting people as “cultural democrats” vs “active democrats” and go after votes that way.

    We will not win over people who care more about sex and free money than principles; we already have the people who care more about not killing babies than free money and sex. We need to reach the people who voted for Obama because “that is what decent people do.”

  • Greg: “Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.”

    100% with you there, bro. Dolan is, and has been, incompetent.

    Women on both sides detest him now. The left-leaning women despise him simply because he is a male, and see him as a male that wants to take away their freedom to choose. Faithful women on the right detest him because he has effectively (through is ineffectiveness) stripped us of our freedoms, soon right down to the freedom of a healthcare worker to not perform or assist in abortions and dispensing abortifacients.

    So yes, despise (God forgive me, but this man is not a good shepherd) is the proper word here. And I suspect Our Lady is not real happy with him either, and if Momma ain’t happy…

  • I am very disappointed in Cardinal Dolan and the majority of the USCCB. I had hoped. That his invitation of Obama to the Al Smith dinner was a backfire on Obama, but after seeing photos of him and Obama laughing it up, I was revolted.

  • Tonight’s reading assignment: Mt 9:10-13 or Mk 2:15-17

Free Speech and the Left

Wednesday, September 19, AD 2012

 Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

Abraham Lincoln

One of the more refreshing aspects of the fallout in the wake of the Cairo and Benghazi embassy attacks, is the degree that it has brought out in the open the contempt that many people on the political Left have for affording constitutional protection to speech which they despise.  A case in point is Sarah Chayes.  Ms. Chayes is about as establishment Liberal as it is possible to get.  A graduate of Harvard, the offspring of Abram Chayes, and  Antonia Handler Chayes, both luminaries of the academic and political Left, she had a career as a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio.  Under Obama she was a special assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Her credentials and background therefore make her opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times of special interest.  In that opinion piece she argues that the Mohammed video would not be worthy of constititutional protection because it is meant to be purely offensive and intended to provoke a violent reaction.  It therefore constitutes the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater:


While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. “Based on my understanding of the events,” 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, “I think this meets the imminence standard.”

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard.”

Indeed, Justice Holmes’ original example, shouting “fire” in a theater, is not a call to arms. Steve Klein, an outspoken anti-Islamic activist who said he helped with the film, told Al Jazeera television that it was “supposed to be provocative.” The egregiousness of its smears, the apparent deception of cast and crew as to its contents and the deliberate effort to raise its profile in the Arab world a week before 9/11 all suggest intentionality.

The point here is not to excuse the terrible acts perpetrated by committed extremists and others around the world in reaction to the video, or to condone physical violence as a response to words — any kind of words. The point is to emphasize that U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk. Especially in the heightened volatility of today’s Middle East, such provocation is certainly irresponsible — and reveals an ironic alliance of convenience between Christian extremists and the Islamist extremists they claim to hate.

Interesting that she trots out Anthony Lewis to shore up her argument.  Lewis, now 85 and retired, was for decades the uber Liberal’s uber Liberal at the New York Times and regarded as a First Amendment absolutist.  Unless he is now in his dotage, one can only assume that, like many on the Left, his dedication to free speech ends when he disagrees strongly enough with what is being spoken.

The argument that Sayes is making is an old one.  It is called the Heckler’s Veto, and it has been used throughout American history to argue that speech should be suppressed because of the violent reaction it might cause.  Liberals, back when they were truly liberal, use to fight against it.  Lately they have embraced it, most notably in erecting bubble zones around abortion clinic, and banning pro-life protesters from those zones.  In the case of Christopher v. Hill,  530 U.S. 703 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld such zones 6-3.  The scathing dissent of Justice Scalia is instructive:

The Court today concludes that a regulation requiring speakers on the public thoroughfares bordering medical facilities to speak from a distance of eight feet is “not a ’regulation of speech,’ ” but “a regulation of the places where some speech may occur,” ante, at 14; and that a regulation directed to only certain categories of speech (protest, education, and counseling) is not “content-based.” For these reasons, it says, the regulation is immune from the exacting scrutiny we apply to content-based suppression of speech in the public forum. The Court then determines that the regulation survives the less rigorous scrutiny afforded content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions because it is narrowly tailored to serve a government interest–protection of citizens’ “right to be let alone”–that has explicitly been disclaimed by the State, probably for the reason that, as a basis for suppressing peaceful private expression, it is patently incompatible with the guarantees of the First Amendment.

    None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the “ad hoc nullification machine” that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Free Speech and the Left

  • I really would like many of these out-spoken anti-first amendment people, especially the women, to go live in a muslim country for awhile. I wish I had the money to pay for their trip. What happened to all the liberals who were up in arms when the British couple was put in a Saudi jail for being immodest on the beach? The thing I really, honestly can’t figure out is that it’s so completely obvious to me that if the muslims come to take over the United States, these liberals would be put first in the infidel line. I’ve often imagined the priority order of the infidel line. I really believe that pro-life Catholics would be last & the homosexual loving, pro-choicers would be first. Why can’t they see the obvious? They hate everything that a “normal” muslim family would like (big family, woman who doesn’t work). When I was in Jordan, I was not allowed to drive. It was recommended that I did not go sight-seeing, or even go to the store without my husband (it was a working vacation when we went). I got strange looks when I went to the hotel restaurant with just my kids for lunch. My impression when I was there, though, was that the Jordanians loved Americans, but they still have their culture & customs. So, when it all comes down to the basics, I just cannot understand why on earth any person who is from America would put their allegience to muslims, or anyone else for that matter, above the constitution. I have an acquaintance who is from France, but recently became an American. She will tell you how awful socialism is and how proud she is to be an American. She is very sad at what our Nation has been going through since Obama took office. She can see very clearly what is happening to our country & is scared.

  • They do not love Muslims. They hate America and our way of life.

    Free speech for me, not for thee.

    It’s okay to criticize and vilify Mormons but forbidden for Muslims because: one, Mormons don’t hate America and freedom; and two, Mormons don’t mass murder people that say things about them.

  • The Volokh Conspiracy has some good coverage of Obama and his ilk trying to bring the US Constitution into line with “international norms”.

    As one commenter put it, for folks like this “liberty is a bug, not a feature”.

  • The United Nations has long wanted a standing army, the power to tax the United States and this international criminal court, to levy taxes and arrest us if we do not pay. It talks about “economic interdependence” “narcissism”, an immature love for our First Amendment Freedoms and tries to seduce America into what the United Nations does not have, namely, FREEDOM. The United States of America is the only nation on the face of the globe that has the guarantee of Freedom.

    On American Exceptionalism: for the word “Exceptionalism” substitute the word and meaning of “SOVEREIGNTY”, as in the sovereign person who constitutes American SOVEREIGNTY. It would appear that all this “international law and comity” Is nothing more than the imposition of tribute to an unelected dictator, denying the endowed rights to the human being in existence as the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights and the Creator as the only Supreme Ruler in the world…Simply by convening an international CRIMINAL court and criminalizing any nation who refrains from submitting itself and its sovereignty to the international court, the United Nations has set itself over every nation in the world, entitling itself to supreme and uncontradicted power and authority without the mention or acknowledgement of the Creator and endower of unalienable rights to the human being. This international CRIMINAL court has made of itself the dispenser of JUSTICE, the particular realm of the author of all law, the Supreme Sovereign Being. The international criminal court has set itself up as GOD without GOD. Simply by changing the wording on law, long before anyone notices, this international criminal court will criminalize everybody and everything until it gets control of the whole world. The international criminal court will then call itself the WORLD COURT.

    In the matter of free speech in front of the abortion clinics: The pro-life people speak for all freedom, the unborn carry the genes of their fathers, who have been disenfranchised. These genes do not belong to the mother, these genes belong to the father and to destroy them is violence, as well as murder of another sovereign person. The pro-life advocates uphold the truth and rights of all persons especially persons who have not learned how to speak for themselves.

    Statesmen and politicians
    Statesmen are persons who comprehend and respect the laws of nature and nature’s God. Statesmen acknowledge the human being’s sovereign personhood, his endowed, unalienable human rights that derive from and are endowed in body and soul by “their Creator”. The statesman relies on Divine Providence to deliver and protect the innocent, the virgins, about to be born as citizens and the citizens who are born.

    Politicians are individuals who have forfeit their unalienable human rights through unlawfully denying to other sovereign persons, human rights. Human rights are unalienable rights that are endowed by their Creator, through the laws of nature and nature’s God.

  • T. Shaw: ” Mormons don’t mass murder people who say things about them.” The punishment must, absolutely must, fit the crime, for JUSTICE to be done.

  • “The United States of America is the only nation on the face of the globe that has the guarantee of Freedom”

    Not quite true – “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.” – Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen 26 août 1789, incorporated into most European constituions

    See also the European Convention on Human Rights “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

  • “but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”

    Abuses as defined by the powers that be.

    “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

    In other words freedom so long as the powers that be like it.

    I prefer the bracing words of the First Amendment without any ifs, ands or buts:

    “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.”

5 Responses to Happy Constitution Day!

  • Isaiah 50:4c-9a Sunday, September 16, 2012 reading:
    “If anyone wishes to oppose me, let us appear together. Who disputes my right? Let that man confront me. See, the Lord God is my help; who will prove me wrong?
    If anyone wishes to oppose me, let us appear together. Who disputes my right? Let that man confront me.” : Habeas Corpus, a person must be confronted by his accuser in a court of law. No trials in absentia. “See, the Lord God is my help; who will prove me wrong?” Two witnesses will establish a judicial fact. One witness is no witness. The Magna Carta and The U.S. Constitution based on Judeo-Christian principles found in Isaiah.

    The militant feminists have embraced Roe v. Wade, the miscarriage of Justice against the newly created sovereign soul of the human being. The abortionists work to erase the Preamble to our Constitution which identifies “our posterity” as one of the reasons for the Constitution, as well as the Ninth Amendment which reiterates the sovereignty of the person as coming from our Creator inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. Being as it is, that the sovereign soul is endowed with life from the very first moment of conception, the sovereign person is present in the very first cell of every human being’s existence as “I AM”. “I AM” is the sovereign person scraped from the womb in abortion through the miscarriage of Justice called Roe v. Wade.

  • 1787 – 2012, so 225 years old
    (and surviving euthanasia attempts … )

    For the occasion, I found my parents’ beyond yellowed copy that I kept because the notations are good, if sad in light of how the Constitiution is getting ignored and worse.
    It seems that the House and Senate hold power to protect it, but these people aren’t doing anything to do so because why? Or is the media not saying?

    From Thomas James Norton’s book, 1951 edition,
    The Constitution of the United States:
    Its Sources and Its Application
    A Handbook for Citizens and Public Officials

    [1st ]
    On the cover is the OATH taken by all Officers elected or appointed to Civil or Armed Services:

    I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
    that I willl bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
    that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
    and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter so help me God.

    [2nd & interesting]
    Next to the copyright page …

    Our Constitution – Civil Bible of America

    Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, “The Constitution is the civil bible of Americans.” Next to the Bible, the best book on the Constitution should be in every home, school, library, and parish hall.

    page signed by 10 people …
    Herbert C Hoover
    Alfred E Smith
    Alfred M Landon
    Mrs. Calvin Coolidge
    Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt
    James M Cox
    John W Davis
    Mrs. William H Taft
    Mrs. Benjamin Harrison
    Frances Cleveland Preston

    [3rd – a picture]
    of George Washington presiding over the Constitutional Convention urging
    “a standard to which the wise and honest can repair”
    86 days from May 1787 to September 17, 1787.

    There’s so much more.
    Maybe the Preamble that Barney Fife learned then forgot, trusting that elected representatives were watchdogging for him is what happened to us.

  • PM “Maybe the Preamble that Barney Fife learned then forgot, trusting that elected representatives were watchdogging for him is what happened to us.”

    I was told in no uncertain terms that the Preamble to our Constitution was no longer the Law of the Land. Roe v. Wade was. That the founding fathers were old fashioned men over two hundred years old to be ridiculed, and no longer relevant.

    It is time to force our education establishment to teach our U.S. Constitution and our Declaration of Independence to our constitutional posterity with respect and intelligent citizenship. One might add The Emancipation Proclaimation.

  • “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.” Mussolini 1937/Obama 2013.

  • Mary DeVoe: The schools would need a computerized lesson for the students to do at their pace but it would probably be somehow slanted.

    Or! Captain Kirk could go on the commercials for finding good prices with an entree about what’s free for all people. They’d lend an ear.

Barack Obama is Unfit to be President

Saturday, September 15, AD 2012

The Obama administration continues to show complete contempt for American liberties.

In the wake of the Benghazi and Cairo debacles, and the administration being caught completely flat-footed in regard to these coordinated assaults on our embassies, the Obama administration has acted to attempt to escape any responsibility.

First, they have had their lickspittle media friends blame Romney for speaking out.  Ah yes, Romney attacking the craven statement of the Cairo embassy is the chief problem and not minor issues like the Middle East going up in flames and the Obama administration being completely clueless as to what to do.

Second, the State Department is refusing to take questions, from those few members of the media who still occasionally act like reporters instead of unpaid Obama press agents, until their investigation is complete.  The Good Lord knows how long that would take, but I would wager Wednesday November 7, 2012.

Third, the administration is still attempting to claim that these attacks are the result of the film attacking Mohammed.  Of course that was merely the pretext for the attacks.  The administration knows this, but its policy of appeasement of jihadists would be in jeopardy if they admitted that the silly film had virtually nothing to do with these revenge attacks on the anniversary of 9-11.

Fourth, when one is seeking to evade responsibility having a nice fat scapegoat is very convenient.  Thus we have the maker of the film, who is on probation for a bank fraud conviction, being taken into custody for questioning as to his alleged violation of the terms of his probation.  The alleged violation is for using a computer not connected with his work.  Of course the administration cares not a fig about that.  It wants jihadists abroad and Americans at home to see that Obama is getting tough with this fellow who stirred up all the trouble.  (Ignore all those jihadists!  It is all the fault of this guy!)  That this tramples over the man’s First Amendment rights is of absolutely no concern.  The Administration might wish to eventually haul in this fellow’s co-conspirators:  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and all the other Founding Fathers who gave us the freedom that Obama is seeking to shred.

Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, speaks for me in reaction to this:

Continue reading...

48 Responses to Barack Obama is Unfit to be President

  • Let us pray for strength in the face of this assault on First Amendment Freedoms and unalienable rights.

  • I have been cognizant of the totalitarian situation since January 2009.

  • yes pray. And what else to do? Run the course until November? There could be a lot more go wrong before then.

  • The Dept. of Justice under E. Holder: Is that who administrates the Sheriffs?

  • He was brought in for questioning by Federal probation officers PM, and you are correct that they would be under Eric Holder’s (sic) Justice Department.

  • I don’t get it. I don’t see how anyone favorable to this administration could possibly think that hauling this guy in for questioning would play well with the American public. What am I missing?

  • Hmmm. It was the movie.

    9/11 was this passing week when solemn memorials and Masses were held.

    Also, around 9/11, the American flag was burned in Cairo, Ambassador Stevens and three others were murdered in a US Embassy , and other events and threats ( not so well reported ) occurred. Violence in the Middle East and serious threats in other countries around the world and here in the US with evacuations in Texas and another western state university, almost at Valparaiso in Indiana all close to the anniversary of 9/11. Not the movie.

    Something about a good movie to do with 2016, and then using a not-too-good movie that’s been around awhile for another cheap trick on the world comes to mind.

    The probation violator needed five or more officers to show – what – how big stopping the cause of this trouble in the world is. Wrong guy, Chicago style.

  • Slightly off topic – See there were riots in Sydney Australia yesterday for the same reason – the film.
    But the rioters who were asked about the film had never seen it. They were stirred up by their radical clerics. There is a photo of a 10yr. old kid holding a sign “Behead all who insult the prophet”, and many of the muslim protesters were yelling out anti-christian slogans.
    The Aussies in general will be highly p—-d off by this, and are already demanding the end of” multiculturalism and diversity” (gag 🙁 ), and the deportation of extreme muslims. Just hope our government takes notice of these events, and acts accordingly while we have only a very small muslim population.

  • On Tuesday, 9/11, there was a memorial Mass where I saw tears, solemnity, and, before the recessional, we prayed for our nation and for peace in all nations among men.

    The front pew was reserved for family of a person who lost life on 9/11/01. A recent widow of a veteran and Knight of Columbus left her pew in tears so she wouldn’t disturb the Mass. People, many unknown to one another, were quietly together.

    With not much acknowlegment of similar purpose from their president.

  • Kissing up to Muslims is a complete waste of time. If it is not this it will be something about a Qeeran in a toilet, or a mute Christian blaspheming their alleged prophet. One has to ignore these motivated Muslim concerns in theit totality. On the other hand nemesis has strange ways of working out. As Lawrence Auster indicates only a year ago the disgusting woman Hillary, was celebrating the brutal death of Gaddafi who made the mistake of giving up his nuclear program. I see some benefit accruing to the beleaguered Christians and Allawites in Syria from this, as all but the brain-dead left understands that the Muslims do not share your values.

  • Barry doesn’t have time to meet the Israeli PM Netanyahu, whose nation is in line to be nuked by Iran.

    The leader of the choom gang has lots of time to go “live” on the radio with FL radio star, “the Pimp with a Limp.”

    The filmmaker of the “Innocence of Muslims” is hauled in for questioning and Soetoro’s unofficial campaign apparatus (the lying, liberal so-called media) says nothing about the First Amendment. That is Freedom of Speech, Obama-worshiping imbeciles.

  • Yes, and according to a wonderfully written article on another website, it is no less than the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago which is responsible for launching Obama’s career? After watching selections of the Democrat National Convention, with its parade of virulent anti-Catholic Catholics, flaunting their belief in abortion, contraception, gay marriage and every other excommunicable offense, followed by deafening silence from the “Catholic” (yeah, whatever!) leadership, we must conclude the American Catholic church is in full-on schism. I continue to believe it is time to purge the membership, reduce the ranks to only those who actually profess the faith. By allowing the pollution of Catholicism by such unholy, satanic forces is destroying the faith of many. I will not be answering to my God for that.

  • Slightly off topic – See there were riots in Sydney Australia yesterday for the same reason – the film.

    The published commentary of Australia’s politicians was rote and insipid and both newspapers and broadcasting outlets appear to have disabled commentary by their readers.

    None of the Australian chapter of the international regime class at the top of the heap of every occidental country bothered to point out the lunacy of a violent protests in downtown Sydney over a Youtube video posted by a random individual living in California. What could possibly be the point of such a ‘protest’ other than ‘hear me roar’. If that is the point, the proper response is ‘go roar elsewhere’. It is not in the interest of any country to be importing masses of people whose vanguard are given to effrontery and efforts at intimidation. For the current foreign minister of Australia the issue is “the damage to Australia’s multicultural reputation” or some such, to which the response is to tell his diplomatic and consular staff to redouble their efforts bridge the gaps blah blah. Maybe one day Australia and other countries will have a set of public officials who actually give a rip about the peasants whose taxes pay their salaries.

  • Chicago style!? Gestapo style fits better.
    Holder & Goring (Hermann) could become synonymous. As our Freedoms are dissolved in a wash of Obamaclean I can’t help seeing Obama in Germany in 08′ giving his heroic speech in the infamous site. Hold on America, it isn’t over yet.

  • My biggest fear is that Obumbler will be reelected. Obumbler openly insulted Pennsylvania in 2008 with his “bitter clinger” remarks. His Misadministration has made an enemy of coal and wants to shut down every coal fired power plant. Next, the EPA will go after fracking. Gasoline is approaching $4 a gallon and is loikely more than that (suburban Philadelphia, I guess you love abortion and gay marriage so much that you would vote for Obumber if gas was $6 a gallon). Allegheny County would vote Democrat if Satan, Stalin or Hitler ran as a Democrat.

  • “Maybe one day Australia and other countries will have a set of public officials who actually give a rip about the peasants whose taxes pay their salaries.”

    My ladyfriend just called me and told me that she is afraid to fly to Medugorjie this Thursday. When the tourist profits dry up, the public officials will notice.

  • From facebook-
    who knew “buy this or the cute and fluffy animal gets it!” gag would be the basis for some folks’ foreign policy, or that claiming the guy that shot the cute defenseless animal when his demands weren’t met was somehow not at fault, while those who didn’t comply to his unjust demands were?

  • That photograph should cost Obama the election.

    If it doesn’t, it will say more about the living, breathing trash that comprises the American electorate than it does about the dull and illogical incumbent running America into the dirt.

  • “The Good Lord knows how long that would take, but I would wager Wednesday November 7, 2012.”

    Or the twelfth of never.

  • Only fasting and prayer will drive out this demon. And a daily rosary. Lord, have mercy on your people who put their trust in you.

  • “it is no less than the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago which is responsible for launching Obama’s career”

    Could you provide some further explanation?

  • John 14: 8: If God is all you have, you have all you need.

  • Elaine,

    There is nothing too absurd that it can’t be posted on the internet. If Obama wasn’t a useful cog in the Chicago machine, any other quality good or bad would have counted for nothing. Obama himself credited Rev Wright for giving him street cred so let’s leave it at that. He doesn’t cling to guns or religion does he?

  • Further to Don the Kiwi’s remarks about the demonstrations in Sydney, there were reports of a demonstration outside the American Embassy in Paris on Saturday.

    Now, Saturday was the Feast of the Seven Dolors and Monteverdi’s Vespers of the BVM was sung at the Madeleine that evening. The church is only a few hundred metres from the embassy and I noticed an American official I know slightly in the congregation. Afterwards, he and his friends walked down the rue Royale and turned right into the av. Gabriel, where the embassy is. There were no signs of any special security precautions and, yet, if the television reports were to be believed, Paris was in a state of siege.

  • County sheriffs aren’t under the auspice or jusrisdiction of the DJ. They are county officials, all deputized and hired by the County Sheriff who is most usually elected. He/She may answer to a County Council or other duly elected civil authority, but is not bound to follow orders from any Federal authority, including the AG or anybody in the Dept of Justice.

    The only reason I bring this up is because there is a nascent effort whereby Sheriffs around the country have closed ranks and said that they will oppose all Federal intrusion into thier counties that is of questionable Constitutional merit. Of course, the Lamestream Media have breathed not a whit of this and won’t until it can find an incident that it can spin into a negative.

    More on that effort here.

  • “County sheriffs aren’t under the auspice or jusrisdiction of the DJ”

    Yep, which means that the Sheriff of Los Angeles County made the decision to pick the film maker up for the Feds.–Feds-interview-Calif–filmmaker-WEB

  • They warned us that if we voted for McCain/Palin Americans would be jailed for criticizing religion.

    And, they were correct.

  • Meanwhile, Obama’s vile, idiot occupy movement is playing its game down around Wall Street.

  • Don’t under estimate the demonic power behind Obama and I say this will all seriousness. Everything about this guy defies logic and commonsense. The fact that almost half the country still supports demonstrates the power of this delusion. Non-stop prayer, especially the rosary will be the only thing that defeats him. With that said, I still feel in my heart that on election night, we will be down on our knees giving thanks to God for pulling out a very close race.

  • Siobhan says “we will be down on our knees giving thanks to God for pulling out a very close race”

    Obama won’t lose a very close race. Just saying. And if it’s a few votes more than he and his team can “overcome”, the country is still on the downward path. Romney is not the Man of Steel and the Repubs would be blocked at every turn. It better be decisive in spite of Romney and the Repubs efforts to lose.

  • “County sheriffs aren’t under the auspice or jusrisdiction of the DJ”

    …unless Obama says so
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

  • I think some of you need to take a pill.

  • Agreed Art. Sheesh, some of you people are turning Obama into an arch fiend with the power of Lucifer behind him. He is an average politician from Chicago, who could deliver a good speech, and who lucked into the White House. He has been a disaster as President and the odds are that he will be looking for a new job come January. Rasmussen is the pollster to keep your eye on for the most accurate reflection as to the current state of the race.

  • Who, Art D., needs to take a pill, and what kind of pill?

    People are very concerned about the fate of the Republic, the possibility that Obama will be re-elected, and the impact that will have inevitably on freedom of religion in the public square. The very fact that a man like Obama could have been elected in the first place in very scary and points to something very fundamentally wrong in society.

    Perhaps when Jeremiah was going to confront the King, he should first have taken a pill and thereby avoided being thrown into the cistern. Perhaps he shouldn’t have walked into the King’s Court wearing that yoke. Perhaps he should not have said, “Thus saith the Lord God…” Personally, I thank God for the people at this forum (like Mary DV and T. Shaw and others) who are unafraid to say, “Thus saith the Lord God…” I say if anyone deserves a pill, it is the Obumbler. Perhaps he is already on drugs. His pagan adulators certainly seem to be.

  • Paul Primavera this reminds me of the homily yesterday by my pastor Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute fame. He said “thus saith the Lord God… and I tend to agree with Him.” This is the mental state of our dear leader. He has all the original ideas. And his ideas are the only ones that count.

  • Well, Mr. Paul, how’s this:

    Don’t under estimate the demonic power behind Obama and I say this will all seriousness

    And if it’s a few votes more than he and his team can “overcome”, the country is still on the downward path.

    Under the previous administration, the accusatory commentary crossed into lunatic’s territory. We do not need to repeat that. The institutional culture of the Democratic Party is quite bad enough as it is. I do not think that Obama adds much to that. The man’s a cipher.

  • I second what Art and Don have said. Barack Obama is a terrible president, and deserves much of the criticism thrown at him. But we don’t need to intimate that he is somehow evil or demonic.

  • Okay, I re-read my post and I didn’t mean to sound like a drama queen. I’m just very concern about this election because this election will say so much about who we are as a people. I also maintain the position that anyone who promotes abortion, sodomy, the complete disregard for the rule of law, etc., like Obama is evil. What else do you call it?

  • Pingback: Happy Constitution Day! | The American Catholic
  • We know him by his works. They can be characterized in no uncertain terms: destruction.

    There are few jobs because they don’t care about jobs. Slaves are easier to control. The regime cares about income redistribution and power. Either that or they’re utterly incompetent because in August, 197,000 American got new food stamps entitlements and 79,000 got new jobs.

    And, constant lies to camouflage the abject failure of Obama’s appeasement/foreign policy. The regime insults our intelligence by contending that a YouTube (the savages don’t have toilets, much less laptops) caused the coordinated, long-planned al Qaeda attack, and murders of four Americans, on the Libyan Embassy.

    Obama never held a real job; and neither will most of your kids.

  • elm says:
    “Paul Primavera this reminds me of the homily yesterday by my pastor Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute fame.”
    elm, you are truly blessed.

    Paul W. Primavera: one Holy Rosary…right now.

  • Yes Ma’m, Mary De Voe! I read and obey! Am flat on my back in bed with my injured leg immobilized, so instead of TV, a Rosary is most appropriate. I shall pray for our Republic.

  • •Elaine Krewer says:
    “it is no less than the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago which is responsible for launching Obama’s career”
    Could you provide some further explanation?

    On EWTN World Over, Raymond Aroyo told that the Bishops’ Campaign For Human Development funded ACORN and thirty or so abortion groups, listing the groups. The Bishops’ Campaign for Human Development funded community organizations and organizers including Obama.

  • Paul: When I pass away, I have asked God to let me say the Rosary forever. I, too, said the Rosary. Take care of yourself. So sorry to hear you are invalid.

  • don’t be afraid to say it, the devil is active and has more influence on some people than on others. the warfare is spiritual.
    the people we can more readily identify with the angels may be more hidden from view, but they are here.

  • Rather than saying Obama is a cipher, it’s better to say that he reflects in his attitudes and statements what his supporters have believed for many years. He doesn’t add any new thought but neither does he subtract anything or question any of their beliefs. If Obama were singular in his unfitness he would not matter. He and his supporters mean to win no matter what. What’s going in Wisconsin is emblematic of their approach. Any belief that they can be stopped by a victory here or there is not facing facts. It will take a long term concerted effort to have any chance of success.

  • “The Bishops’ Campaign for Human Development funded community organizations and organizers including Obama.”

    The Catholic Campaign for Human Development was established by the USCC, which includes all U.S. bishops and its establishment would have to have been approved by a majority vote of all bishops (not just the Archbishop of Chicago). Moreover, since the campaign funds so many different organizations the amount of funding that it provides to any single organization is probably fairly small (though not insignificant, and still problematic). If ACORN’s sole source of funds was CCHD, I doubt that it would have survived. To say that the Archdiocese of Chicago “launched Obama’s career” because its parishioners contributed to CCHD collections is a bit of a stretch.

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Thursday, September 13, AD 2012

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

George Washington


One of the interesting fall outs of the rampages in Cairo and Benghazi is the calls by some on the Left for jailing people for exercising freedom of speech.  Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy blog pointed this out yesterday:

That’s what MSBNC contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch, the University of Pennsylvania’s Prof. Anthea Butler (Religious Studies), and of course the Egyptian government argue with regard to the movie that mocks Mohammed:

Prof. Butler: “Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid…” “And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don’t understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.” “And people do go to jail for speech. First Amendment doesn’t cover EVERYTHING a PERSON says.” “[T]he murder of the Ambassador and the employees is wrong, wrong. But Bacile will have to face his actions which he had freedom[.]”

Mike Barnicle: “Given this supposed minister’s role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”

Donny Deutsch: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”

In a way this is an unsurprising development.  The Left in this country, with honorable exceptions, has not been overly fond of the concept of free speech for some time.  Speech codes seeking to hamper the free speech rights of conservatives and Christians have been a staple at many colleges and universities for the past twenty years.  Conservative speakers are routinely shouted down when they speak on campuses.  The recent attack on Chik-Fil-A by the Mayors of Boston and Chicago was merely the latest manifestation of the willingness of many on the Left to use government power to suppress views they hate.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

  • It is ironic and oxymoronic that the liberal left defends the very thing – radical Islam – whose adherents would slay them on sight. They prune themselves, whether by sterile sexual relationships or by inviting their own execution. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison.

  • Add to this that it was not about the movie but a well planned retaliation:

    The Devil lies in many ways. The MSM is his mouthpiece.

  • Of course if the MSM is truly upset about offending religious sensibilities they will oppose this:


  • “it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”

    Justice is predicated on intent. If Bacile intended to incite the murder of the ambassador, then he is guilty of complicity. The prosecutor would have to prove conspiracy or intent to commit murder or an act of war. Again, there is the matter of the thought police. How could the prosecutor determine what any person has thought or is thinking unless the prosecutor owned the other person’s soul? Slavery starts with the denial of the other person, made in the image of God, and his freedom to not incriminate himself, especially if he is innocent of the charges, as inscribed in our Fifth Amendment. Citizens have become too indifferent to their own freedom, so that they will lose freedom by not recognizing it in others.

    No one can own my soul because God created my soul for me. Those who would take my life to own my soul, must realize that when a person takes my life to own my soul, he forfeits his own immortal soul.

  • It’s the same as always– free speech, unless someone is offended. Measured in terms of damage, not outrage. (see also: “protests” that involve burning things, flipping cars) I’ve seen people compare this to incitement to riot, or yelling fire in a theater.

    Sorry, no, saying that Mohammad slept with a bunch of women (since I’m not going to watch the youtube video, and that’s the only specific complaint I’ve seen offered) isn’t either of those things.

  • The video is so startling to me, I can’t believe it is happening. Can we all say lemmings!!
    Poor education and religious formation have sown a blight on our country. Bon Appetite!!

  • I will bet everyone of those individuals who signed the petition to silence the speech of Beck and other conservatives will begin to remember what, in fact, they did. The whole purpose of the video was to get people to think and it worked.

    America is the only sovereign nation on the globe whose founding principles guarantee the individual sovereign person FREEDOM.

  • Re: Mary De Voe

    That is why the HHS mandate has been changed—-RIGHT??? They have had adequate time to realize their mistake but haven’t offered to correct it. Your hope that these folks will see their mistakes is laudable. I’m from Missouri and they have to show me. Freedom of religion and speech are being attacked and one only need smell the coffee to realize it!!

  • “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire

    So I guess the left will defend the Catholic Church if we are so offended by Obama care that we start rioting in the streets and killing people?

  • Don, the interesting thing is that this actually seems to be “free speech for thee, but not for me”. I can’t think of a historical parellel.

  • There were Japanese and Germans placed in concentration camps by the U. S. government. Do we really think that this bunch of thugs cares about a few limits on free speech for Catholics. I doubt it.

  • Ray wrote, “There were Japanese and Germans placed in concentration camps by the U. S. government. Do we really think that this bunch of thugs cares about a few limits on free speech for Catholics. I doubt it.”

    If we carried this over as an exact analogy, then it wouldn’t be Catholics or other orthodox Christians who would be jailed, but Muslims. We have been at war with Islam sine 630 AD. Yesterday was the celebration of the Holy Name of Mary when in 1683 King John III Sobieski of Poland invoked her name to defend Vienna, Austria against the Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire. Remeber that at the time Japanese and Germans in the US were placed in camps, we were at war against Japan and Germany. While internment in hindsight was wrong, if the analogy were to be carried forward, it would be Muslims who should be interred, and history shows what happens when otherwise is the case.

    Disclaimer: I am not advocating for internment of Muslims. What I am saying is that today’s society is so topsy-turvy that the government recognies the enemies of Christendom as friends and condemns the adherents of Christianity as enemies. Where is good King John Sobieski of Poland when we need him!

  • The name of the good king for us is Benedict, our current Pontiff. What rights have our brother Americans of the Muslim persuasion have been taken away. The Catholics rights are presently being poached( if only bit by small bit). During that time during the 1600’s the Europeans had begun losing their Catholic faith. The Good King from Poland was a stalwart Catholic and it was his faith that allowed for his success.

  • There is no question that the First Amendment is under attack today. But while it is indeed appalling that so many Americans would so readily sign a petition to take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I do have to wonder how many people the video team approached who held firm and refused to sign for that very reason. We only see about 4-1/2 minutes of how long a tape? It is obvious by the way they jump around between petitioners that the tape has been edited. Did none of those approached refuse to sign? Or did 99% refuse? It’s easy to “prove” your point when you only include the data supporting it, but it’s not necessarily honest. We should always be careful lest we find ourselves guilty of the same tactics we abhor in others.

  • I think the point of the tape Mike was not how many people signed the petition but that those who signed, while they were seeking to take freedom of speech from others, blithely affirmed their support for free speech. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living and that was the tragic element in this humorous video.

  • “Yesterday, was the celebration of the Holy Name of Mary when in 1683 King John III Sobieski of Poland invoked her name to defend Vienna, Austria against the Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Thank you for remembering, Paul, and I do hope you regain your health and strength. King John Sobieski mustered the fighting men to save Vienna. The Encyclopedia Britannica tells that King John Sobieski’s baker invented the bagel, trying to make the bread look like the stirrups on John Sobieski’s saddle. A new and wonderful way to eat bagels.

    Where is King John Sobieski today? King John cavorts with Lech Walesa and Gov. Mitt Romney.

    Tomorrow is the Exaltation of the Cross.

  • Some people will sign anything.
    Reminds me of the people at a greenie gathering, who were raising a petition to ban Di-hydrogen Oxide, because it kills people if you immerse yourself in it, it can kill if you ingest too much of it, babies drown in it etc. etc.
    Almost everyone approached, signed to ban it.

    Di-hydrogen Oxide = H 2 O = water.

    What a bunch of chumps.

  • Just had some of your islander folks visit for 18 days. They are from Timaru. We love you folks down under but you only have thousands of whackos. When we have an equivalent percentage here in the states it is millions. It is easy to disavow a few but here the numbers are much larger. Stay with us brother and keep up the good fight with your cousins in the states. Thanks for being interested in our wayward form of democracy.

  • Mike-
    it doesn’t matter that some folks hopefully didn’t sign, other than in a it-could-be-worse, everyone-could-be-lining-up-to-sign way.

    It’s a bit like going “Hey, Libya isn’t so bad– over 99% of them were NOT involved in beating our ambassador to death!”

  • Slight thread drift…I named my first son John, in part, because of King John Sobieski. You didn’t want to mess with the Polish Husaria. There is supposed to be a movie coming out in October that is about the events of the Siege of Vienna (Victoria). Don’t hold me to that, as it was something I read on the Internet (YouTube). It has been planned for a long time.

    The Left is hypocritical and obnoxious. Mike Barnicle was suspended from his job at the Boston Globe (or fired from it) because of plagarism. The rest of that bunch is beneath contempt.

    Should Obumbler abscond with the election, I will look into moving my family to Poland.
    No Democrat Party, no radical Muslims, they are not destroying their currency and Catholics are the majority.

  • “How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? … I know we have First Amendment
    rights, but if you don’t understand the religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked

    Why do I get the feeling that Professor Butler is a lot more complacent when the object
    of some ‘artist’s’ ridicule is not Islam, but rather Christianity? Was she this upset when
    Andres Serrano was publicizing his photo “Piss Christ”, which shows a crucifix submerged
    in urine? Where was her outrage when Chris Ofili received federal dollars to exhibit his
    work at the Brooklyn Museum of Art? One of his works depicted the Virgin Mary using
    elephant dung and cutouts from pornographic magazines. The New York art world and
    academia in general both praised the works, snickered at the objections of Christians,
    and reminded everyone of the primacy of the First Amendment.

    If Ms. Butler doesn’t have similar outrage for Messrs. Serrano and Ofili, perhaps she
    should take some deep breaths, review her copy of the Constitution, and then ‘STFU’.

  • Ray.
    6.54 pm.
    Thanks for your kind remarks. Pleased to be with you.

    “.Just had some of your islander folks visit for 18 days. They are from Timaru”

    Islanders? we call the people from Fiji, Samoa, Cook Islands, Vanuatu etc. Islanders.-)
    Still, NZ in relation to the US is small in land mass, so fair enough.
    Timaru is a port town on the east coast of the South Island, and I’m sure your friends said they were Mainlanders. I’m from the North Island, and we do have a North/South rivalry, particularly in the game of rugby at this time of year. 🙂

  • Pingback: William Saletan, Meet Christopher Johnson! | The American Catholic
  • 54 days until the election. There is a 54-day Rosary Novena starting (some people started yesterday). Please join!/events/499344486760072/?notif_t=plan_user_joined

  • Cardinal Dolan Go check out what The good Cardinal is worried about. I guess I am not really a Catholic after all. Muslim? Islam? WHATEVER!

  • Lefties are enamoured of political correctness; hence, the assault on free speech…

Fortnight For Freedom

Sunday, May 27, AD 2012




The fight over the HHS Mandate is about to come to a boil.  In June the Bishops are going to have this document inserted in Mass bulletins throughout the nation which mentions the necessity of disobeying immoral laws in certain situations.

Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified.  Every effort must be made to repeal them.  When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.

I am almost thankful to President Obama.  Due to his blind hubris, his willingness to ride roughshod over American liberties for cheap perceived political advantage, he has awakened the Church in this country from her slumber, and reminded Catholics that they are part of the Church Militant here on Earth. 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom

  • Donald,

    “I am almost thankful to President Obama.”

    I have thought the same thing many times, God’s timing is not our timing, his presidency was a much needed wake-up call for many lukewarm people. But OH! I’d vote for a ham sandwich before I’d vote for Obama.

    And I love how you tip-toe’d around your point in the next sentence — NOT! 😀


    Uplifting and renewing as Easter season closes and Ordinary Time returns.

    Your ‘Elijah on Mount Carmel Year’ has to be reality, after the Rip Van Winkle one.

  • “God’s timing is not our timing”

    Or in the words of Richard Hovey, greatest poet of Illinois,( sorry Mr. Sandburgh!):

    Unmanifest Destiny

    To what new fates, my country, far
    And unforeseen of foe or friend,
    Beneath what unexpected star
    Compelled to what unchosen end.

    Across the sea that knows no beach,
    The Admiral of Nations guides
    Thy blind obedient keels to reach
    The harbor where thy future rides!

    The guns that spoke at Lexington
    Knew not that God was planning then
    The trumpet word of Jefferson
    To bugle forth the rights of men.

    To them that wept and cursed Bull Run,
    What was it but despair and shame?
    Who saw behind the cloud the sun?
    Who knew that God was in the flame?

    Had not defeat upon defeat,
    Disaster on disaster come,
    The slave’s emancipated feet
    Had never marched behind the drum.

    There is a Hand that bends our deeds
    To mightier issues than we planned;
    Each son that triumphs, each that bleeds,
    My country, serves It’s dark command.

    I do not know beneath what sky
    Nor on what seas shall be thy fate;
    I only know it shall he high,
    I only know it shall be great.

    Richard Hovey

  • What is the response of that pseudo-group, Catholics United? Will their liberal members have the hubris to balk about balking?


  • Religious freedom has been under attack for some time, though the attackers claim that this is not their aim.

    People need to wake up and speak out about what is going on. I hope everyone will get the courage to speak out, through blog posts or Facebook shares, every day up to and including July Fourth.

  • It appears as though the liberal agenda, in the name of evolving society, is attempting to slide their Europeanizing mindset into place under the many smokescreen guises, all the while abolishing our GREAT CONSTITUTION

  • Pingback: Lincoln and the Liberty of Catholic Americans | The American Catholic

For Greater Glory: God’s Timing

Sunday, May 27, AD 2012


The film, For Greater Glory, the heroic story of the Cristeros who fought for the Church and religious liberty in the twenties of the last century in Mexico, is opening on June 1.  Go here  to read my post on the film.  The National Catholic Register’s Tim Drake has an interview with the producer of the film, Pablo Jose Barroso.  Note what the producer says about the timing of the film in regard to the struggle for religious liberty the Church is waging today in our country:

Tell me about the film.

It’s a great experience because it takes you to that period and beautiful  country, with its art and settings. It’s a story of hope, of freedom and of  heroism. The film tells the story of the pacifist movement, a group of people  who were trying to change things in Congress peacefully, as well as the story of  a former general who is recruited to organize the Cristeros into an army. You  also see several of the martyrs, including Blessed Jose Sanchez del Rio. In the  end, it’s about people standing up against oppression and dying for Christ. My  hope is that it will give viewers great hope.

What do you hope viewers take away from the film?

I think that, culturally, we’re not being congruent with our religious  beliefs. We are not standing up for our faith. We’ve been tolerating things that  are wrong. It seems as if it’s easier for people to be against God than to claim  him as their Creator. In this Year of Faith [to begin in October], the Holy  Spirit can help people to be more faithful. If only one person who doesn’t  believe in God sees this film and reflects on him, that is my best hope.

Given the current fight for religious freedom going on in the U.S., do  you see the release of the film as God’s timing?

Yes, it was frustrating and difficult not to have the film released when I  wanted it, but the Lord’s time is not our time. The movie is about conscience.  No one ever wins when religion is oppressed. As believers we need to band  together. This is the perfect time for this film. Hopefully, it will help wake  people up to the things that are taking us from God. In the end, this will harm  us. We have to be faithful.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to For Greater Glory: God’s Timing

  • I have met Mexican Catholics who never heard of this event. It’s not taught in their schools. When I took History of Latin America in college, the class had a Marxist bent, and the nature of this war was misrepresented and downplayed. I didn’t know about it until much later. When one abandons the truth, it’s still there, and so it must be hidden lest it become a reminder of the falsehood one has embraced.

See You In Court Mr. Obama

Monday, May 21, AD 2012





By this time I rather suspect that at least some of his campaign strategists, if not President Obama, are beginning to wonder if it was such a bright idea to pick a fight with the Catholic Church in an election year.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air gives us the details on 43 lawsuits filed simultaneously around the country today attacking the HHS mandate as blatantly unconstitutional:

Today’s Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More — the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England.  Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits today against the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to See You In Court Mr. Obama

  • This affects everyone – Catholics, Orthodox Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc.

    My older brother – a member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God (AG) – said that the Superintendent thereof issued a statement condemning the Obama initiatives – HHS mandate, gay marriage, etc. – and ordered all AG pastors to speak on this topic. AG is the largest Pentecostal denomination which historically viewed the Roman Catholic Church with apathy if not outright antipathy. For Obama to unite them in any cause with the Roman Catholic Church means that Obama has done what all the ecumenicalism in the World Council of Churches could never have done.

    I couldn’t be happier!

  • The Assemblies of God couldn’t be farther away from us theologically Paul, or closer to us on the moral issues. God bless them!

  • People have been underestimating the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. Someone is always saying “It’s finished, let’s kick it!” Never a good idea because a) it’s NOT finished, and b) kicking the Church in a low period does indeed mean that a lot of people desert Her, but it also means that some surprising folks stand up and become dauntless champions for Her — sometimes not until after a lot of destruction, and sometimes right away, but nearly always in each particular place, and always if you look at the universal Church.

  • Just because it needs to be said, when the dust from this battle is settled (not war, for that will never end, but the battle) we (generically) should be prepared to be more dedicated, more active and more committed to doing the things that The Church has always stood for but that we may have been less intently focused on in the past.

    For my part, I am going deeper into the Christ Renews His Parish and Cursillo processes, having done the first one twice and second once. I’ll be on a seed team for CRHP, going from my central Indiana parish to Sarasota to help a parish there rev up its commitment to Christ and The Holy Spirit. My Cursillo groups are active but not terribly “pro”-active, and I’m taking it on myself to challenge that. Instead of just talking around the coffee table each week, it’s time for a demonstration of commitment.

    We each need to be able to say “Yeah, already there,” when the inevitable challenges come from those individuals and media outlets that will say “OK, Catholics, you won that round, but how about all these injustices and poverties?”

    You know the commitment across the country will be scrutinized by the Imperial Propaganda Ministry once the mandate’s been struck down, so we have to be ready. Or, perhaps more accurately, we have to begin yesterday to encourage and motivate our more wishy-washy parishioners to commit and start getting their hands dirty.

  • “contrary to its sincerely held religious beliefs. …”

    The University of Notre Dame has sincerely held religious beliefs? News to me. Glad they are joining the fight nonetheless.

    Between an overbearing government and the recent patent wars, business in law is good these days. I should have been a lawyer. 🙂

    If you haven’t clicked the Hot Air link, you should. More updates. I’m trying to find the list of dioceses in the suit.

  • Kyle–here’s a list of plaintiffs I found from

    1. D.D.C. Lawsuit
    o Archdiocese of Washington
    o Consortium of Catholic Academies
    o Archbishop Carroll High School
    o Catholic Charities of D.C.
    o The Catholic University of America

    2. E.D.N.Y. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Rockville Centre
    o Catholic Health Services of Long Island
    o Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre
    o Archdiocese of N.Y.
    o ArchCare

    3. W.D.Pa. (Erie Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Erie
    o St. Martin Center
    o Prince of Peace Center

    4. W.D.Pa. (Pitt. Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Charities of Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Cemeteries Association of Diocese of Pittsburgh

    5. N.D.Tex. (Dallas Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Dallas

    6. N.D.Tex. (Fort Worth Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Worth

    7. S.D. Ohio (Columbus Div.) Lawsuit
    o Franciscan University of Steubenville
    o Michigan Catholic Conference

    8. S.D.Miss. (Gulfport Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Jackson
    o Catholic Charities of Jackson
    o Vicksburg Catholic School
    o St. Joseph’s Catholic School
    o Diocese of Biloxi
    o De l’Epee Deaf Center Inc.
    o Catholic Social & Community Services Inc.
    o Resurrection Catholic School
    o Sacred Heart Catholic School
    o St. Dominic Health Services

    9. N.D.Ind. (South Bend Div.) Lawsuit
    o The University of Notre Dame

    10. N.D. Ind. (Fort Wayne Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o St. Anne Home
    o Franciscan Alliance
    o Our Sunday Visitor
    o University of St. Francis

    11. N.D.Ill. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Joliet
    o Catholic Charities of Joliet
    o Diocese of Springfield
    o Catholic Charities of Springfield

    12. E.D.Mo. (St. Louis Div.)
    o Archdiocese of St. Louis
    o Catholic Charities of St. Louis

  • Wacky Baracky Obumbler is certainly no skilled politician. At best, for him, he was able to do a decent job reading Axelrod’s trash on a TelePrompTer.

    Now, really, what kind of an idiot does one have to be to hang out with the Marxists in college? I have written it here before ‘ there is no ideology, no “ism”, no system of government that has caused more misery, more failure and more death of innocent people than Marxism, yet it still pulls in the gullible, the idiotic and the stupid.

    Obumbler is a combination of fallen-away Muslim and semi-Marxist. His wife is a golddigger par excellence. Obumbler has treated his presidency as a four year vacation and even if he loses to the Windsock, Obumbler would get a lifetime pension, a paid-for funeral, ten years of Secret Service protection and money for a presidential library. Obumbler will never pay for his errors – not in this lifetime.

    As for our Catholic hierarchy in the USA, it took this “mandate” to get them to wake up. Decades of abortion, Planned Parenthood taxpayer subsidies, restrictions on Nativity scenes, gay marriage and the like and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. The USCCB sill will not confront so called Catholic politicians who support abortion by excommunicating them. I have heard more about immigration reform (amnesty) and the USCCB’s continued support of “universal health care” was no small contributor to Obumblercare.

    Obumbler is a terrible President and quite a lousy politician. Sadly, it took Obumbler and the Democrat control of Congress to light a fire under the Catholic Church in the US.

  • I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. Will we see another few dozen suits next month, and again the month after, and so on? 43 plaintiffs is a good start, with good attention, but the true scope of the government’s violation is far more than this.

  • It’s not clear to me if the list of plaintiffs is a list of all suits filed thus far, or if it is
    just a list of plaintiffs with a Catholic connection. Where are the lawsuits being filed by
    Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim organizations? Are Catholics going to do all of the
    heavy lifting on this?

  • Clinton: Several months ago about 11 suits were filed by a variety of organizations, some Catholic and some not. These 12 are all Catholic, and were filed simultaneously and seem to be very similar so I would imagine there was some heavy-duty planning. Are Catholics going to do all the work? They haven’t so far. Are they going to do all the “heavy lifting”? Remains to be seen! So far yes. But we will see.

  • Penguins Fan, you say : “and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. Christ’s Apostles”. Remember, Christ’s Apostles were asleep as He agonized in Ghestemany, they fled when He was arrested. He died on the Cross with only young John and His Mother at the foot of the Cross. The Apostles had to lock themselves in the Upper Room after his death with fear and trembling believing all was lost. But Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to them, reassured them and this Sunday, we celebrate the Feast of the Pentecost which woke up the Apostles with Divine Power and they courageously proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Penguins Fan, the Catholic Church rises up from the ashes like the Phoenix when under attack – whether from within or from without – and emerges victorious no matter how powerful the Adversary may be. She has done so these 2,000 years+ and She will do it again. Jesus will crush Satan whom you, Americans enthroned with your “Gospel of Death”. Obama may have gambled that he will divine the Church in America, but let us all remember, this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Christ as Her Spiritual Head, guided by the Holy Spirit is just about to defeat Satan yet again. And She will continue doing so Until the End of Time.

    The American Bishops may have been asleep when Satan was edging on the Throne, when Obama, his High Priest entered your While House, and he has now risen against Jesus Christ Himself.

  • Yes Mary 42 but now that we know Christ is the lord the only Son of God the bishops have to make sure that fake Catholics don’t burn their souls for not repenting. Not to mention they give a false image of what the Church is.

  • The Democratic Party today , under Obama, is NOT the Democratic Party of JFK, the only US Catholic President to date. It has become radicalized, severely. JFK would have NEVER considered such a strangulation on American’s freedoms. If we lie down without a fight, it will be very fast coming that more and more freedoms go by the wayside. Our constitution is just a piece of paper if not fought for, and used as the proper tool, in the courts.

An American Issue

Friday, March 16, AD 2012

Note how the Bishops in the above video indicate what a unique threat to the Catholic Church in America the Obama administration poses.  They recognize that the goal of the current administration is to strip the Bishops, through fostering a de facto schism in the Church, of their ability to stand in the way of this administration.  This is all very unprecedented in American history and all very dangerous to our concept of religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution.  The Administrative Committee of the USCCB set out what is at stake well on March 14th:

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin,  first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to An American Issue

  • This is all-out political warfare, no holds barred.

    If an outright yahoo such as myself knew this four years past, [fill in the blank].

    Social justice was used as the alibi for all sins.

    Hate and Chains!

    I know. I know.

    I’m a RACIST!

  • Where are the voices from the Democratic Party, once a bastion of faithful Catholics, who legislated for the common man? Are they in chains tallying collected dues, being used to further debase their once loyal catholic identity, selling their souls and their ultimate caretakers to a joyless, blasphemous destiny? Judas comes to mind.

    I cannot believe that the Democratic Party has finished homogenizing its collective mind. With a world of problems from which to choose to find a solution, the focus is to fester another problem – and in the only area on earth that ultimately supports them.

    The catholic voices that have lost the sound of faith to the sound of cacophony.

  • Pingback: Obama vs. bishops « Blithe Spirit
  • When the Supreme Court for the United States of America hears the Obamacare case as a violation of conscience, as Obamacare is a violation of conscience, the Court will be giving countenance to and legitimacy to the greatest perjury in the history of humankind. TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will have been silenced and imprisoned in the chains of perjury, subliminal suggestion, lies, false advertisement, uninformed consent, swindle, cheating, stealing, and more lies and more perjury by the handmaid of the Satan. If Obamacare is not prevented from scamming unsuspecting citizens into surrendering their sovereignty for a cup of hemlock, the Supreme Court for the United States of America will become a useful idiot in the grand scheme of the Great Liar. The atheist, too, is become a useful idiot in the removal of all of every citizen’s unalienable rights, our founding principles, and especially Our CREATOR’S Divine Providence. The bottomless pit of hell is staring us and our Supreme Court in the face in Obamacare. HOPE and CHANGE without informed consent, without the TRUTH, without sovereignty, without freedom is not HOPE and CHANGE, no more so than Obamacare is healthcare.
    An eighty four year old man insisted that everybody ought to have healthcare and I agree. Obamacare is poised to balance the budget on his grave and he cannot see through it, because of the subliminal suggestions planted in his heart and mind. Subliminal suggestion is illegal and unconstitutional. Insincere promises (or lies) in Obamcare are the bait in a trap for America’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of each and every person as a citizen in the US. A one world government under the world bank, instead of under God, is the ultimate goal of the devil. Obamacare is only the weapon to be used against the sovereignty of America. Obamcare is only the bait into the black hole of servitude to another man, (created equal), whose god is mammon.
    Let us show Obama what freedom looks like in November. Let us show the devil the gates to Hell, the black hole, the true Obamacare: WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD?
    And to atheists who are sincerely searching for the truth. God is permitting this violation of sovereignty and truth for you to come to your sovereignty and the truth. Follow the truth. The truth will set you free and make you sovereign.
    The schism in the nation has occurred. The schism occurred when the Supreme Court relegated the Person of God to the status of Persona non grata, abortion to “a political point of view” along with gay-marriage, infanticide, and rape of infant children, who, without informed consent have had their body parts desecrated; the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition the human being as having an immortal, rational soul.

  • “the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition of the human being as having an immortal, rational soul; the human being, as a being composed of a body and a rational, immortal soul.”
    the word for correction I do not know.

  • I suppose, if we are to be prepared for any outcome, we should look at the Augustinian view of “Moral War” in light of such Scriptural admonishments as found in Romans 13. With the exegesis of the rest of the book, as well as the Gospels and all of the New Testament, it should be discussed now, I’d think, when heads are still cool and backs are not against any walls.

    If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.

    That we have escaped largely unharmed is a testament to our traditional character, but it is obvious to any with a lick of sense that the character so employed is now a scarce commodity.

    I am reminded of the brilliance of Hillaire Belloc:

    “We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile. ”

    The “large and awful faces” now sit in the highest seats of power in America. It would behoove us to thoroughly argue various methods of repelling their assaults upon us, so that we are sufficiently prepared, and united.

  • You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.

  • “You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.”

    Amen that.

  • Perhaps, but the next step has to be taken, and that is to ask “why?” The answer is obvious to us, of course.

    To what end does any government actively call attention to such an all-too-human rift in any religion or ideology, but to attack it? What other purpose could there be to risk the backlash and fallout that most certainly will (and even now starts to) occur? Why does this administration care, other than to exploit a strategic weakness, indicating it actually has a strategy that neeeds this exploitation?

    To downplay Caiaphas’ impact on the schism itself is to dissemble the truth; regardless of why it’s there, this president’s exploitation of it makes him anti-Catholic and fascist, and as such he should be given neither excuse nor benefit of doubt. Unless, of course, you’re on his side.

  • I agree with c matt. Obama is exploiting and counting on an already existing de facto schism. I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.

  • The exploitation by any American president of any religious division in this country Mike I regard as per se sinister. That he might be doing so for mere momentary political advantage actually increases the contempt I feel for him.

  • Does anyone know how the Bishops are distinguishing the Obamacare mandate for employers to purchase health insurance (which covers contraceptives) from individuals being required to pay federal taxes (of which a fraction goes to grants to Planned Parenthood)? Why would complying with one (the Obamacare mandate) be sinful and not complying with the other (paying federal taxes) be sinful? Is it because only a tiny fraction of federal income taxes go to grants for Planned Parenthood while a larger fraction of health care premiums would go to contraceptives? Or is because one is called a tax and one is called a mandate? What if the feds said the employers will not be paying any premiums, instead they pay a tax and then the employees get free health care? Would that make a difference?

    Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the Bishops cracking some heads, I am just a little confused about how one is sin and one is not.

  • J: You are correct. Obamacare is a tax and a mandate. Obamacare tax deletes the middle man, IRS. O makes you spend his (the government owns and controls everything) money the way Obama tells you.

    You must pay your income tax and when Obama gets the money you have no say in how it is wasted.

    If you don’t pay your income tax, you will learn two things: the reason why they had to amend the Constitution to institute the income tax and that you have no rights in tax court. No Fifth amendment. If you own anything the IRS will take it. Then you go to jail.

    Heretics had more rights with the Spanish Inquisition. Only difference being the IRS can’t torture you.

  • “I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.”

    That may be true. But in then end, this battle is not with men such as Obama. Rather this battle is with diabolical forces intent on attacking the Church. Obama and his Saruman-like Minions in the Church are merely pawns in an ancient battle. Pawns who have fallen for one lie or another by the Evil One even if they remain ignorant of the Dark One’s ultimate plan. So there will be further attacks even if this one is stopped. Either by Obama or other Minions. However, if this one succeeds, the next will be truly vile.

    We ultimately do not lose hope as the Easter Victory is eternal. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, though there may be great suffering prior to the final victory. Pray. Fast. Then act to prevent further evil.

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

  • There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. You had Bishops outright rejection or their refusal to teach the dangers of contraception and the consequences. You had Vatican II which changed a lot of things in the Church (the left/ liberals used this time to their advantage). Then you also had sisters and nuns rejecting Church teachings and following the radical feminists. Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues with subjects that are not necessarily intrinsically evil to this very day), using Alinsky ideas, followed by “social justice” which has been more like socialism and earth worship. Also, you can’t ignore the homosexual infiltration into the seminaries which led to the terrible sexual scandals. Today, you have “catholic” politicians who support contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research like Sebelius, Pelosi, Cuomo, Kerry, Biden, the Kennedys, Durbin, etc with hardly any of the Bishops doing anything about them. Obama surrounds himself with these left, unorthodox “catholics” and yes, I think he does want to split the Catholic Church. The Bishops need to face some facts about Obama and the Democratic Party. These are not the Democrats your grandparents supported.

    It really all starts with us though. WE have to seek and find the REAL teachings, dogmas, doctrines of the Catholic Church. WE need to stop picking and choosing what we want to believe and we need to speak up. I’m praying for our Pope, the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Religious that the Holy Spirit will enlighten them with truth and courage!

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

    If I understand correctly, the clergy associated with SSPX are excommunicate, not anyone else. It is permissible for laymen to attend SSPX services if done out of appreciation for the old rite and not in a spirit of disobedience.

    There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.

    Which bishops? The prominent dissenters on this question have been Charles Curran, Andrew Greeley, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Garry Wills. None of them are bishops. It was local parish priests who refused to enforce the teaching in the confessional.

    Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues

    The Church in America had been an institutional wreck for a dozen years or more ‘ere Cdl. Bernardin’s wheel-spinning in the NCCB committee structure got underway.

  • AS WK Aiken wrote, “If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.”

    Heaven forbid! But a second Obama term may make that a reality. 🙁

  • Obama supports the destruction of all Christian churches.

  • What I am about to say may be viewed as imprudent by some here. But the bishops have done much to bring this about. Hillsdale College professor Paul Rahe wrote an interesting article on this subject:

    Also, when you consider the fact that Obama being an Alinskyite and the influence Alinsky had on Church bureaucracies in the U.S., he is well aware of the divsions that exist. Remember, it was the same Cdl George who couldn’t stick to his guns with Fr. Pfleger and then presided over a function of the Archdiocesan Office for Racial Equality where Pfleger was given a lifetime achievement award. Never mind the fact that Fr. Pfleger is as thick as theives with bigots like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakan.

    Then you have Cdl Dolan equating Arizona’s SB 1070 with the Know Nothing Party. When you have prominent American Prelates projecting weakness and engaging in left wing demagoguory, you invite the kind of actions Obama is taking and it isn’t like he needs an invitation.

  • Living in a country that has had a tax-funded national health service for over sixty years, and in which the taxpayer has no say on which ‘health’ provision his money is spent on, I find the present debate in the US rather bemusing. However, Catholics in the US should be aware that the British government is planning to legislate for same-sex marriage (despite the fact that the present civil partnership laws give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples anyway). PM David Cameron is cosying up to Barak Obama, who is no friend to England but has his eyes fixed on the upcoming election, and is pointedly ignoring anyone from the Republican party. As a life-long Tory voter, I hoped that the new ministry would roll back some of the stifling political correctness which characterized New Labour but Cameron seems to want to out-Blair Blair.

    The Catholic Church in England and Wales lacks any credible leadership (Scotland is better) and the Established Church is facing having its bishops ejected from the House of Lords since they are ‘incompatible with a multicultural society’. I was brought up in a country which prided itself on its tolerance and innate sense of liberty and fair play. I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants. Be warned, America, and for God’s sake don’t go the same way.

  • “I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants.”

    That is happening in both countries John, albeit at a slower pace in America, but Obama is attempting to quicken the process.

    For those of us who cherish liberty it is time for us to take a stand, all of us recalling this Churchill quote:
    “This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

    I have no intention of having the liberty that many of my ancestors purchased with their blood taken away piece by piece for Leftist political schemes and to serve the ends of politicians drunk with power.

  • If it is truly phrophetic is will come to pass, and nothing can stop it.

  • Then let us pray that it is not prophetic Janice and let us work to help bring our prayers to fruition. We are God’s instruments in this world and it is up to each of us to make our actions match our faith.

  • When the HHS Mandate goes to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, architect of Obamacare must recuse herself, or be removed physically dragging her feet and screaming. Obamacare is Elena Kagan’s brainchild. Surely, Kagan will want to see this monstrosity endure. Kagan has a vested interest and the conflict of interest thereof. There may be a 4 to 4 split in the Court, who then, casts the deciding vote? Is that person of integrity and trustworthy?

  • The constitutionality of Obamacare is only a small issue. The constitutionality of Obama and his cronies is the greater issue. The Constitution for the United States of America prohibits a religious test for candidates for public office. Our constitution does not prohibit a religious test for removing public officials, presidents and his appointees from office for egregiously violating our founding principles, ignoring their sworn oaths to uphold our founding principles while in office and for violating our constitutional principles.
    IF Peter Singer, Barack Obama, or Cecile Richards cannot explain their existence without reference to our Constitutional CREATOR, our unalienable rights, and our founding principles, they are unfit for office. Obama has violated his oath of office. Let us dig up Margaret Sanger and ask her for her opinion. Saul Alinsky asked God to send him to hell. Maybe HOPE and CHANGE will make Alinsky feel bad. Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, Geitner need to be shown the broom closet door, the same broom closet door, Obama, as senator from Chicago showed to our newest constitutional posterity, our newest citizens, the persons he refused to aid when they survived abortion. Obama has since ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed. No snowflake babies for him. Nope.
    Peter Singer was deported from Australia. Germany refused to give Singer admittance. Princeton University welcomed Singer with the DeCamp Chair of Bioethics where he teaches the most elite sons of our people that killing a citizen if you do not like the child for up to six years after they come into their citizenship as “after birth abortion” is valid. Singer teaches that taking the life of another person is not a crime of homicide or infanticide or human sacrifice to the demon god of political correctness, environmental or really stupid (oh, seriousness) imbecilic eugenics. Cecile Richards, go get Margaret Sanger. Maybe Sanger can tell us how to live forever.

  • Pingback: For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey! | The American Catholic

The New First Amendment

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have written an op-ed in which they call upon the FCC to revoke the licences of radio stations that carry the Rush Limbaugh show.

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

In the course of an op-ed calling upon the government to restrict free speech rights, the authors compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.

I know that Wikipedia is not the greatest source of information, but it usually gets the basics correct.  From the article on Goebbels:

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany.

From Webster’s dictionary:

Irony : 3 (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity

Fonda, Morgan, and Steinem might want to have a look at this book before taking to the keyboard again.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The New First Amendment

  • So Jane Fonda’s input is to deny Limbaugh’s first amendment right to say unstudied, shoot from the hip, stupid things but let’s protect her right to compared him Goebbels. Ms. Fonda needs to study debate and learn what ad hominem argument is.

  • So… they think that one of the biggest radio shows in the USA isn’t in the public interest….

    (Yes, I know it’s the “for your own good” sense, but by that measure there shouldn’t be any music stations.)

  • Fonda, Morgan and Steinem would have received an understanding nod from Goebbels:

    “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

  • It’s only fair. Same way they serially resuscitate the “fairness doctrine.”

    The evil, unjust free market censors imbecilic, vile liberal talk by no one listening and not buying the advertisers.

    The government must censor the free market side, or the left can’t destroy freedom.

    Free speech for me; not for thee.

  • Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech. He hasn’t claimed any of his hatred to be religious so that it’s justified (which is the method by which most hate groups get their hate speech legitimized). You really think Jesus would like him?

    Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts. It’s not a Christian radio show, and Limbaugh isn’t much of a Christian given that he’s been married 4 times.

    And maybe you should do a search for Limbaugh’s trip to the Dominican Republic where he was found with unprescribed viagra for sex with prostitutes. His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.

  • “Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech.”

    Hate lifewrecker is not defined by what you oppose.

    “You really think Jesus would like him?”

    No lifewrecker, He would love him. That goes for you too actually in regard to Jesus, as hard as you might find that to believe.

    “Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts.”

    Spend three months listening to his show lifewrecker and then report back.

    “His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.”

    You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?

  • Three has-beens wanting to see their names in print. Jane Fonda betrayed American GIs at the Hanoi Hilton. Jane Fonda and Tokyo Rose both ought to be begging for their citizenship. Gloria Steinem, the heroine of feminism, did not ever believe she would get old and arthritic. I do not know Robin Morgan and I am glad. The first two shadows darkened our nation like a cloud of locusts. They must want jobs with the Obama administration, but Cass Sunstein has got it. Cass Sunstein is Obama’s Information Czar. He has written 35 books to give animals personhood. No comment.

  • The left does not believe in the 1st Amendment, or in free speech, or in the free exercise of religion. It never has. And it never will. But its President desires to reign supreme. I hope on November 6th this changes. Imagine the howling when they will have to actually contend with people who differ from them.

  • 13,055 comments on for the article. The comments section has been closed. Don’t go there if you still believe in the general intelligence of the average American.

    I Love this: “Spectrum is a scarce government resource.” Since when? Did Al Gore invent the Electromagnetic Spectrum, too? The only reason it’s monopolized by the government is because early broadcasters wanted their monopoly to be locked down by Federal dictate. And, guess what? Within 15 years it’ll all be silent anyway, as digital podcasts and niche web sources become more and more attractive.

    So, The Three Stoogettes may believe that dictatorial censorship would block Limbaugh’s ability to be heard. But in fact it only proves how vapid they and their Weltanschauung really are.

  • WK Aiken, the average American does not comment at CNN watchers are libs – which accounts for the high level of ignorance displayed in the comments.

    I agree with Mary De Voe: these are 3 long-in-the-tooth harpies who are desperately trying to remain relevant. Ironically, if this country was as intolerant of free speech as Fonda is,she would have faced a firing squad 40 years ago.

  • Donna V. Thank you. You said it better than I. I especially like “3 long-in-the-tooth harpies.”

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for taking their argument apart and supplying us with the truth. I especially like: “You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?”

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

  • The National Organization for Women has a very sophisticated decades-old media project that involves FCC committee lobbying, getting its favored candidates appointed to the FCC board, and increasing women (read:feminist) ownership of media stations. I believe this is why a *breast cancer foundation* was cast as the bad guy oppressing poor little Planned Parenthood. The press is almost entirely feminist-controlled.

    If you want to see a similar act of government censorship and intimidation, look up the EEOC commissioner’s response to Don Imus’ remarks a few years ago.

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

    You would think that an editor at CNN might have returned the submitted text to them with a bland remark that were it published the reputations of the authors would be injured. Maybe the newsroom at CNN is as shot through with egocentric people as the editorial staff at Ms..

  • A few Vietnam veterans exercising their First Amendment rights in regard to Ms. Fonda:

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: H.H.S. MANDATE |