Democrat Violence Against Private Citizen Caught On Video

The next time a Democrat tries to say that they abhor violence and are the most tolerant and peace-loving group in the nation and that they staunchly support the First Amendment, remember the following video:

Video Of Activist Thugs Attacking A Private Citizen Exercizing His First Amendment Right

Democrats are encouraged to reply and tell us how they feel about the assaults that occured in this video.

I would classify this as a hate crime since the two Democrats in question clearly hated the man they attacked.

Further, I have two questions: 1) Why invite the public to a forum where you will be making comments you do not want recorded? 2) Where is the condemnation of these two thugs by Governor Kitzhaber?

White House ‘Snitch’ Program: A Violation Of The Law?

5 U.S.C. § 552a clearly states the following:

United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, ‘maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.’

Which means that when Barack Obama called upon people to email the White House about “fishy” statements on health care reform, it was a violation of the above United States Code.

The only reason Obama wanted people to send in information was so that a collection process could begin. Congress never authorized this collection process and to my knowledge, no individual ever said it was okay for the White House to begin any such collection.

When Obama told his audience on October 31, 2008 that “We are five days away from fundamentaly transforming the United States of America,” he wasn’t joking. He just didn’t mention that he intended to establish the equivalent of an East German Stasi.

And when the crowd cheered at this statement, it proved correct the line from Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith when Amadala said, “So this is how liberty dies … with thunderous applause.”

You can access the complete article on-line here:

White House Actions Might Be Unlawful
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
August 5, 2009

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The “J” Word

When I was growing up in the 1970’s and going to elementary school in Prince George’s County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have “festivals” celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn’t seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to “forget” about where we came from. And, if you don’t know where you came from, you cannot get to where you’re going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, “Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind.”

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was “wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind” was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a “murder is a crime” civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor’s house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor’s children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn’t meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders’ ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700’s. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

“Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament.”

Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

Like George Washington, I don’t believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that “Freedom of religion” now means to them “Freedom from religion.” They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is “offensive.” In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn’t our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn’t afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word “Jesus”?

The Founders weren’t. And we shouldn’t be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Obama’s Backdoor To The Fairness Doctrine Advances

Although Obama has publically stated that he does not endorse a return of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that effectively censors conservative speech on the radio, he did tell the FCC that he wants to see more “minority ownership” of broadcast outlets.

That is essentially his backdoor to censoring talk radio and the Dems in Congress are going to help him do it.

From Amanda Carpenter at Town Hall:

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being reinstated today, yet also agreed to urge the Federal Communications Commission to increase “diversity” on the airwaves.

President Obama wrote a letter to the FCC when he was Illinois senator saying action must be taken to increase minority ownership in print and broadcast media. Conservative watchdogs have argued using government to do this is a “backdoor” version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Both actions were attached to a larger bill to grant Washington D.C. voting rights. At this point it is unclear if either measure would be included in the final version of the bill.

Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) sponsored the amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 87-11.

Liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) sponsored the competing amendment for more media diversity, which passed 57-41.

So, what we have here is an initiative by the Dems to have government step in and shut down any network or stations that they don’t think are “diverse” enough.

I’m pretty sure that Durbin and the other socialists who want to see hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham taken off the air are already thinking up ways to claim that outlets who carry conservative talk radio are not “diverse” enough and also thinking up the legal language to be used to have them shut down. I guess you could call it affirmative action for radio.

Nothing like using a back-door to trample on the First Amendment, eh?

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama’s Back Door Fairnes Doctrine Advances
Amande Carpenter
TownHall.com
February 26, 2009

Homosexual Agenda Threatens First Amendment Freedom Of Speech

There were a whole bunch of news items in the past two years about how the homosexual and lesbian lobby was trying to push through legislation that would make it a hate crime if any Christian or other churches offered any critique of the homosexual lifestyle choice. There were also an equal number of people who were concerned that such legislation threatened First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Then there were a number of naysayers who said that such opposition was nothing more than poltical paranoia.

Well, the situation has gone from paranoia to reality. Crystal Dixon, former associate vice-president of human resources at the University of Toledo was fired because she engaged in her First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech which was further enhanced by the Toledo Free Press exercising the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. You see, Ms. Dixon, as a private citizen, wrote an editorial letter to the Toledo Free Press and was subsequently fired for doing so.

Here is the story and what her letter was about. According to the Bulletin of Philadelphia:

Crystal Dixon, a high-ranking black official at the University of Toledo, was fired in May by the university because she wrote a newspaper commentary expressing her personal Christian views regarding homosexuality.

Ms. Dixon was responding to an opinion article written by Michael Miller, the editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press titled, “Gay Rights and Wrongs.” In her private editorial, Ms. Dixon objected to the comparison of “gay rights” with the civil rights struggles of blacks.

“I absolutely respected Mr. Miller’s right to express his opinion while at the same time, I disagreed with several of the points that he made,” said Ms. Dixon on her Web site. “One of the freedoms that makes this country great and makes newspapers great is the privilege of exchanging different points of view via public print communications.”

And Ms. Dixon has every right to express her opposition to the camparison of the gay lobby to civil rights activists.

Read on:

“As a black woman … I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims,’ ” she wrote in the article. “Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.”

Following the article’s appearance, Ms. Dixon was placed on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation. On May 8, she was dismissed from her job.

“Dismissed from her job.” For what? Being a Christian with a conscience? Exercising First Amendment freedoms?

This case is making something very clear. Radical leftist groups like the gay and lesbian lobby have no concern whatsoever for anyone else’s rights; only their own. They do not care if people like Crystal Dixon are trampled down and spat upon. They seek to limit other people’s freedoms under the guise of enhancing their own.

Gays and lesbians are not looking for rights. They have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as the rest of us. They are looking for privilige and they want to obtain that privilige by limiting the freedoms of others. If Ms. Dixon loses this fight, how long will it be before someone writing a criticism of the gay and lesbian lifestyle choice is thrown in jail for some perceived “hate crime?” It won’t be long at all, and we will have the first major deterioration of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

University Of Toledo Sued For Firing Christian Official
John P. Connolly
The Bulletin
December 2, 2008

And you can access Crystal Dixon’s website on-line here:

Crystal Dixon

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to Crystal Dixon’s legal fund, you may send contributions to:

Grace In Action
Crystal Dixon Defense Fund
2902 Auburn Avenue
Toledo, OH 43606

The Silencing Of The Opposition Is To Begin Almost Immediately

Reports are going around Washington D.C. that Barack Obama plans on putting Henry Rivera back as the head of the Federal Communications Commission and that this signals Obvama’s intention to silence any and all of his critics, especially those of us on the Internet and on Talk Radio.

From Multi-Channel News:

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to name Washington, D.C. lawyer Henry Rivera, a Democrat, to head a transition team focused on the Federal Communications Commission, according to informed sources.

Sources: Rivera To Head Obama’s FCC Transition Team
Ted Hearn
Multi-Channel News
November 5, 2008

This should be a major concern for anyone who believes in the rights guaranteed to us under the First Amendment. Henry Rivera is a huge champion of the mis-nomered “Fairness Doctrine” which would effectively snuff out Conservative Talk Radio and silence any Conservative dissenters.

According to World Net Daily:

If reenacted, the “Fairness Doctrine” would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law’s repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law’s return would decimate the industry’s marketability.

Many fear the “Fairness Doctrine” would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post, “Meet Talk’s Executioner,” he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, “is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama’s tenure in office.”

Although Obama claims to want a “diversity of viewpoints” coming through the airwaves, his actions suggest otherwise:

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign,” said O’Leary. “His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

Democrats in Congress have been more definitive in advocating the “Fairness Doctrine.”

In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi.

Speaking on Albuquerque station KKOB, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told host Jim Villanucci, “I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Look at what they did to Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando Florida after she asked a tough question of Joe Biden instead of throwing a softball as most of the leftist-media did for the Obama campaign.

This appointment will be very bad for those of us who believe in Free Speech and a Free Press.

A few years ago, the Democrats were telling us that “dissent is patriotic.” Now they have changed their tune and are saying that “dissent must be silenced.”

Change is truly coming for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama To Appoint Talk Radio’s Executioner?
World Net Daily
November 8, 2008