The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed to prevent citizens from having to choose between their religious beliefs and negative recourse. President Clinton signed RFRA into law in 1993 saying that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”
The case that brought about RFRA was Employment Division v. Smith in 1990. In that case, two American Indians had been fired from their jobs for consuming peyote which is used in their tribal ceremonies.
The case made it to the Supreme Court which ruled that the firing was to be upheld because they could not use a religious exemption to circumvent federal law.
With RFRA in place, several groups have been afforded accommodation that would otherwise have ended their employment. For those cases, the ACLU was not only greatly in support of the law, but actually helped to use it.
Louis Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU wrote an op-ed posted in the Washington Post today telling us exactly why the ACLU changed their minds on RFRA:
The RFRA wasn’t meant to force employees to pay a price for their employer’s faith, or to allow businesses to refuse to serve gay and transgender people
The timing is impeccable. There will certainly be a wave of gay couples demanding that Christian bakers and photographers, pastors and priests bend to their will and submit to serving their wedding – or they’ll send in the lawyers.
While the ACLU takes the side of the gay and transgender public, they afford no weight to the rights of the business owners – who also happen to be American citizens with rights.
Forcing an employer to pay for something that is clearly against his religious ideals is perhaps a bigger affront as the employee could simply choose not to work at a business that operates upon the basis of faith. The employer could be threatened with legal action if he chose not to pay for things he was against.
The same argument applies to those that would be forced to service gay weddings. If the person, through the faith, finds an activity offensive, they should have the right to avoid participation. The ACLU apparently disagrees.
Tonight: George will be talking about Obama’s war in Syria, North Colorado secessionists, and the ACLU’s war on the Ten Commandments. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.
I don’t often agree with the ACLU but they may have this one right. You thought there was too much government in 2006–what about now???
Are you concerned about too much government intrusion in your life? How much does the government know about you? What records are they keeping? Worried about the electronic health care requirements? How much personal information will be shared in ‘your best interest’? Here’s a light-hearted look at the possibilities. A reminder to vote for less government.
I received an e-mail a few days ago with a story about a lady who owns a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa. She declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians, which has resulted in calls for a boycott, and the usual name calling, from homosexual groups. Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage told the couple that she is a Christian and would not violate her Christian beliefs to provide them with a cake. When interviewed about the incident, Ms. Childress said:
“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions. I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”
Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple, and stressed this fact by saying:
“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions. They can get their cake anywhere.”
Childress said money is not the issue, adding:
“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle. I was not rude. I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”
The lesbian pair released a statement calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot” and are contemplating filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ms. Childress. More on the discrimination issue later in this piece. The couple ran to the media and started calling a citizen, who I thought had freedom of choice also, a bigot. They threaten legal action, and make a big scene because someone doesn’t want to bake them a wedding cake. How thin skinned can anyone get? They are offended? I am offended that they think they have a right to demand service from any business owner. I am offended that they think a Christian doesn’t have a right to decide who to do business with. If someone doesn’t want my business I just take it elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this reaction is typical of special interest groups, any special interest group. It seems everyone has a “right” to their views, and to be pandered to, except Christians. I wonder what would happen if these same women walked into a bakery owned by a Muslim. Would the owner bake them a cake or chase them out of the shop with a barrage of rocks, or simply hang them for their blasphemy? Stoning, in case you aren’t aware, is one of the penalties for homosexuality in the Muslim world. Hanging also seems to be a popular punishment.
Would these women go screeching to the media about Muslim bias against their “lifestyle”? If they did complain, would anyone make a big fuss or would they just keep out of it for fear of “offending” a Muslim business owner? I hope their next stop is at a bakery owned by a Muslim. I would really like to see the result of that visit. That situation would put the media and all of the “minority” groups in a tizzy. Who would they side with?
Where does this nonsense stop? Why is it that everyone has to bow down to the homosexual lifestyle, or Islam, or the NAACP, or any other “minority” group? Does freedom only apply to those with “issues”? I always thought freedom applies to all of us. Does “diversity” of thought include the thoughts of Christians? Does “diversity” of expression include Christians? Does “freedom of speech” include Christians? Apparently not!!!!!
I am also a Christian who believes homosexuality or heterosexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong. Does being against heterosexual couples living together and engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage make me a bigot also? What does one call that bigotry, heterophobia? Do Christians not have a right to live according to their firmly held religious beliefs? We are certainly expected, by Muslims and many judges and politicians, to allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs and customs, even the parts that call for stoning of adulterers or honor killings.
Like most other Christians, including Victoria Childress, I don’t condemn others for their lifestyles, I simply disagree with them. Ms. Childress didn’t say anything tawdry about the couple, according to the article. Ms. Childress just expressed her views politely and let it go at that. Also mentioned in the article was a comment from another bakery owner who would be more than happy to bake the cake. Why is this a problem? It isn’t like these two can’t get a cake anywhere, others are happy to have their business.
Read the next couple of paragraphs very carefully and think about the point they make. Find the irrationality of those calling for a boycott of Victoria’s Cake Cottage. As far as a boycott, what will that accomplish? Ms. Childress seems to be boycotting homosexuals, yet that is unlawful according to homosexual activists. Homosexuals are going to boycott a business that doesn’t want their business. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this? I really can’t help but chuckle at this point.
If it is permissible for homosexuals to boycott Victoria’s Cake Cottage why isn’t it permissible for her to boycott homosexuals? Isn’t a boycott a boycott? Shouldn’t this cut both ways? Aren’t these homosexual groups practicing discrimination against Victoria’s Cake Cottage? They claim she is discriminating against them so they turn around and call for a boycott. If they don’t boycott every bakery equally isn’t that the definition of discrimination?
One of the biggest problems faced by this nation today is this very attitude of “tolerance”. We are told we must accept illegal aliens, who have a “right” to be here. We are told we must accept Islam and Sharia Law, because Muslims have “rights”. Christians are told we must accept a lifestyle that goes against our beliefs because these people have “rights”. I find it problematic that the “tolerance boat”, built by Christians who came here looking for freedom of religion, no longer has room for the Christians who built it. What about the rights of Christians to live our lives according to our beliefs? What about our “rights”?
If we are to be a truly tolerant society the tolerance has to go both ways, and it currently does not. If true tolerance were to be enforced, illegal aliens would be required to understand and “tolerate” my views about immigration. In a truly tolerant society homosexuals would be required to “tolerate” the fact that Ms. Childress and I disagree with their lifestyle and would rather they take their business elsewhere. A truly “tolerant” society would say the Congressional Black Caucus is required to admit white members of Congress. Muslims, in a truly “tolerant” society, would be required to accept that America has a Constitution and that Sharia law is unacceptable as it violates nearly every tenet of that Constitution. Muslims would have to “tolerate” our Constitution, and its Judeo-Christian basis, in a truly tolerant society.
If tolerance is not a two way street then it isn’t tolerance it is bullying. Whites are bullied by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a regular basis. Christians are bullied by CAIR and homosexuals, among other special interest groups. American citizens are bullied by the ACLU, LaRaza and like organizations. Proponents of Right to Work are bullied by unions every day. Tolerance must be equal or it isn’t tolerance. If Victoria Childress and others like her are not allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs then tolerance isn’t anything other than brute force being used against someone these groups disagree with. Isn’t that the definition of bullying? Isn’t that the very thing they are fighting against? Can you spell HYPOCRISY?
I salute Ms. Childress for the way she handled this situation. She was forthright about her stand and refrained from making a big deal out of the situation. She did not “chastise” the couple; she merely chose not to participate in something she finds objectionable. From what I know of this situation she handled herself in a Christian manner with courage and firmness, yet with “tolerance”. She didn’t run to the media, she merely responded with the truth of her beliefs.
I hope that everyone reading this piece will show Ms. Childress their support. If you live in Des Moines or nearby, visit her shop. If not, go to her website and give her words of support. If possible, order something from her bakery and reward her for this stand for freedom of religion. If you live outside of Des Moines order some cookies or something that can be shipped. Let her know you appreciate her courage and her willingness to stand by her values and not be intimidated into surrendering her values or her freedom to live by those values.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
November 26, 2011
The first thing the lesbian couple did was run to the news media, where they knew they and their whining and crying, “woe is me”, “I’ve been victimized” story would be coddled.
Early Tuesday morning, the NYPD cleared Zucotti park of the Occupy Wall Street protesters some 70 of them by arrest.
The protesters were told that once the park was cleaned that they may return, but without tents, sleeping bags or other equipment that would indicate an intent to camp out on the privately-owned park.
From NBC New York:
Hundreds of police officers, some in riot gear, descended on Zuccotti Park after midnight Tuesday in a surprise sweep of the Occupy Wall Street headquarters.
It comes just two days ahead of a massive planned demonstration Thursday marking the movement’s two-month anniversary.
Police handed out letters to protesters ordering them to temporarily evacuate the park. Police said the eviction will improve health conditions.
The Wasthington Post reports, “At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents.”
Interview after The Raid
Some protesters cut the locks at a private area owned by Trinity Church to set up another illegal “occupation”. Police were quick to arrest and remove the trespassers.
Once the raid concluded, the protesters found a judge friendly to their cause to issue an order letting them back into the park with their tents and gear. Former ACLU and champion of the less fortunate Judge Lucy Billings signed the order at just after six in the morning. The city appealed and according to the Associated Press, “Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman on Tuesday denied a motion by the demonstrators seeking to be allowed back into the park with their tents and sleeping bags..”
The cult-like Occupiers have a “day of action” planned for Thursday as requested by Union leadership. The Occupy Wall Street folks are planning a “major disruption” at Wall Street to coincide with the activities of big labor on that day. The group’s leaders are expecting their activities to be “the most provocative yet” and lead to mass arrests.
Occupy Wall Street spokesman Ed Needham said, “I think it is very difficult to do a day of action and not expect some sort of reaction from (authorities)”.
The day of action is expected to culminate in “a block party the 1% will never forget”. Exactly how a block party will shut down the New York Stock Exchange or Wall Street overall is unclear. Needham estimates that they will have 10,000 or more marching with the Occupiers in their attempt to take over Wall Street.
Alabama has joined the growing number of states fed up with the federal government’s perceived inability, or blatant unwillingness, to enforce its own immigration laws.
Following in the steps of Arizona, Indiana, Georgia and Utah, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed HB56 on June 9. The law is being considered one of the most stringent state anti-illegal immigration laws to date. Already drawing heat from such civil groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Southern Poverty Law Center, Bentley nonetheless said he believed the legislation can stand up against legal opposition. (souce: WashingtonTimes online version)
Asserting that illegal immigration causes “economic hardship and lawlessness in this state”, the Alabama law addresses a “compelling public interest to discourage illegal immigration”. When public agencies provide benefits without determining legal immigration status of recipients, the lawmakers assert, they further encourage more foreign nationals to enter to the United States illegally.
Alabama’s new measures go beyond the controversial legislation introduced by Arizona’s SB1070 last year. In light of other similar laws being challenged by judicial overthrow, lawmakers said they wrote the legislation in language that would protect the entirety from being thrown out if singular items are ruled unconstitutional or contrary to federal law.
The law relates to nearly every facet of daily life, from employment to education to housing, including some of the following measures that will take effect Sept. 1.
Law enforcement provisions:
Gives police officers authority to detain suspected illegal aliens if they’re stopped for another reason.
The law presumes an alien with a valid, unexpired Alabama driver’s license, non-driver identification card, or several other recognized documents (listed within the law), to be legally present in the United States.
Requires schools to determine the citizenship and immigration status of students.
Requires school districts to “compile certain data” for report to the State Board of Education, to get an accurate number of unlawfully present aliens are enrolled, and thereby determine how much of state educational resources used for unlawful aliens.
Prohibits unlawful aliens from enrolling in post-secondary educational facilities, or from receiving financial benefits for post-secondary education.
Prohibits unlawful aliens from receiving any state of local public benefits (with certain exceptions);
Prohibits eligibility for educational benefits that are based on residence.
The law also makes criminal the following:
Knowingly renting to someone who is in the country illegally.
Concealing, harboring, or shielding unauthorized aliens or attempting to do so;
Encouraging or inducing someone to enter or reside in the United States illegally.
Transporting, or attempting or conspiring to transport an unlawfully present alien in Alabama; also, conspiring to be transported if illegally present in the U.S.;
Dealing in false identification documents or committing vital records identity fraud;
Voters must show picture identification.
Several of the law’s aspects relate to employment.
Employers are required to determine eligibility status of prospective employees by using the E-Verify federal employment-check system before hiring.
Employers are prohibited from knowingly employing anyone in the country unlawfully.
Employers are prohibited from firing or not hiring a qualified legal candidate for a position while retaining an unauthorized alien, under certain conditions.
While Alabama has taken a hard line to discourage illegal immigration, there are several exceptions written into the law to ensure protection of unlawful aliens from bodily harm or threat or neglect, especially regarding children.
Emergency medical treatment cannot be withheld, and legal status is not required to provide primary and secondary education. Also exempt are those acting in official capacity as first responders, emergency personnel or protective services provider, who may transport, harbor or shelter an illegal alien.
The law also exempts:
Short-term, non-cash emergency disaster relief;
Public health assistance for immunizations, prenatal care, supplemental nutritional services for Women, Infants and Children (WIC);
Soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and several community-level in-kind services;
Child or adult protective services, domestic violence services and any services ‘necessary for the protection of life and safety.’
Southern Poverty Law Center’s director Mary Bauer called Alabama’s restrictions ‘unconstitutional, mean-spirited, and racist’ (source: Washington Times), but the American public remains supportive of tougher border controls, according to a February 2011 report by Pew Research Center. Of those polled, 77 percent put priority on tighter border security, though 42 percent of those also wanted stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws. Thirty-five percent wanted focus on secure borders, while creating a pathway to citizenship. Only 21 percent thought creating a path to citizenship should hold top priority.
If neighboring Georgia is any indication, Alabama’s new law may indeed have the intended effect. Georgia has already begun to see a departure of illegal immigrants after passing similar legislation earlier, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, despite the fact that their House Bill 87 isn’t due for enforcement until July 1. Pew Research’s Hispanic Center estimates nearly half a million illegal immigrants reside in Georgia, putting the state in the top ten for number of unlawfully-present immigrants.
Also scheduled to come into effect July 1 is Indiana’s SEA590. Passed by a wide margin in both the state’s House and Senate, the bill was signed into law May 10 by Gov. Daniels, and hit with an ACLU lawsuit soon after. By targeting businesses to verify lawful presence of employees, the law aims to reduce the economic incentive for illegal immigrants to choose Indiana. The state can also sue businesses to recover unemployment benefits paid to illegal workers.
Utah’s HB497 has been placed on hold by a federal judge, the Deseret News reported earlier this week. That law is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and National Immigration Law Center. The Mexican government, followed by several other Central and South American nations have condemned the law, citing “potential international fallout” if Utah moves forward with enforcing their illegal immigration legislation.
Oklahoma and Virginia have also promoted tougher laws on illegal immigration, and are not likely the last.
A 2011 report by the Department of Homeland Security estimated there were 10.8 unauthorized aliens living in the U.S. as of January 2010. Slightly more than 60 percent were from Mexico alone, and 39 percent had entered the nation between 2000 and 2010. The number of illegal immigrants rose 27 percent during that period, the report said.
Once again you’ve been had! Political Correctness has won yet again!
When will we learn? At this point I am thinking the answer to that question is, “Never”.
I was not aware that actually being in the vicinity of Christian symbols was such an overload to the sensibilities of those who are not Christians. Now, a 70-year-old tradition is thrown out the window in the name of appeasement.
No worries, though, America! A compromise has been reached! Now, students in Neptune Township, N.J., can walk down the aisle to receive their diploma without having to see…… wait! You will never believe what these high school seniors of the past 70 years have been subjected to! Are you ready? Two signs! Yes, we are saving these seniors and those who attend their graduation from gazing upon two signs! Such horrible things, I know!
So what were on these signs, you ask? “Holiness to the Lord,” and “So Be Ye Holy”. Yes, I know! Cover your eyes, America!
Yet once again the ACLU has bullied their way in and the high school in New Jersey “compromised”. No, they didn’t compromise, they CAVED, plain and simple!
Every single one of our traditions and freedoms are being threatened. The more we bow at the alter of political correctness and sacrifice our freedoms we lose another foothold on this great nation. We are literally handing it over to the enemy. Yes, I said it… the enemy! ANYONE who wants to restrain our freedoms is an enemy!
I am not a Buddhist, but when I walk into a Chinese restaurant and see a Buddha statue it does not offend my sensibilities. So I ask this question: What if my child were going on a school-sponsored field trip and they go to lunch at a Chinese restaurant where there is a statue of Buddha. Should I file a lawsuit against the school district for offended the sensibilities of my child? Of course not! I do not agree with their beliefs, but Buddhists are free to believe whatever they choose to believe. Who am I to tell them they cannot have their statue of Buddha?
We are weakening every facet of our society by allowing the disease of political correctness to dictate what we do. So you don’t agree with the statues, ornaments, signs or other things in a gathering place. Fine, you don’t have to agree with it. But is your mind that weak that you cannot just accept that someone else believes differently than you? Ohhhh yes, I get it! YOU want to infringe what YOU think, feel, believe and don’t believe on EVERYONE else! Political Correctness. It will surely be the death of this great nation.
If a sign offends their delicate little sensibilities, I wonder what will happen on this day- because ONE DAY, EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS that Jesus Christ IS Lord!
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
In what can only be construed as a misguided interpretation of the 14th amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit in North Dakota alleging that the State’s concealed handgun law is unconstitutional.
A U.K. citizen, living in the U.S. was denied a renewal for his concealed handgun permit due to a change in the State’s concealed carry laws. Now, North Dakota requires that a person be a citizen in order to receive the permit. According to a FoxNews.comarticle, the ACLU is invoking a civil war amendment to open the door for persons of any immigration status to be able to carry a concealed weapon legally.
“That to us is a discrimination based upon alienage which would run against the 14th amendment’s prohibition against discrimination upon alienage,” Executive Director of ACLU of South Dakota Robert Doody told FoxNews.com”
The most basic problem with the suit is the position the ACLU is taking on Section 1 of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868 as part of a trio that are called the “reconstruction amendments” or “civil war amendments”. The three amendments were intended to reshape the country from a one of master and slave, to one of Americans.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Section one has three clauses: The first, or citizenship clause, protects the citizenship status of an American from infringement by the States. The second insures due process and the last is the equal protection clause.
The only portions of the 14th amendment that could even vaguely apply are the due process and equal protection clauses. Those clauses apply to “any person” not necessarily a citizen. But what those clauses protect is only the right to due process and equal protection under the law.
The ACLU appears to believe that the due process clause prevents the State from depriving any person of liberty. Therefor, any person living in the United States must be afforded the same liberties or be denied them only through due process.
Since North Dakota has offered its citizens the right to carry concealed weapons, the ACLU is arguing that all persons in North Dakota must therefor also be offered that liberty. This is a very backwards interpretation of the clause. What the clause was intended to do was make sure that when a State decided to deny a person of a liberty, it should only be done through due process.
Due process is certainly being applied in this case. Due process does not guarantee that every person can do what every other can do. If that were the case, parole’s could roam free, felons could have the right to own guns or vote, pedophiles could be allowed to live wherever they pleased. Instead, each of those groups were stripped of the right through the due process of law. Laws and regulations were enacted and once the status of each person was known through legal process, the statutes applied.
In this case, the alien status of the gun owner is not in question. He is an established, permanent resident alien living in the United States. North Dakota enacted a law that prevents anyone other than citizens from carrying concealed weapons. This individual is being treated just like every other alien in North Dakota – no concealed weapons.
The ACLU could easily start the snowball down the hill that becomes a dangerous avalanche. If this suit succeeds in the Supreme court, felons, spousal abusers, child abusers, and many other groups that were previously denied access to guns, explosives and other dangerous materials would now have precedent to sue for those freedoms.
The initial hearing is scheduled for January 27th.
It’s that “most wonderful time of the year” again. Children eagerly await a visit from jolly Santa Claus, while their parents try to squeeze shopping into a schedule already filled with parties, parades, church programs, and visiting relatives. Grandmothers bake dozens of gingerbread and sugar cookies, while rascally uncles down too much eggnog. Wealthy northerners travel to Florida to escape cold weather, while everyone else yearns for a white Christmas.
And the ACLU—that staunch defender of American traditions and values—threatens to sue public schools for acknowledging what all the excitement is about.
Each Christmas season is marked by a series of spirit-dampening stories of towns forced to disassemble nativity scenes, retail stores intimidated into requiring employees to use generic greetings like “Happy Holidays,” and similar Scroogish travesties. This year, one such story comes from Tennessee, where the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to 137 public school administrators, supposedly in response to complaints from families, reminding them not to focus on any one religious holiday.
In other words, don’t call Christmas parties “Christmas parties.” Call them winter celebrations, holiday galas, solstice shindigs, or any other creative misnomer that obfuscates their true purpose and creates a comfortable non-reality for the handful of unfortunate students whose malcontent parents are offended by the celebration of a holiday that is jointly religious and secular in nature.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 92% of Americans celebrate Christmas, while a mere 6% do not. Of that 6%, only 25% celebrate an alternative holiday. That’s a whopping total of 1.5% of Americans who celebrate a December holiday instead of Christmas. And, apparently, most of them live in Tennessee; how else could that state’s chapter of the ACLU have received so many complaints?
Defending the letter, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, cites U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and hints that acknowledging Christmas could be considered an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
She is alluding, of course, to the oft-misinterpreted establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. It obviously applies to a third-grade teacher planning a classroom Christmas party for the last day before break—or so those on the far left argue, rather unconvincingly.
Could it be that Weinberg is one of the 6% of Americans who do not celebrate Christmas, and is using the ACLU’s legal muscle and financial assets to push a personal agenda? Such Grinch-like behavior would certainly be unprofessional, if not unethical. If there was a Santa, Weinberg would be on the naughty list for sure.
The ACLU expects public schools to stage a pointless charade of pretending that the concerts, parties, and vacations common to this time of year are not specifically scheduled around December 25. This is an unreasonable expectation which deserves no serious consideration.
The correct course of action for public school administrators to take is to ignore the ACLU, which is not a government entity and does not represent the views of a majority of parents. It would be wrong to alter school policy simply to avoid the hassle of a lawsuit; this would be yielding to what is called the “heckler’s veto,” by which an antagonistic group goads the government into restricting another group’s First Amendment rights. In this case, the hecklers are the ACLU and the instigators it claims to represent.
Lawsuits are expensive, true, and no administrator wants to be on the receiving end of one, but what is the cost of a lawsuit compared to the cost of an eroded culture and disunited society, purposely divided by secularist troublemakers who value political correctness over common sense?
Snopes.com published an article demonstrating that Peter Lewis, the CEO of Progressive Insurance, is using his company to further the far-left agenda.
This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They’re the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America . He’s your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels “guilty” for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.
Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what’s left of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day.
Certainly, Mr. Lewis has every right to use the proceeds of his company any way he wishes. Just as his customers should realize what political agenda their premium payments are supporting. The article ends with a note to “boycott Progressive”. If you are a Conservative and value the individual freedoms that the ACLU has worked so hard to squash, perhaps letting Mr. Lewis know how you feel by moving your money to a different insurance company is the way to go.
Perusing the liberal blogosphere, I came across some interesting reactions on the Huffington Post (hey I read all sides) to N.Y. Governor Bloomberg’s ‘Terror Gap’ plea. Michael Bloomberg is pointing out that suspected terrorists are able to buy guns. The liberals are going nuts because someone suspected of something is allowed to keep their rights as afforded by the constitution. Where is the ACLU outrage? Why aren’t the right-protecting leftits running around in the streets screaming, “Innocent until proven guilty” or “protect our rights” or whatever else they need to yell before busting up a window or lighting a torch?
“Shouldn’t FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watchlists — and deemed too dangerous to fly? I actually believe that they should..”
Well governor, flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right, owning a gun is. Can you imagine the outrage is a conservative leader announced that we should not allow a person to protest because he/she is on the watch list? Wouldn’t everyone be concerned over the process by which someone gets on the list? Why isn’t the left questioning that now? What if I yell an obscenity at some anti-taxation rally and someone decides I’m a threat. What if the next action is to limit my right to free speech, or speedy trial or due process for that point? Does double-jeopardy get suspended because some Federal official found one of my actions “suspicious”?
It’s a slippery slope, but one the left is happy to grab the slick cardboard of big government and slide down laughing. Due process, innocent until proven guilty – learn it – live it – someone’s coming after it.