Tag Archives: freedom of speech

Confederate Corner with George Neat June 18th – Obama waste, guns and free speech

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, June 18th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Obama wasting money, Star Wars, and the liberals keeping up their war on guns and free speech. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Will Sarah Palin’s Return to Fox News Help Tea Party and Conservatives

Palin has stood and continues to stand on conservative principles that count in American homes.
Sarah Palin returns to Fox News as conservative Tea Party champion and movement leader

Sarah Palin returns to Fox News as conservative Tea Party champion and movement leader

With the stroke of a pen, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin returns to Fox News as a contributor while liberal bombast Chris Matthews of MSNBC loses his weekend syndicated show in July. Does this spell the resurrection of the political street bona fides of Palin who has been a lightning rod for conservatives and the national Tea Party movement since its inception?

What seems clear is that Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News has reached a conclusion that the scandal beleaguered administration of President Barack Obama is fair pickings for conservatives. And what better conservative to have on your news team than Sarah Palin who has done considerable heavy lifting for the conservative movement since Obama took the oath of office as president in 2009.

This is especially critical when one considers that the upcoming mid-term elections of 2014 are rife for the political pickings in terms of governorships, the U.S. Senate and increases in the GOP House majority.

Examine the landscape of the world of politics now where the polls are pointing toward a downward slide regarding Obama’s favorability and a notable upward surge in the public’s rejection of Obama’s handling of Benghazi, the IRS attack on Tea Party organizations’ First Amendment rights and spying on journalists.

The surge in public outrage has changed dramatically since Obama’s reelection when he cobbled together a number of key state victories with Chicago style political strong arming that would make dishonored former President Richard Nixon blush. Yet, while America was having its news hijacked by a compliant mainstream media, Sarah Palin remained on the forefront using their own vehicles to communicate the cracks in Obama’s administration armor.

You remember Benghazi, the murder of four honorable Americans, including America’s Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens scandal that would not go away? The investigation by the House Republicans continued to peel back the wall of lies constructed by the White House and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice under the direction of unnamed State Department and White House officials.

Then came the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn, in December, where gun control advocates like Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to hustle the grieving American public by misdirecting them on who and what caused the tragic deaths of innocent children and school staff. It took leading conservative Second Amendment leaders, including NRA leader Wayne LaPierre’s to reveal the truth behind the lies being perpetrated against legitimate gun owners, and Sarah Palin was right there speaking out on Second Amendment rights.

So as the months passed and the lies began to unravel in terms of Benghazi with subsequent hearings on Capitol Hill and the embarrassing loss by the administration of their own Democrat backed gun control legislation in a Democrat controlled senate, Americans were waking up to the truth about Obama tendency for deception. This was a president and his practices that Palin had already warned about as she continued her work through the grassroots towns and cities across America.

It seems a bit ironic as the former 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate returns to Fox News that the chief bottle washer for liberals Chris Matthews syndicated show goes off into the sunset it.

This appears to coincide with a reenergized Tea Patriotism that has realized vindication in claiming hundreds of Tea Party groups were systematically targeted by IRS government intimidation since 2010.

It does matter whether if a father in Colorado who is battling for gun rights through his right to free speech. It does matter if a mother like Julie Mosher Prince founder of Conservatives Warriors in Lorain County, Ohio proudly states, “Conservative isn’t just a word,” there is a refreshed conservative sea change occurring. Sarah Palin continued presence and return to Fox News represents Act II of the conservative movement America is embracing. Can this be a Reagan-like redux?

Now, it is all hands on deck. While Obama’s scandal of the week continues to erode the effectiveness of the liberals to undermine American patriots who are committed to the preservation of unalienable Constitutional rights, they will not stop attacking conservatives.

With Sarah back in the saddle at Fox News, that should be good news for patriots and Tea Party members all over the nation to take the U.S. Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016.

( Read more – click )

Congressional duel between McDermott and Ryan

ryanirshearing

First, here is a small segment of Congressman Jim McDermott, apparently attempting to educate individuals at the IRS hearings about whether or not the government was attempting to silence conservative groups through the IRS.

Yes, you heard that right. It’s not the fault of the IRS, but the fault of the organizations for attempting to get tax-exempt status in the first place. Most importantly, McDermott does not believe that the IRS targeted the groups because of their political beliefs, in spite of previous testimony to the contrary. But, at least Congressman Paul Ryan was next in line to speak:

Yes, at the beginning of that you heard McDermott attempting to get the attention of the Chair, presumably to call a point of order to silence Ryan. But, no need to pick on that here, since the content of Ryan’s statement is oh so much better. He asked the individuals from the organizations that were targeted whether or not they believed that they were investigated by the IRS simply because they applied for non-profit status – McDermott’s contention – or because of their beliefs. Of course we all know their reply. However, Ryan was kind enough to point out that there already testimony stating that terms often used by progressive organizations were not used to weed out potential organizations for IRS investigations.

Confederate Corner with George Neat June 4th – Liberals just cannot learn

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, June 4th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about public education, guns, freedom of speech, and sharia law. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

TX Cheerleaders Win 1st Amendment Victory

cheerleaders

A Texas court judge ruled today that signs displayed by high school cheerleaders quoting biblical verses were cheerleaders “constitutionally permissible,” and that the Kountze High School cheerleaders could continue to display them at the school’s football games.

The high school cheerleaders had sued the Kountze Independent School District after after they were told they could no longer display the banners with religious messages over arguments that it violated the First Amendment. Earlier in the school year, one unidentified spectator had complained to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The group argued that the banners amounted to a public school’s advocating a particular religion, which was unconstitutional.

The cheerleaders contention was that these banners were student led and initiated and so private speech. Attorneys for the cheerleaders argued the girls’ First Amendment rights to free speech were being violated by the school district and that the messages on the banners were not asking anyone to believe in Christianity or accept the faith.

In his ruling, State District Judge Steve Thomas said that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events and that the banners did not create an establishment of religion in the school.

Gov. Rick Perry offered a statement on the ruling: Today’s ruling is a win for free speech and religious freedom. The Kountze High School cheerleaders showed great resolve and maturity beyond their years in standing up for their beliefs and constitutional rights. I’m proud of them and I celebrate this victory alongside them.

 
For more information watch the video below:

Would You Sign to Rid U.S. of 1st Amendment?

freedom of speech petition

These guys would.

Clips from this video were shown on Fox and Friends Friday. The creator, Mark Dice, wanted to challenge the knowledge of Obama supporters by offering a petition to rid the US of its pesky First Amendment.

Is it okay for those mean right wingers to criticize the president? Want to stop those haters?

Watch as the majority of these naive voters easily sign away their rights.  They have no idea the importance our forefathers placed on free speech nor it’s role today.

This will make you shake your head.

The First Amendment – Only applies to Obama supporters

Katie Tegtmeyer (CC)

Sadly, this is not news. As the president of the First Amendment Center Ken Paulson  has pointed out, it is necessary to call attention to cases where conservatives are being targeted for speaking out against Obama. Unfortunatelty, the targets are in the classrooms – teachers and students alike.

Katie Tegtmeyer (CC)

The primary argument, in the case of the teachers, appears to be that they should be held to a higher standard. That statement in itself is disconcerting, considering that it isn’t in the context of suggesting that teachers should be competent at teaching. (That wouldn’t fit in well with the modis operandi of the teacher unions, that have built a long history of protecting incompetent educators from permanent dismissal from the classroom.) Of course, this begs the question – what does this teach our youth?

Other than trampling the right to free speech, the arguably more troubling lesson is that the people, in the minds of the liberals, are no longer charged with holding their government accountable – for anything. That is not surprising, given the fact that the media has essentially stopped its role as watchdog. But, that does not justify setting up the next generation for a lifetime of subjugation.

Conservatives often bandy about the term “socialism” in reference to the Obama administration, and when cases like this come up, we are literally handed proof of our contentions on a silver platter. One of the primary goals of leaders in a socialist society is to control communications of the people. Individuals that do not submit to the will of the state disappear – literally, and historically. They are written out of history, airbrushed out of the collective memory. The attacks we are seeing now against conservatives that dare to speak out against this administration are merely the beginning of that sort of systemic censorship.

In the case of the students speaking out on social media, we are already on the slippery slope. Courts have started ruling against their right to speak freely, offering the thin excuse that social media interactions can lead to disruptive behavior in the classrooms. There is no mention of the possibility that these situations could become teaching moments, but that would require that public schools actually attempt to encourage students to engage in free and critical thought exercises. Obviously, that doesn’t fit into the curriculum anymore.

Paulson suggested that perhaps it is time to have a website devoted to tracking these violations of the First Amendment. Perhaps that is a good idea. However, I humbly suggest that if such a thing would come into existence, it would also need to create a resource for individuals that are targeted in these insidious attacks by the left. Whoever creates this clearing house of information also needs to recruit attorneys to represent these people – particularly the students, since they are the most vulnerable targets involved. (Yes, that is a hint to conservative lawyers to start helping fellow conservatives!)

American Embassy in Cairo statement defends the wrong ideals

US Embassy Logo

On September 11th, the American Embassy to Egypt in Cairo released a statement objecting to content that might hurt the feelings of Muslims.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

“Respect for religious beliefs” is not a cornerstone of American democracy – the right of a religion to worship freely is. A true fundamental principle of the American way-of-life is freedom of speech. While a religion is free to practice as it wishes, as long is its practices do not infringe the rights of others, it is also the right of others to speak out against those practices they find disagreement with.

The Cairo embassy statement is in direct conflict with American values, but firmly in line with the apologetic line of the Obama administration.

Even the President’s own first statement on the Libyan embassy attack included an apology first and condemnation later as Obama said, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

It is perfectly acceptable for a free people to condemn the practices they see as wrong. Having the President and his State department defend one religion at the cost of free speech is weak and disrespectful of what makes America great.

If we may only say things that will never offend anyone, we will likely never say or do anything important or principled.

Media Matters, Rush Limbaugh, and the Delusional Left-Wing

Media Matters for America has had a hard-on to nail Rush Limbaugh to the wall for years now. Since they have taken some degree of credit for the departure of Glenn Beck from FoxNews network, they’ve been riding high on their perceived accomplishments. So when the whole Sandra Fluke affair came on the scene, they leaped into action.

Annoy Rush - MMFA

ginnerobot (CC)


Contrary to what the MMFA minions might try to say, this was definitely on the back-burner for a long time now. The stickers pictured here were photographed in 2009 in Pittsburgh, PA, according to the photographer’s notes on Flickr. Sorry, but investing in stickers is a sign that an organization either already has definitive plans to deal with a given issue, or is at least in the process of making them. Then there are the claims by the folks on Twitter that are supporting this campaign to put Limbaugh out of business that they are not employed by MMFA. Yes, they probably aren’t being paid to smear not only Limbaugh, but also his advertisers. However, they are doing precisely what MMFA wants them to do.

Jeffrey Lord, former Reagan White House political director, explores the concept of left-wing tactics against Limbaugh exhaustively here. Primary to this sort of campaign working is the recruitment of “true-believers” that will carry out what the organizers want with little or no support or direction from above. So, while these campaigners might like to believe that they are not working on behalf of MMFA, they are – inadvertently at least. Lord explores the similarities between this campaign, and previous ones from socialist ideology. Of course the MMFA troops on the ground are ridiculing his contentions, presumably because they don’t even realize that they are essentially puppets for the left-wing media organization.

But don’t be lulled into thinking that this is a harmless exercise because it is being carried out by puppets. The harm that they are causing is very real. It has moved beyond simply asking advertisers not to continue supporting Limbaugh, to rather high levels of intimidation. The following video is an interview with Mark Stevens, CEO of MSCO, a marketing firm in Rye Brook, NY. Stevens contends that the left-wing campaigners against Limbaugh have gone too far, and crossed line between protesting and terrorism.

I’ve already pointed out the poisonous rhetoric seen from the left here where it’s being vented against Rick Santorum’s daughters, and here against me personally. But in the case of Limbaugh, one only needs to Google “Kill Rush Limbaugh” to see many examples of calls to violence. In the case of advertisers, however, it’s gotten to the point where anti-Limbaugh campaigners are posting phone numbers online, encouraging fellow followers to call businesses of all shapes and sizes to stop advertising.
Left-wing economic stimulus
In case anyone missed it, the economy is still not in the best shape. Small businesses have been considered the most likely candidates to pull us out of our problems. So what does the left-wing do? Of course, they engage in a virulent campaign against small business owners over a radio personality. If it stuck to just words on a screen or on the phone, it would be fine. However, as Stevens pointed out, it has taken a more dangerous turn, to the point where protesters are invading the privacy and safety of business owners. And the only sin that these businesses committed was that they recognized that their potential client pool listens to the Rush Limbaugh show. The protesters causing all of this trouble probably would never use the services of any of these small, local advertisers, and they are contacting these businesses from other states. Complaining to businesses that one would actually use is one thing, but this is something else entirely.

But other than forcing Limbaugh off the air, what could MMFA’s agenda in this really be? Well, we need look no further than the radio industry wonks for that answer.

RBR-TVBR observation: We have to wonder if all of this is actually just plain ol’ politics. We’re heading toward the presidential election and Rush’s focus has been taken off his usual ball, onto his own crisis. Limbaugh has a lot of impact on elections. The less he says against Obama and the more he says on defending himself just diminishes the sway he has with listeners, specifically independent voters. Yes, he sure did a terrible thing, but are Media Matters’ efforts really all about him at this point or affecting the influence he has with voters? Remember, George Soros gave Media Matters a $1 million donation last year. Looks like we know where at least some of that money is going. Look, Media Matters serves a good purpose as a media watchdog, but it seems to be going a bit beyond its charter lately.

So, while it might be tempting to engage the left-wing on this one, perhaps the best advice is to essentially let it slide. Do vocally and financially support the advertisers that haven’t left the show. Do write to Limbaugh with questions and topics that will get him back on the ball when it comes to Obama. Do encourage businesses that suffer from intimidation from the left-wing to take the same route Stevens has, and refuse to back down. Don’t condescend to even communicate with the MMFA minions. Just keep an eye on them, to keep up with their shenanigans.

RFK Jr. Calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute- Media Outrage?

When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut on his radio show, he loses advertisers and outraged liberals everywhere demand that the FCC pull his broadcaster’s license.

However, when Robert F Kennedy Jr. calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute on Twitter, not only is there no media firestorm, but Twitter followers retweet his comments.

On Tuesday night, Kennedy tweeted:

Speaking of prostitutes, big oil’s top call girl Sen Inhofe wants to kill fuel economy backed by automakers, small biz, enviros, & consumers [sic]

Isn’t the bestowing of the name ‘prostitute’ on an individual exactly what the liberals are in a huff about? When Rush did it he was berated by the media. His use of the term was absurd and offensive. The same should be true of Kennedy’s use of the word right?

You might think so, however, when Kennedy was criticized over his Tweet, he once again took to Twitter and defended himself:

To my critics: What do you call a politician — democrat or republican — who sells the public interest for money?

Now when outrage erupted following his criticism of Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh issued a very sincere apology, twice, stating that his comments were outrageous and beneath him.

Despite this, a petition calling for the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s permit to broadcast over public airwaves began on signon.org. The petition states that Rush’s use of indecent language is grounds for the revoking of his permit.

According to the stunning logic of signers of this petition:

“The lies and hate of a hypocritical drug addict are NOT in the public interest and are counter to the United States Constitution”

“People can be arrested for running thier [sic] mouth in a public place as he does on the radio.”

Others call his rant racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic- which leads one to wonder- how many of these people actually listen to Rush on a daily basis and/or actually heard his comments about Sandra Fluke?

The public condemnation for Kennedy? Non-existent. When Kennedy uses the same word, where’s the media’s outrage? Not only wasn’t there any- but some of Kennedy’s Twitter followers re-Tweeted his comment calling Senator Inhofe a prostitute.

Apparently, it’s not okay to call someone a prostitute if you’re a conservative. But if you’re a liberal, it is. Thus proving the media’s double standard for the left.

Or is there no outrage because Kennedy, a man, called another man a prostitute, while Limbaugh, a man, called a woman a prostitute? Well, that’s sexism. Aren’t the liberals always calling the evil conservatives racist?

Either way, to react so strongly to one instance, and not at all to the other is outrageous. So much for freedom of speech.

Bigot or Not? I Say Not: The Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

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.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
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.

Want a Christian roommate? Don’t say so in Michigan

Do we have the right to choose who we live with?

It’s a valid question, now that the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan is attacking an unnamed woman for seeking a Christian roommate. The 31-year-old, who is single, posted the advertisement at her church last July.

“Christian roommate wanted,” she wrote, and included her contact information. Seems harmless enough, right? What churchgoer could possibly find such an ad to be offensive? And what government agency could possibly take such a complaint seriously?

The case is in the hands of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the woman could be required to pay hefty fines and take what FHCWM Executive Director Nancy Haynes describes as “fair housing training.”

The FHCWM argues that the woman’s advertisement “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” thereby violating Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. More commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act, it prohibits illegal housing discrimination, including discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, familial status, national origin, and disability status.

One of the problems with the FHCWM’s argument—and there are many—is that the Fair Housing Act does not negate the rights recognized by the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. It is entirely natural for an unmarried Christian woman to want to live with someone who shares her beliefs about right and wrong, and making that preference known—on a church bulletin board, of all places—does not constitute discrimination.

Would it have been better for the woman to mislead would-be roommates into believing that they would be welcome regardless of religious affiliation? Of course not. She did the right thing by making her preference known, so that non-Christians wouldn’t waste their time. And, again, the advertisement was posted in a church, not a newspaper.

Clearly, the provisions of the Fair Housing Act are not aimed at people who are seeking roommates. Every individual has the right to choose who shares their living space, and no federal or state law can legitimately force them to “integrate,” a term which appears on the FHCWM’s website with unusual frequency.

This story brings with it an opportunity to debate the proper relationship between civil rights and property rights. Would-be tenants and roommates do not have a right to live on a certain property, but the owner of the property does have a natural right to decide that they may or may not, for any reason. Civil rights activists might cry foul at this point, arguing that housing discrimination is unfair, and they would be correct. Discrimination is unfair, and so is life, but government exists only to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property—not to make life fair.

If the Michigan Department of Civil Rights has any sense, it will throw the case out, and issue a stern warning to the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan to stop wasting its time with agenda-based assaults on Christians, and get back to investigating real cases of illegal housing discrimination. Unless, of course, it wants to become involved in a costly, complicated court case.

The Battle for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

My introduction to liberal intolerance came 30 years ago when, still wet behind the ears, I went to New York City for a college journalism internship. The university I attended required an internship for graduation. I remember there must have been about 70 seniors in my journalism class that year. Somehow, the journalism Gods looked kindly upon me that year because I found favor among the professors and I was given my choice of one of four internships the university had arranged for students in New York City. That was fine with me – it meant I didn’t have to debase myself with the local media by begging for the opportunity to work for them for free.

One of my professors came to me and offered me first pick among the available internships. The choices were the Associated Press, United Press International, a magazine (I can’t remember which one it was), and Newspaper Enterprise Association/United Features Syndicate. Bored with the idea of working for a wire service I decided to do something radical and chose NEA/UFS.

Wow, did I ever get an introduction to liberal bias in the media.

Pan Am Building

The former Pan Am Building, now known as the Met Life Building.

The Monday I was first to report for work I ascended from the depths of the subway system underneath Grand Central Station and then took the escalator from the train station to what was then called the Pan Am Building but is now known as the Met Life Building. The little slip of paper I was carrying instructed me to take the elevator to the 6th Floor – so far so good.  Then it got a little weird for a snot-nosed kid from the Rocky Mountains. The 6th Floor, as far as I could discern, consisted of nothing more than an oval hallway with tons of unmarked, locked doors. It was a little like “I’ll take Door Number 3, Bob!” I had no choice but to go door-to-door, trying each of the door knobs in hopes that one would be unlocked. I had visions of barging in on gangsters in the midst of dividing up their loot. I kept an eye out for submachine guns and bootleg whiskey. I never did find submachine guns, but the truth was stranger than fiction. I finally found an unlocked door and entered the reception room. The room was empty…except for the receptionist safely ensconced behind bulletproof glass. I figured NEA/UFS must really write some inflammatory stuff. Once I got past the receptionist and was ushered into the inner sanctum of liberal journalism, my view of my chosen profession was forever altered.

“What exactly would you like to do here?” asked the Senior Vice President of Editorial Operations while I nervously sat in the guest chair facing his desk. I had always dreamed of becoming a sports writer so I told him I would like to write sports feature stories. “No problem!” he replied. “But we can’t let you do that until we clear you with the union first.” What the Hell? Yup, sure enough, I wasn’t going to be allowed to write material in The Big Apple media until the journalism union vetted me for political correctness. So for the first three weeks of an eight-week internship I was relegated to the copy desk. There I was assigned to carefully read the words of all of Charles Schultz’ Peanuts cartoon strips. It seems my job was to make sure old Charlie didn’t try to slip any four-letter words into his cartoons. I still envision Snoopy saying “What the $(@# happened to my food bowl? I’m happy to report that Schultz was a class act and never attempted anything that nefarious. I was bored. I begged for something more substantial to do. So they let me sit in on business meetings for new product development. Yes, it is true, I witnessed the launch of Garfield the Cat to the American public. I recall sitting in the boardroom as internal presentations were made to the staff, informing us that management was confident that Garfield was going to be one hot commodity. They were right, of course. Garfield hit it big.

But I was still bored, waiting around for the union aristocracy to let me write. So management, in its wisdom, assigned me to edit the columns of a certain Julian Bond – Yup, THAT Julian Bond. It didn’t take me long to figure out Bond’s brain was hard-wired in a way I had never seen before.

Julian Bond

Julian Bond

I quickly became convinced that Bond was from another planet. Turns out he was nothing but a hard-left political activist from Tennessee by way of Georgia. Bond was instrumental in the formation of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). When I started my job of editing his left-wing rants, Bond had recently completed an eight-year stint as President of the SPLC. Every week Bond would fax me his latest diatribes. Reading his columns gave me a tad of insight into the minds of radical leftists. Like I said before, I thought he was from another planet. I got the feeling that Bond had never been taught common sense as a child. I’m still convinced I was right on that point. When Bond was only 20 years old he became a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and he served as the communications director of that radical group from 1961 to 1966. During those same years I was attending elementary school in Backwater, USA and I am proud to say he never communicated to me at all, not once. I guess he didn’t quite have the job down, yet.  In 1965, having failed to communicate with me, Bond tried something else and went and got himself elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. He made quite the impression on his colleagues in the Georgia House of Representatives. On January 10, 1966 the Georgia state representatives voted 184-12 not to seat him because he publicly endorsed SNCC’s opposition to the United States policy in the Vietnam War. In other words, he was certainly influencing people but he sure wasn’t making friends. It seems Bond just couldn’t keep his mouth shut as he also expressed his views publicly that draft dodgers were right and the Draft Board was wrong. Finally, later in 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in his favor and forced the Georgia House of Representatives to seat him. Bond was a political opportunist. At the time I burned out both my eyeballs and my brain by reading his rants, he had graduated to the Georgia Senate. He used his relationship with NEA/UFS to spread his Gospel of socialism to the unwashed masses – and boy did I ever want to wash once I was through correcting his grammatical errors. I made it a habit to run for “The Editorial Wee” just as soon as I had finished working on his copy. This wasn’t quite the internship I had anticipated.

Finally, word arrived that the writer’s union had approved my application to construct sentences for pay. It seems that they couldn’t find any indication of conservative thought in my limited examples of previous works. You know…inflammatory pieces about basketball, hockey, and the occasional fluff piece on college softball. I was in! Now, if I had spent my time covering politics on my student newspaper I am sure the union would have rejected me. But at that time, it appears, sports writing hadn’t yet been politicized to the point that Big Union Brother was going to come down hard on an obscure little college student for his writings on college basketball. That’s what saved me.

On a more serious note, to this day I take offense that the union had the power to decide if I was to be given to right to write professionally. I’m no lawyer but I seem to remember something about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. And I can’t find anything in the U.S. Constitution that conveys the power to unions to decide who will be allowed to write for a news organization. But idealism met reality. No wonder to this day there is a liberal bias in the media!

It was amazing how my opportunities changed the moment the union gave me its blessing.

Julius Erving

Almost instantly I was taking Julius Erving, “Dr. J.” to lunch at the 21 Club. I was interviewing Grete Waitz, then the world’s top-ranked long distance runner. I was meeting and greeting with the likes of Hank Greenberg of Cy Young Award fame and Wilma Rudolph – star of the 1960 Rome Olympics. I was meeting and writing stories on the Olympic swimmer John Nabor…and on and on… I had been accepted into the club. I can now easily see how members of the national media consider themselves part of the political “Elite.” Access to the truly famous and powerful is an intoxicating drug. Somehow, the political elites in the media think that, by association, they too are just as “elite” as those about whom they write.

It makes it easy to see how the liberal masters at National Public Radio (NPR) gave Juan Williams the boot. I mean, here was a guy who was one of them. He had also been given the union blessing. He was one of the “elite.” So how could a guy who had been given so much have the temerity to actually diss the kind, misunderstood Muslim terrorists? It was a betrayal of all that is sacred to the liberal media. Liberals, famous for their tolerance, aren’t quite as tolerant as they would have you believe.

For example, Tammy Bruce, a gay, reformed liberal, writing in The Guardian in Great Britain, recently said”

“The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda.

“Think about what would happen if you did act up? If you dared to say you like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn’t to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he’s doing, you know there would be a price to pay. Odds are that your “liberal” friends would very liberally hate you. At the very least, being shunned would be your new experience, condemning you to suffer that horrific liberal malady called social death.” – Tammy Bruce

Well, Juan Williams certainly knows now what happens to liberal journalists that betray the faith. They get canned.

Juan Williams

Juan Williams

Oh yeah, and betrayers of the faith also get their sanity questioned by their former employers. The smear campaign starts immediately. Journalists are kept in line through intimidation the same way politicians are kept in line. Say or write something that doesn’t pass the liberal smell test and anyone; even professed liberal journalists and politicians will get smeared. And if the journalist or politician is a conservative the smears will be unrelenting for the rest of the target’s life. Just ask Sarah Palin about that.

It is instructive that from Barack Obama on down, conservatives are being smeared as extremists, racists, homophobes, and as embarrassments to the country. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. Have you noticed that those who process membership in the Tea Party are labeled Tea Baggers? And any street wise kid can tell you the meaning of the words “Tea Bagger.” So what is the Tea Party anyway? Why, it is nothing more than another word for conservatives! It is conservatism that is being attacked. It is happening everywhere.

Ari Berman, writing in the New York Times, is advocating that Blue Dog (Conservative ) Democrats be given the boot from the Democratic Party. Remember, it was the flaming liberals who seized control of the Democratic Party. It was the liberals who carped incessantly about the need for the conservative Democrats to tolerate their presence and to welcome liberals into the big tent that was the Democrat Party. But now that the far-left radicals have taken complete control of the Democratic Party the tent isn’t quite so big any more. Here’s Berman, writing just last weekend in the New York Times.

“Republicans have become obsessed with ideological purity, and as a consequence they will likely squander a few winnable races in places like Delaware. But Democrats aren’t ideological enough. Their conservative contingent has so blurred what it means to be a Democrat that the party itself can barely find its way. Polls show that, despite their best efforts to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are likely to be defeated this November. Their conservative voting records have deflated Democratic activists but have done nothing to win Republican support.

“Far from hastening the dawn of a post-partisan utopia, President Obama’s election has led to near-absolute polarization. If Democrats alter their political strategy accordingly, they’ll be more united and more productive.” – Ari Berman

Did you catch what Berman is saying? He claims that Democrats are lacking in their intensity of ideology. In other words, if you aren’t a fully loaded Marxist with a Joe Stalin fetish, it is time for you to hit the road. There’s not room for you in the Democratic Party. All Hail, Obama! For what it’s worth, I’m sure Berman has full approval of the writer’s union. He’s elite, don’t you know!

Rest assured that union control over professional journalism is alive and well. Freedom of Speech continues to be under attack from the left. Freedom of the Press also continues to be attacked by the left. In the eyes of the progressive/socialist/communist media, Freedom of the Press can only be achieved in a political environment exactly like that which gave us Pravda. The progressives are nothing but communists (little “c”, not the big “C”). They may not actually be card carrying members of the Communist Party, but their thought processes are exactly alike. In their minds there is only room for one line of thought in the public arena – theirs. That is why they completely lost their cookies when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Corporations have Freedom of Speech and can spend money on election financing just like the unions can. And that’s why you see Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid hammering away at the meme that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking foreign funds for the purpose of purchasing TV advertisements that favor conservatives.  Naturally there is no evidence proffered to support their charges. Why? – Because evidence doesn’t matter – only the seriousness of the charges matter. This is merely an attempt to perform an end run around the Supreme Court decision.

If the day ever arrives that you and I truly have lost the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, we will have lost the war. We will become like Cuba, China, the citizens of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the former East Germany. We will be slaves. So stand up for your Freedom of Speech. Hit back at any attempt on the part of the left to restrict Freedom of the Press. Remember that Freedom of the Press applies to anyone who publishes political thought – not just the media corporations. So individuals choosing to blog on their political beliefs are granted Freedom of the Press just as much as that enjoyed by The New York Times. It isn’t the scope of influence or the size of the organization that matters – it is the free-flowing of speech that matters.

The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs in this country have every bit as much right to express their views as to the elitist masters at NPR and Newsweek Magazine. You and I share those rights. If the day ever comes that wannabe dictators such as Obama succeed in depriving us of our rights, our nation will be doomed.

So take to the polls on November 2nd. Stand up for what is right, regardless of the intimidation tactics that will be employed against you. Better to endure some intimidation now than to live under tyranny later. America, turn out November 2nd in a wave of righteous protest the likes of which this country has never seen before! Sweep the liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, environmental wacko, tree-hugging filth from public office. It is time for common sense to return to office and for the Julian Bond clones to leave the governing to those who respect individual liberties, personal freedom, and heroic sacrifices on the battlefield and in the public arena. May a thunderous wave of decency and righteousness wash over our land, reclaiming it for all the patriots among us.

The true heroes of this country are not Van Jones, Michelle Obama, and Steny Hoyer. PatriotsThe true patriots are the countless mothers who quietly go about teaching their children the difference between right and wrong – and give hugs and all the love they can hold. The true patriots among us are the moms and dads who sacrifice everything they have to give their children a bright future. The patriots among us are the workers in this country – not those who would suck off the welfare teat. The patriots among us are the businessmen and women who create jobs as they chase the American Dream. The patriots among us are the soldiers who give their lives in battle, making the ultimate sacrifice so that we might remain free. The patriots among us are the working poor – they may be down but they are not out. The patriots among us are the rich – who stretch forth their hands and share their wealth freely and charitably to lift those in need – voluntarily and not forced upon them by government redistributive wealth edicts. In short, the patriots are us, for we are who make this country work.

If you want to remain free, vote. If you want your children to be free, vote. If you want to freely express your opinion, vote. If you want to defeat our domestic enemies, vote.

A servant of the Israelite prophet, Elisha, fearing that the forces of Israel were insufficient to achieve military victory, and fearful that freedom would be lost, got a lesson from the Lord. For the Lord opened his eyes to the Heavenly Host, an unseen army arrayed against the forces of darkness.

And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?

And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.

And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his aeyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and bchariots of fire round about Elisha. – 2 Kings: 6: 15-17

Have faith, America. The forces that are with us are greater than the forces that are with Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Grayson, and Barney Frank. They are attempting to dispirit us now. They are manipulating the press, which I have spoken of here, for the purpose of getting us to believe that the pendulum is swinging back their direction. But that is a lie. They always speak in lies. The truth is that the freedom-loving people of America can hardly be restrained – we are chomping at the bit, eagerly waiting November 2nd.

November 2, 2010 is going to be a day that will be remembered long after we are gone and buried. The sleeping giant that is the Silent Majority has been awakened. The giant has come to do battle. The victory on November 2nd is upon us. Bless you all as you go into battle on that day. We fight for our freedoms and the freedoms of our families, our friends, and for each other. The forces that are with us are greater than the forces that are with them.

The battle is joined. God bless America.

Liberty Lost – Variations on a Theme

This week, the Conservative Daily News team decided to focus on liberty.  With the 8-28 Restoring Honor rally this weekend, it seems logical that we would focus on a foundational principle of our republic – individual freedom.

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson: “Rights of British America, 1774″  – The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

John Smith (StopObama2012) starts us off with  a look into current events and their encroachment upon our individual rights.  From John’s “Freedoms& Liberties: Under Constant Attack

Ladies and gentlemen, liberty is under attack – an attack that the Obama Administration has put into overdrive. It did not begin with Obama, but hopefully – come November – we can turn it around and alter our government to get it back in tune with our “unalienable Rights.” I am going to list several of these attacks, many of which are carefully disguised in Cass Sunstein’s favorite term, “Nudges.” First lets take a look through some Executive Orders so we can analyze it straight from the top. [Read More]

In, “The Shredding of the Constitution“, I chose to delve into specific actions and policy that directly impact the Bill of Rights

Individual liberties have been at the core of our Great American Experiment since it’s beginning.  The Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence make the case that certain rights are inalienable and the Constitution sets down the framework by which they should be protected.  President Obama is the master at the helm of a liberty-destroying administration replete with progressive extremists that find the Constitution to be a major obstacle to their self-aggrandizing agenda – precisely the obstacle our founders had intended it to be.  [Read More]

PolarCoug discusses how Obama’s approach to leadership is more tyrannical than Presidential in “Obama’s No Leader, He’s just a Dictator Wanabe“.

..despite the fact the leadership gene is absent from Obama’s DNA, he does happen to rule over us in a despotic sort of way. Frankly, he has the power to restrict our liberties, and has demonstrated, time and again, a desire to do precisely that. America is at one of those hinge points of history – the ending of one era and the beginning of another. It is a time fraught with dangers to our personal liberties. It is also a time of blessing, for the dangers facing us have awakened the sleeping giant that is America’s soul.. [Read More]

Michelle Ray reveals that indebtedness is a sure way to lose the right (and ability) to pursue happiness in “You Are No Longer Entitled To Pursue Happiness“.

It is unthinkable for most middle class Americans that their taxes will increase significantly, but that is exactly what has happened, and will continue to happen. With the passage of program after program aimed at fiscal stimulus, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Financial Reform, the inflation of food prices and the looming cap and trade legislation, taxes will continue to rise to the point of your average family no longer being able to sustain their current existence. [Read More]

Evidence Against Michigan Militias Sketchy

AP reports that the judge in the case where militia members are being detained for planning an attack on police in order to foment a national rebellion, is questioning the prosecution’s case.

“Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. … How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?” Roberts said.

Judge Roberts also notes that no one actually instructs anyone to take any illegal action.  They just demonstrate the anger against current government policies in private.

The prosecution highlights what they feel are seditious comments:

“It’s now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up,”

This could have been part of any campaign speech or rally.  In fact the lawyers for one of the defendants pointed out how the militia members’ frustration with the current direction of the country mirrored a large portion of  America.

“Millions of people” are talking about “taking our country back,” Weiss said.

Certainly there is a line between venting frustration and being a traitor to the United States.  That line has to be carefully drawn and guarded by the judiciary – lest all of us get thrown in jail for wanting to “take our country back”.