No Free Speech For Students On The Web

UPDATE:

Apparently the student in question attempted to publicly apologize to the principal for the comments, but the principal wasn't adult enough to accept.


While I await Blogger's response to the template problems I figured I might as well still keep the site somewhat updated. The following story should never have gotten so far as to be discussed, because it is nothing short of ludicrous.

This story conjures up memories of the school that banned their students from going to Myspace ... while at home. Yep, you heard me. A school banned their students from any Myspace activity at school, or at home. The truly sad part is how some parents supported the school being able to tell their kids what they could, and could not, do in their own homes. That was clearly an abuse of authority on the school's part, and severely crossed the line.

As hard as it might be to believe, I think this latest story goes even further in illustrating just how far schools will go to seize control of your children. Especially when your kids are not at school.

AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.

But a lawyer for the Burlington, Conn., school told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that administrators should be allowed to act if such comments are made on the Web.

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

After discovering the blog entry, school officials refused to allow Doninger to run for re-election as class secretary. Doninger won anyway with write-in votes, but was not allowed to serve.

Since when is speaking your mind a disqualification to run for public office? I don't know how many student elections these administrators have witnessed, but every one I've seen has always had students complaining about the administration, and advocating fighting for student's rights to face down the school faculty. At the end of the day ... a school should not be allowed to punish a student for comments made off school campus. The only exception would be threats of violence. Can you imagine your kid coming home with detention and an RPC because they called the principal a douche the night before at the dinner table? This is no different, and to make matters worse the school has found support in the equally corrupt courts.

A lower federal court had supported the school. U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz, denying Doninger's request for an injunction, said he believed she could be punished for writing in a blog because the blog addressed school issues and was likely to be read by other students.

Her lawyer, Jon L. Schoenhorn, told the appeals court Tuesday that what students write on the Internet should not give schools more cause to regulate off-campus speech.

We don't even punish our own politicians for what they write on blogs, and many of their postings (i.e. Murtha) are traitorous at best. Yet we do not punish them for making traitorous statements that are proven to be lies, but we'll punish a kid for exercising her first amendment right?

Why This Conservative Thinks Charles Barkley Is Right

Sir Charles has been catching some serious flak from the conservative blogosphere for his comments about conservatives being "fake Christians." If you haven't seen the interview with Blitzer ... you can watch it below before you continue reading this post.

fake christians
by luvnews

Frankly, conservatives should cut him some slack for saying he's voting Democrat because he doesn't like the direction Republicans are taking the country. Especially since many conservatives, and registered Republicans, feel the same way and are doing the same thing this next election to "prove a point", and that is exactly what they did the last congressional election. Conservatives were fed up with Republicans abandoning their principals, and they didn't like the direction Republicans were taking the country.

If you are familiar with Charles Barkley's political rants in the past ... you know damn well that Sir Charles holds many conservative beliefs, and has openly stated we wants to run for office as a Republican. He also holds many liberal beliefs as well ... many of these come from the disinformation the MSM has been putting out for years. In other words ... if I were to sit and talk with Barkley about those issues I could probably change his mind. If you were to classify his political affiliation .. he is a moderate who leans right ... as most Americans are.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that moderates are liberals in hiding, or cowards afraid to pick a side. I love Rush, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Most Americans have conservative values, but maintain at least a few liberal ideals. Hence ... most Americans are moderates who lean to the right.

Barkley makes his case against conservatives by stating he has no problem with gay marriage, and he is pro-choice. He addresses how hypocritical religious conservatives are, to him, because they often behave in a manner that is actually against the teachings of Christ and the bible. That's where Barkley makes his statement that is getting him in trouble with conservatives. He essentially said that these conservative Christians are "fake Christians" because they don't forgive others, and they judge other people harshly if they don't agree with their point of view. He is dead on accurate.

Unfortunately, Sir Charles ignorantly lumps the majority into the minority. When he stated that he gets sick every time he hears the word conservative ... he makes the mistake of attacking conservatives rather than religious zealots. He apparently doesn't draw a distinction between Republicans, conservatives, and the religious right. This is a grave error, and it has led to conservatives retaliating for being attacked. Even though Barkley wasn't knowingly attacking true conservatives at all.

One of the major mistakes that we conservatives continue to make is that we don't do enough to distinguish ourselves from Republicans. Nor have we taken the proper, and necessary, measures to separate ourselves from the religious right. By religious right I don't mean people who are religious, I mean bible thumping zealots who don't stand for conservative values, and are barely distinguishable from a cult. These groups of "Christians" are dangerous, and should be shunned by those of us who have authentic Judeo/Christian values.

It is important that you understand while reading this that I am not talking about all people of religion. I am only speaking of the fanatics. Those who blindly follow their faith the way they are told to follow it rather than how God and Jesus instructed. These people are, in fact, the biggest hypocrites in this country as Barkley accurately stated in his interview.

As a talk show host I have had many discussions of a religious nature, and have been extremely disturbed by many of my conversations with so called "Christian" listeners ... including priests, pastors, etc. I've not only been disturbed as a conservative, but as a Christian myself to the intolerance of others, elitism, hypocrisy, and downright vitriol that many of these callers convey to me.

One such example came when I had been discussing Islam in schools. There were some cases where teachers were teaching the Muslim religion to students in their class without parents knowing about it, and the many instances of schools accommodating Muslim students while refusing to extend the same courtesy to Christian students. Naturally, I was enraged that these events were taking place. It is not only against the law to teach religion in public schools, but we had a Muslim teacher indoctrinating their students in order to convert them to Islam. As to be expected, I fielded dozens of calls for over an hour from angry Christian parents who were railing on about how wrong it was to try to convert students in the classroom to a different religion than that of the child and their family. I naturally agreed with all of them because they were right. No outside force, especially a teacher, has any right to attempt to coax children away from their family's religion ... period.

Literally the next day I had another story with the same exact plot. A teacher was forcing a religion upon their students without the parents knowing about it, and many parents were rightfully upset with the teacher attempting to convert their children to the teacher's religion. To my utter horror I took call after call from listeners who were angry with me for attacking the teacher. I couldn't figure it out. It was the same exact story as the day before. You had a teacher who was forcing a specific religion upon their students against parents' wishes, and the parents were rightfully angry about it. There was literally no difference between the two stories ... except one. While the story the previous day was a Muslim teacher indoctrinating students ... the story this day was a Christian teacher indoctrinating students. To make matters worse, I took calls from several people who had called the previous day to express their outrage at a Muslim talking about Islam in class. Only now they were supporting the Christian talking about Christianity in class. Why would they be ok with one religion indoctrinating kids against parents' wishes, and opposed to the other? There is only one explanation. They are intolerant hypocrites.

Another issue where this hypocrisy reared its ugly head was only a couple of weeks ago. My co-host frequently says "oh my God." I do also, but to a lesser extent. I would like to point out that we are both Christians (her more so than me), and this was never done out of malice. However, a listener wrote a letter to our boss complaining about the use of that phrase. My boss responded by saying we didn't mean anything by it, and it is just the way we talk ... it's no big deal. By boss received an angry response containing a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS, and explanation points!!!!!!!!!! This guy was saying that it was a big deal, we needed to respect and abide by the ten commandments, and something about us being evil I think. In other words, this zealot was offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and demanded we be censored until we fell in line with the ten commandments. He did not tell me which version of the ten commandments he wanted me to abide by. Just so you know ... there are several versions more than the traditional two we are most familiar with. Clearly he has never read the bible or studied the teachings of Christ. Nor does he hold the Constitution in any regard, and he is clearly intolerant of other belief systems. If you don't agree as he does ... you must be silenced. That is the attitude Charles Barkley was talking about.

I felt I had a topic with this guy's letter so I read it on the air, and asked for feedback. I asked if the listeners were offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and I urged religious leaders to call in as well. While most of the calls were from sensible people, who identified themselves as Christians, defending Heather and myself ... some were not so understanding.

After taking several calls saying it was no big deal, and people should stop being so over sensitive ... I started getting calls from those over sensitive types. The first lady said that it offended her greatly to hear me use the lord's name in vain. She said that I should never say "oh my God" again because there are people who listen to my show who will be offended. So I should stop saying the phrase because I might offend someone. I then asked her if I should never talk about Mohammed again because that offends Muslims greatly. Her response illustrated just how hypocritical the overly religious can be. She said "she didn't care what Muslims thought." Oh really? "What is the difference between offending Christians, and offending Muslims," I asked. She had no answer for me, and continued to say that my saying "oh my God" offended her. I then asked why I should care about offending her if she didn't care about offending Muslims. She ran out of ways to deflect my question, and finally caved by saying that I should never talk about the prophet Mohammed. So now I've been censored twice!

From there I took the obvious stance that I should not say a whole host of things because it may offend listeners. I can't insult liberals, commies, education, or anything else. Do you have any idea how many people I offend when talking about the war, or when I mention disgusting fat bodies? To hell with that garbage. I may as well quit being a talk show host.

I did receive several more calls from people who felt offended by the phrase "oh my God" (including my mother-in-law) ... none could offer me a reason why it was ok to offend some, but not others. Some even attacked my beliefs, and said as a Christian I was required to respect the ten commandments or I wasn't a "real Christian." Which is strange because Christ specifically forbade such insults. Still I was confident that if I could get a religious leader to call in they would defend me. Surely a priest, or pastor, would understand that God will not send you to hell for speaking such a phrase. After all, God is not God's name ... it's his title. How can I take the lord's name in vain if I'm not even saying his name? Finally, my prayers (get it) were answered, and a pastor called in. I don't know which Christian denomination he came from.

Now was my time to be vindicated! We common folk are easily lead astray by such nonsense, but a man of God would surely agree with me about the hypocrisy of it all. As it turns out ... we common folk are lead astray by those who are in positions of leadership in our religion. While this pastor was very nice ... everything he said had a message of intolerance of different beliefs whether he knew it or not. He said it was ok to offend Muslims because their God was a false God. Only his God was the real God, and therefore was the only one we need be concerned with offending. I countered with "with all do respect ... your God is not my God." To which he replied that there was only one God, and that was his God. "Funny," I replied. "My God says the same thing." We went back and forth like this for a few minutes, and while it was always friendly we made no headway. He simply was incapable of conceding that other belief systems should be equally as respected as his version of Christianity. Again, Charles Barkley's points have been made for him simply by allowing these "Christians" to speak on their own behalf.

These are the people that Sir Charles was talking about when he called the "fake Christians." So are they indeed fake Christians? That's a tough question that can be debated for centuries with no conclusion. No doubt there are horrible "fake Christians" who are nothing more than oxygen thieves on this planet (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church). However, these people I illustrated above are decent people. They are hypocrites yes, and intolerant, but still decent people who are entitle to their beliefs. So what would make them "fake?" Well, that can only be answered by personal opinion. Which is exactly what morals are in the first place ... nothing but an individual's personal opinion. To not respect and tolerate other people's beliefs who differ from yours is a violation of the teachings of Christ. Jesus told his disciples to go forth and spread his message, but he warned them to be respectful of others' beliefs. He did not want his disciples to insult and attack other people's beliefs. Clearly the Christians I've written about today do not adhere to that message at all. It's all about them, and their beliefs ... all others be damned. While that may not be enough to call them "fake Christians" ... an outsider like Barkley could easily interpret it that way. It is important to note that he isn't entirely mistaken either.

Some of you religious types are no doubt upset by the way I'm addressing this issue. To you, I say, that's why I don't go to church anymore. Man is no longer concerned with doing things the way that Jesus or God would want. Churches have become too much about getting as many people into their congregation as possible. This is done by fear, and by attacking other belief structures ... including other Christians.

You'll notice that many of the Christians who disagreed with me cited that their God was the one true God. The problem is that while Christians believe in one God ... it's not the same God. You heard me correctly ... Christians don't even worship the same God. History is chalk full of Christians separating from their church, and forming a new church, because they refused to believe that their God would be the deity portrayed to them by their old church. Some Christians believe Jesus IS God, and others that he is the son of God (I'm in the latter), some think God is compassionate, but still some other say God is a vengeful, mean-spirited, bigot.

So, you see, we Christians aren't unified on our God. Yet some of us feel the need to ally ourselves with other Christians to attack other religions simply because we are Christians. In doing this we ally ourselves with people who literally believe in a different God than we do, but we don't even realize it. Even though the Christian Gods share a singular history ... different Christian denominations believe in a completely different personality for their deity. In other words ... the Catholic God is different than the Baptist God. The only thing that unites Christians (other than the Christian value system) is that we believe Jesus was more than just a man or prophet.

Don't think for a second that I'm saying Christian denominations should not stick together when attacked by outsiders because we don't share the same interpretation of our God. The war on Christianity is very real, and we need to combat it. We just have to understand that Christianity does not have a singular belief system. Much like Sunni, Shia, and Wahabists don't share a unified view of Islam, but they are all still Muslim.

This is where we conservatives come in. We are caught in the middle of all this nonsense. Most of us are religious to an extent, but not bible thumpers. We are more tolerant that the religious right of those who are different, and we are far more intellectual than emotional than our zealot counterparts. Yet we continue to allow them to make the rules, and fight all of our battles for us. Guess what ... they are losing those battles. If true conservatives were to take over the abortion debate from the religious right ... it would be a done deal by now. The only reason we still have abortion is because we allow our side to play the religion card rather than using sound science to defeat the issue, and we are losing the debate. Every time religion is used in an abortion argument ... that person will lose. Why? Religion is irrelevant to the population when talking about political issues. They don't like having someone else's religion shoved down their throat.

What other issues has the religious right failed to have any success? How about homosexuality. I've talked about gay marriage dozens of times on my show, and I always get the same response from conservatives. They support civil unions with all the legal protections of marriage, but they don't want it called marriage. It's that simple of an issue. Unfortunately, the bible thumpers have made this an all or nothing issue that violates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution. When it comes to homosexuality in schools our extreme right friends have also failed. Rather than focus on science, studies, and family involvement they constantly make it a religious issue. All of this behavior only serves to paint Republicans, conservatives, and the average person of faith as bigoted, oppressive, cold-hearted monsters. All while accomplishing virtually nothing.

That type of perception among the population is what leads to people like Charles Barkley turning on true conservatism, and attacking us. Certainly Barkley is mistaken in who he is targeting for criticism, but ultimately it is our fault as conservatives for allowing the fringe extreme right to speak on our behalf. We are as guilty as Democrats for allowing liberals to take over their party. It's too late for them ... their party is already gone, but we have time. We conservatives call ourselves the silent majority, and we are just that ... silent.

Whole Foods: Shoplifters Are Customers Too. Leave Them Alone.

Notice I didn't use quotes in that title. Whole Foods didn't literally say that, but they essentially said that when they fired an employee who stopped a shoplifter in Ann Arbor.

MLive.com:

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

There are several factors that need to be considered for this man's future lawsuit against Whole Foods. Let's examine the first one here in this paragraph. He was fired for "physically touching a customer." Since when are shoplifters customers? A customer is someone who pays for a good or service. You don't pay ... you aren't a customer.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store.

Point two is that he had clocked out. In other words ... he was not on company time. If he doesn't get paid for that time ... he isn't on the job. Things get sketchy when you fire someone who wasn't on the job.

He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

The third point is that he was assisting the manager (his boss) after being requested to do so. What's the point in chasing someone down, and asking others to help you chase them down if you won't do anything when you catch up to the crook? Now his manager becomes liable for his actions because he requested assistance.

The final point is that this did not happen on Whole Foods property. How can you fire an employee for stopping a shoplifter, while not on the clock, and not on company property?

With this logic, an employee could be fired for stopping a bank robber after work because the bank robber was in Whole Foods earlier that day. I smell a windfall in this man's future.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Again, he didn't touch a customer at all.

So what was Whole Foods' response to the firing?

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

I would love to see the company policy that this man signed when he was hired 5 years ago. Does it really say that shoplifters are customers? I doubt it.

If merely touching the shoplifter was grounds for termination then why even chase him out of the store? Keep in mind that the store's manager gave chase, and asked for assistence which this man provided while on his own time.

As for the Whole Foods rep saying that he is considered a Whole Foods employee "regardless of where he was and what was happening" is ludicrous, and the worst kind of stupid. I refer you to my argument above about him preventing a bank robber from getting away because he was in Whole Foods earlier that day.

Schultz is right on by saying he acted as a private citizen on his own time while not on company property. He is given the right to make a citizen's arrest by the Constitution. Whole Foods has no authority to remove Schultz's constitutional protections.

What would you expect from a store run by a bunch of hippies. Physical violence won't be tolerated ... even in self defense of the store's bottom line.

Peace, Love and Masturbation!

ACLU Violates Civil Rights Of Death Row Inmate

That would be his desire for the execution to go forward.

You should know about the debate on executions going on right now, and whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. If you aren't aware ... it's time to read up.

Start with the José Ernesto Medellín case, and then read the Heliberto Chi case.

Essentially what we have is 51 foreigners , that have been convicted and sentenced to death in the US, may not have their sentences carried out because of the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush is also throwing his weight around in the matter, and Texas seems to be standing alone in fighting for their right to execute convicted criminals.

The Vienna Convention states that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. Many of the foreigners (illegals) are arguing that they were not granted access to their country's consular officials. Keep in mind that many have confessed to their crimes of rape and murder.

As a result of these cases we have the ACLU, and other groups opposed to the death penalty, challenging the Constitutionality of lethal injections. Many executions across the country have been halted until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of lethal injections.

Obviously we have several problems with the current situation. State's rights are being violated, this is not a Constitutional issue, and we have international law infringing upon American sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention has no power over internal US affairs, and foreign nationals are NOT permitted under US law access to their consular officials. The US Supreme Court ruled on this very matter last year.

Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.

The 6-3 ruling spares state prison officials a major headache. If the high court had ruled the other way, thousands of state inmates who were not U.S. citizens could have sought to have their convictions reversed.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for "pending trial."

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation's consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

As you can see ... the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they ruled that US law trumps an international treaty ... as it should.

Why this case is being reheard is beyond me, but Phyllis Schlafly thinks it has something to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now for the ACLU (NV chapter) violating the rights of a death row inmate.

William Castillo was sentenced to death in 1996 for bludgeoning to death an 84 year old retired teacher as she slept. He then robbed her house, left, returned, and burned it down. He would later confess to the murder, and was sentenced to die this month by lethal injection. We waived his right to appeals, and accepted his fate. Castillo requested that the ACLU and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty not stop his execution, but his request was ignored for pure ideology.

Nancy Hart of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and Richard Siegel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the Pardons Board has the authority to halt Castillo's lethal injection pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of such injections.

Nevada uses the injection method being reviewed by the court, Hart and Siegel wrote, adding that executing Castillo might put the state "in the untenable position of having to explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution before the Supreme Court was able to rule."

"The state of Nevada should not be executing any of its prisoners, 'voluntary' or not, while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the method violates the Constitution," they wrote.

As you can see, they didn't give a damn about what Castillo wanted. It's even more laughable that the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked people to "write to Gov. Jim Gibbons on behalf of William Castillo!" Even though he opposes their stance on capital punishment.

Their assertion that NV uses the same method under review by the US Supreme Court is false. Nevada uses double the formulation strength being challenged in the Supreme Court.

State Corrections Director Howard Skolnik said that Castillo will get double doses of the three drugs normally used in executions. He said that the change ensures that Castillo should "go out instantly" and not experience "any kind of discomfort."

Skolnik also said the double dose makes the Nevada method different than the Kentucky method of lethal injections, which is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court review.

That means that if the US Supreme Court rules that the Kentucky method of lethal injections is unconstitutional ... it would not apply to Nevada anyway. The Supreme Court has not issued a halt to all executions in the US anyway, and therefore Nevada would not have to "explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution."

Their arguments are insensitive and false, but they worked.

Convicted killer William Castillo was 90 minutes away from death by lethal injection Monday night when the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in and issued a stay to allow more time to consider legal issues raised by the ACLU of Nevada.

Castillo had his final meal, and was sedated already when the order came down. Also, two of the victim's family members had come to town to witness the execution. I doubt the ACLU will reimburse them for the time and cost of their trip.

Something else had already taken place as well. Castillo's mom had said her final goodbye to her son ... only to be called later that he was not executed. You'd think Castillo and his mom would be relieved, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

News 3's Jesse Corona spoke exclusively to Castillo's family and found they are not happy about the execution being halted.

His family says he had already refused any more legal action on his behalf and that he was ready and willing to die.

"Not that I want my son to die, but I had to accept my son's decision," said Castillo's mother.

Mrs. Castillo says her son told her that he would refuse any more appeals filed on his behalf to stop his execution two months ago. She says it was the most difficult thing she's ever had to do but her son told her he wanted to take responsibility for his actions and die like a man, so she agreed to respect his wishes.

"I had to accept this, and these people come along and yank that from us?" she said.

Now I don't have sympathy for Castillo, but I do for his mother. It is impossible to imagine what she is going through. Not only does she discover that her son is a monster, but she had to come to terms with his death. Now she has to get a lawyer and fight for her son's right to be executed.

"When I hung up that phone, my son died. According to the state he was going to die 8:30 but my son died at 7 when I said goodbye," she said.

Castillo had already ate his last meal and taken the pre-execution sedative and was ready to die.

"His first words were, mom this ain't right. Get a lawyer, get someone out there to help us that was not right they had no business being here."

On top of all that ... she says that the ACLU is far more cruel than the methods they are arguing against.

Mrs. Castillo says what the ACLU did to her family was itself cruel and unusual.

She's right, and I hope she sues the hell out of the ACLU.

Mrs. Castillo, like me, is convinced the ACLU's move was a publicity stunt.

Mrs. Castillo also said that she thinks the last minute stay of execution by the ACLU was really a publicity move for the organization, and not about the issues they say it was about. She says if the ACLU's motivations were pure, they would have requested a hearing last week.

Again, she is right. Requesting a hearing the week before would have saved a lot of grief for the Castillo family, and the victim's family. Instead of requesting that hearing, however, the ACLU was polluting every news agency with their rhetoric on the situation.

The ACLU told News 3 Thursday that they have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by what happened, but they say the issue was not about any one particular individual on death row, but instead was about the constitution.

Oh really?

So Castillo's desire to die after being convicted, and sentenced to death, was about the Constitution? Even though the Constitution gives states the right to enforce capital punishment, and even though the method of execution being used for Castillo is not the method being constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

This is further illustration of the ACLU's hypocrisy. Why, you ask. Because the ACLU has long fought for the right to die, and they've used constitutional arguments to support their efforts.

"Each of us should have the right to die in a humane and dignified manner. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director.

That was in 1997.

• In 2001 the ACLU supported the right of Robert Wendland's wife to take him off of life support.
• 2005 showed another case when the ACLU supported the right to die for Harold Folley in New Mexico.

You get the point ... I don't need to go on.

So why is it that the ACLU supports the right to die for some, but not those who were sentenced to death? The answer ... their political agenda. The ACLU has an agenda to get rid of the death penalty, and in their list of priorities that agenda is more important than the right to die or state's rights.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union violated the civil liberties of one William Castillo even though they swear they exist only to uphold such civil liberties.

NAACP Says Halloween Display Is Racist, Family Forced To Remove It

Warning: The following post will contain some strong language not usually present in my writing, but I am super pissed about this. I have removed letters of certain words, but felt it was appropriate to warn those of you who are regular readers. I'm usually not this personal or confrontational, but given the past couple of weeks with similar stories an aggressive response was warranted.

Update: I have added a poll at the top right of this site. Let us what you think of the display. Is it racist, or not?


Photo Courtesy Of The Daily Record

So much for the NAACP actually becoming a respectable organization again. I had hope for a while there because they had been settling down a bit. The NAACP "seemed" to be getting away from the Jackson/Sharpton ideology. Oh well, it looks like they are back in full force.

The NAACP, along with a couple of oversensitive neighbors, blew a simple Halloween decoration waaaay out of proportion.

The Star Ledger:

Chesla Flood couldn't believe her eyes. A hangman's noose circled the neck of a black-hooded, jeans-clad dummy suspended from the chimney of a house in Madison.

Flood called her mother, Millie Hazlewood, who reported the Halloween display to police. She wasn't the only one. Police went to the property at least three times starting Sunday, and even the mayor asked the homeowners to take down the figure.

The police took time out of their day to harass a family for Halloween decorations, multiple times? The mayor even requested the family take down the decoration? What in the hell is this world coming to that you can't put a commonly used Halloween display up? I can't count how many times I've seen a hangman's noose as part of Halloween decorations, haunted houses, and even my own decorations. These people are acting like this is the first time this has been done. When, in fact, it's somewhat of a traditional display.

So is this the first time this family has used the noose?

D.J. Maines, the 27-year-old son of Cheryl and David Maines, has bedecked the house for seven Halloweens using $5,000 worth of decorations he has collected. He has used the hanging dummy each year.

Nope. He's used the display for 7 YEARS with no incident! Why no incident? Because it's a common display used by thousands of homes across the US!

Finally, the pressure got the family, and they removed the display because they feared for their safety.

At 8 last night, the family relented, saying they feared for their safety.

"It's no more like freedom of speech anymore," Cheryl Maines said. "My son had to take this down because these people have blown this thing out of proportion."

Hell, it doesn't even really have to do with freedom of speech because it is a Halloween decoration!

Here is what the mayor (a white guy) had to say:

Before the figure was removed yesterday, Madison Mayor Ellwood "Woody" Kerkeslager said "the appearance and the suggestion (of racism) is there, and it's inappropriate."

What? How? They didn't show a black person being hung. They showed a person in a black hood being hung. When we used to hang people in this country guess what we did? We put a black hood over their heads!

Now listen to how everyone is trying to tie this story in with other noose stories in the news lately in an effort to paint this family as racist.

At least four recent noose displays -- one each in Jena, La., and Philadelphia and two in New York City -- are drawing renewed attention to a potent symbol of racism, lynchings and the era of Jim Crow segregation.

Unlike those incidents, the Madison figure was part of a Halloween display, and for two days, homeowners Cheryl and David Maines, the borough's superintendent of public works, refused to budge. They said they had done nothing wrong.

ARE YOU F___ING SERIOUS!?

Credit goes to the author for pointing out the obvious ... this was a decoration, at a home, for Halloween. To draw correlations to Jena, La. is insane at best.

Here's where the NAACP jump in, and make complete fools of themselves.

Meanwhile, the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People denounced the display as offensive, racist and insensitive.

"I think there are many people who understand the significance of a noose as it relates to the history of African-Americans," said James Harris, president of the NAACP's state chapter. "We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display."

"As it relates to the history of African-Americans?" F__K YOU!

There is another population that has a history with the noose James ... COWBOYS! And most cowboys were what? White!

Why don't we just make the argument that the display was inappropriate because it might offend criminals. After all, we used to hang criminals exactly as the display is shown ... black hood and all.

"We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display?" What era are you talking about James? The era when we used to hang people as capital punishment? We HAVE lived beyond that era James. That's why your argument makes no damned sense! We DON'T hang people anymore ... white, black or any other race for that matter. Hence, it was only a Halloween decoration!

The only people who haven't lived past that era is you, James. You and your supporters want old feelings from another time to surface. That way you can foment hate, prove the NAACP is still needed and maybe make a quick buck while you're at it.

To top it all off ... not only are you still living in the past, but you are projecting a falsehood upon this family. You keep talking about racism when there was no part of this display that could be construed as racist by any sane, logical person. So are you fomenting hate James, or are you just lacking sanity and logic?

The family has sworn off holiday decorations for good because of this fiasco. I assume that was the goal all along as there is a concerted effort to remove holiday displays in this country.

Last night, the Maines family said they would be replacing their Halloween display and erecting a sign reading: "Thanks to the assistance of Millie Hazlewood and her friends, Halloween and Christmas decorations will no longer be celebrated here."

This is very sad.

Authorities also said that the display was not illegal, and couldn't be ordered down. If that is the case ... then why did the police harass this family on three separate occasions? I hope the family sues the department for harassment, and I hope they sue the people who complained and the NAACP for violating their civil rights. The mayor should also be a target for lawsuit for his interference.

Read the rest of the article and you'll see a bunch of people who lived through the horrific time where lynching was common, and were offended by the display. The south is featured prominently in the article, but this is taking place in New Jersey so don't be fooled.

The Maines family also responded to those who have a history with lynching.

"Don't bring your ancestors into this -- it's something that happened; you've got to get beyond it or you're going to make yourself sick," she said.

She is right. To bring up history having nothing to do with her or her decorations in an effort to demonize her family is completely uncalled for.

Had the display featured a black person being lynched, I would have supported it being taken down. However, there was no racial undertones at all in the display. This was just another excuse by racists themselves to attack white people.

Here is another picture of the display for you to decide yourself.

The Daily Record

Kucinich In Syria: The Effort In Iraq Was A Lie, Dishonest, & Crooked

Photo Ripped From Hotair

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and 2008 presidential candidate went on Syrian television the other day, and assaulted our nation. Here's some highlights of what he said ...

• Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is.
• The United States must end the occupation.
• I've repeatedly challenged the thinking behind the surge.
• Increasing the occupation with a surge is counter-productive.
• We also must pay reparations to the people of Iraq.
• The US must take steps to repair the damage that has been done to the lives of the people of Iraq.
• We need to see that there is honest reconstruction in Iraq, no Halliburton dishonest cheating of the people of Iraq.
• I want my country to be loved by the world.
• It hurts my heart to know how America is seen in places around the world right now.
• The truth is the war was wrong.
• This war was based on lies.
• The effort against Iraq was dishonest, or crooked, from the beginning, and nothing good can come of it.
• We have to understand that the policy was based on a lie.

Trust me, there is more in the nearly 9 minute video.

No doubt, Kucinich would fail the Iraq War Test. I doubt he'd even get one question right.

The money shot came after he got finished calling Bush, the military, Poland's military, Denmark's military, Duelfer, the UN, and every media outlet in the world liars. Kucinich actually quoted the Bible ... IN SYRIA ... ON SYRIAN TELEVISION!

Regardless of what you think of Bush, or the war, it is categorically indefensible to go to an enemy foreign nation, go on their television, and say we are the liars and bad guys. He did this to the face of the enemy during a time of war.

Syria is a sponsor of terrorism that has threatened the US, and is threatening our allies as we speak. The majority of suicide bombers in Iraq come through Syria. We have repeatedly asked Syria to stop its support of terrorism, and to help stop the flow of fighters into Iraq. All to no avail.

Instead, we get terrorist leaders meeting each other in Syria, threats of violence, and more threats of violence. We then continue to ask Syria to stop supporting terrorism with no results.

Even with all of that, and more, Kucinich is perfectly happy to insult this country on the soil of a nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism, and has been directly linked to insurgent activity that gets our troops hurt.

Washington would have executed him, Lincoln and FDR would have imprisoned him for this action. There is a very real argument for treason here under Article III, Section III of the US Constitution.

Kucinich may not have a chance in hell of winning the nomination (especially when he is campaigning in Syria), but he does have a decent shot at a cabinet appointment.

There is absolutely no excuse for any elected leader to go to an enemy nation, and verbally attack the character, and integrity of this nation. No matter how bad Kucinich's heart hurts that not everyone in the world loves us.

Bonus:

I would have thought Kucinich would have tried to hide from his statements in Syria, but he is embracing them. I haven't received a call back from his people yet, but he has put the video on his campaign site. He put it right below the 9/11 remembrance ... nice.

Whites No Longer Majority In 10% Of Counties ... 1/3 Of Most-Populous Counties...

Does that mean that white people can finally have our equivalents of the NAACP, BET, United Negro College Fund, affirmative action, and the other countless entities out there that benefit everyone except white people? Nah, that would still be racist.

NY Times:

In a further sign of the United States’ growing diversity, nonwhites now make up a majority in almost one-third of the most-populous counties in the country and in nearly one in 10 of all 3,100 counties, according to an analysis of census results to be released today.

The shift reflects the growing dispersal of immigrants and the suburbanization of blacks and Hispanics pursuing jobs generated by whites moving to the fringes of metropolitan areas.

Oh well, it's not like we can lose our jobs or businesses because we don't speak Spanish right? Oh yeah, we can lose work for not speaking Spanish, and this guy did lose his business.

Court Says FBI Raid On Congressional Office Unconstitutional ... Constitution Disagrees

The never ending saga that is William Jefferson (D-LA) continues. This is, at best, a very confusing ruling. The US Court of Appeals in DC said the raid wasn't unconstitutional, but the FBI not allowing Jefferson to hide papers was ... well, that's essentially what they were saying.

As a side note ... the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution does not protect lawmakers from having their offices searched, and being arrested. More on that later.

Breitbart:

The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any privileged documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid.

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the search itself was constitutional but that FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

"The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

Are you a little confused? You should be, and here's why:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative arm of the United States Department of Justice, the DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch. Therefore, according to the court, the checks and balances between the three branches of government were violated because the FBI (as representatives of the executive) were able to see legislative material during their search of Jefferson's office. Thus, some of the documents must be returned.

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case.

"We're pleased with the court's decision that makes it clear that the search violated the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution," Jefferson's attorney, Robert Trout, said after a brief review of the ruling. He said he has not yet discussed the decision with Jefferson.

Actually, the search did not violate the clause at all, and the Supreme Court has ruled on this before.

The FBI even used a "filter team" not involved in the case to review the congressional documents. They also stated that the Constitution does not shield lawmakers, and it doesn't.

Now we are waiting for the next ruling in Virginia to find out if the incriminating evidence will be thrown out.

Most Americans are perplexed by this case because we all know if you commit a crime you will be arrested, and your property will be searched with a warrant. Well, Jefferson faces criminal charges, and a warrant was issued to search his office. No big deal right? Wrong!

The Constitution has a Speech and Debate Clause which is designed to prevent the Executive Branch of government from arresting congressional representatives in order to prevent them from voting. It's a check to prevent a tyrant from controlling Congress. Since the FBI is a part of the Executive Branch, and Jefferson is a part of the Legislative Branch, Jefferson is saying that the clause was violated by an abuse of power from the Executive Branch.

So what is the Speech and Debate Clause?

It is Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, and it reads as follows:

'Sec. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place.'

You'll notice that the clause itself specifically says that representatives are not protected in the case of a felony ... Jefferson is facing felony charges. Therefore there is no protection from arrest afforded to Jefferson by the Constitution.

The arrest and search doesn't appear to be in question with this latest ruling despite Jefferson's attempts to have all charges dropped because of the clause. The issue is the paperwork seized from his office that authorities say prove their case against Jefferson.

The court ruled that Jefferson should have been given the opportunity to identify, and separate legislative documents from the rest of the paperwork in his office. Since the FBI was not allowed to view said documents, how could they confirm Jefferson wasn't lying?

Now why on earth would a court rule that a suspect has the right to tell law enforcement which documents they can view and take as evidence, and which documents they are not allowed to see? Jefferson could easily have lied in order to prevent incriminating evidence from being used against him, and the FBI would never have known it.

This ruling creates a "safe haven" for lawmakers engaging in illegal activity to hide evidence in their offices, and any warrants served by law enforcement would become null and void. Instead of it being a search ... it would become a request for evidence.

Find Law describes the clause as:

This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege.

Clearly our founding fathers would not have built into the Constitution any protections for lawmakers breaking the law.

"The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators." - United States v. Brewster

In the case of Williamson v. United States (1908) the Supreme Court wrote:

It is not asserted that it has ever been finally settled by this court that the constitutional privilege does not prohibit the arrest and punishment of a member of Congress for the commission of any criminal offense. The contention must rest, therefore, upon the assumption that the text of the Constitution so plainly excludes all criminal prosecutions from the privilege which that instrument accords a congressman as to cause the contrary assertion to be frivolous.

Meaning, any privileges you have as a lawmaker go out the window with criminal offenses. The Supreme Court also ruled that "felony" applied to all criminal offenses because the word was commonly used during the era of our founding fathers to describe any crime.

Like I said earlier ... this is a confusing ruling at best. If lawmakers are allowed to hide evidence against them in their offices ... how can we prosecute their criminal behavior? Since law enforcement tied to the Department of Justice is not allowed to view documents in the lawmaker's office without their permission ... what law enforcement agency is allowed jurisdiction to search congressional offices to gather evidence?

This is looking less and less like a checks and balances issue between the branches of government, and more like a power grab for the legislature.

UPDATE: Looks Like CAIR Did Not Drop Lawsuit Against John Doe Passengers

Yesterday I told you that LGF was reporting that the AP's story that CAIR had dropped the passengers from the suit was false. It appears that we have confirmation that CAIR is still planning on suing the passengers for reporting suspicious behavior.

Washington Times:

A religious-freedom advocacy group yesterday asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit against airline passengers who reported suspicious behavior of a group of Muslim imams that resulted in their removal from a US Airways flight.

The amicus brief by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota was filed on behalf of "John Doe" passengers who are included in a lawsuit against the airline and the Minneapolis Metropolitan Airports Commission.

If CAIR had dropped the passengers then we wouldn't have this group requesting the passengers be dropped from the suit.

CAIR seems hell bent on taking it to the passengers anyway.

A second attorney for the imams told Judge Ann Montgomery during a hearing Tuesday, "We don't contemplate naming any private passenger as a defendant," KSTP-TV in Minneapolis reported.

Gerard Nolting, the lawyer who represents one of the "John Doe" passengers, called the statement "meaningless and disingenuous" because "tomorrow they may contemplate adding the passengers" by name.

The statements CAIR has been making about this case are vague, and could be used to by time without having public scrutiny.

Congress Says Reporters Won't Have To Reveal Sources

A House panel approved legislation today that would not require reporters to reveal their sources. There are some protections, but it is still scaring a lot of people who remember the NY Times exposing classified programs.

Breitbart:

Media companies and journalism groups have argued that the measure is needed to keep the public informed about government corruption, but the Bush administration and other opponents say it could harm national security.

Under the measure, federal courts would join 32 states and the District of Columbia in protecting reporters from being forced to reveal confidential sources, except in certain cases.

The voice vote sent the bill, sponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Mike Pence, R-Ind., to the House floor.

Supporters said whistle-blowers will be less likely to provide information about government and other wrongdoing if reporters are required to give up their sources.

The bill "helps restore the independence of the press so that it can perform its essential duty of getting information out to the public," said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

Opponents said the bill leaves open too many possibilities in which reporters might be exempted from having to provide information that might help the government hunt down terrorists or for use in libel cases.

"We should not create a protection so broad that those who would destroy people's reputations, businesses and privacy can hide behind it," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee's senior Republican.

The Justice Department opposes the bill.

Reporters can still be compelled to provide their source in certain circumstances that are listed in the article.

Bloggers are not protected if their blogs do not provide them with their livelihood, and the language is vague at best to address the issue of a government official breaking the law by divulging classified information.

CAIR Does NOT Drop Lawsuit Against Passengers

At least that's what LGF is saying. I haven't been able to confirm yet, but it is entirely possible that the AP got the story wrong.

Sheehan Announces, & Tells Of Plans To Imprison Neo-Cons

Ah, there's nothing quite like hypocrisy in the early afternoon. The same woman who is mad that we imprison terrorist scum is a-o-k with imprisoning innocent people who are not guilty of a crime. Clearly she has been getting pointers from her buddy Hugo Chavez.

Imprisoning people who exercise their constitutional right to disagree with her ... great.

Imprisoning people who have no constitutional protections, and are trying to murder you ... oh hell no!

Michelle:

Officially announcing her run against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn’t move to impeach Bush by July 23, Sheehan said she relates to the people in her home state and chided Pelosi for keeping troops in danger.

“I know what Californians care about,” said Sheehan, who plans to run as an independent. “They don’t care about the ruling power elite.”

Sorry Cindy ... you don't have the balls to defeat Pelosi in an election. Not to mention that you've already given her a sound bite to beat you over the head with.


It may not be an implication that she hears voices, but you're already providing ammo for the enemy.

Then there is the whole imprison neo-cons thing. I thought it was King George ... not Queen Sheehan.

It is about time us “peasants” (in the eyes of the Fascist Ruling Elite) march on DC with our “pitchforks” of righteous anger and our “torches” of truth to demand the ouster of BushCo. I have a dream of the detention centers that George has built and filled being instead filled with Orange Clad neo-cons and neo-connettes.

She goes on to "quote" Thomas Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson said that we need a Revolution every 20 years, or so, to keep our Republic honest.

Interesting ... Jefferson also said:

"Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and a representative legislature... I consider as the essentials constituting free government, and... the organization of the executive is interesting as it may insure wisdom and integrity in the first place, but next as it may favor or endanger the preservation of these fundamentals." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours.

So what would he say about imprisoning those who disagree with you?

He also said this:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

Those would be liberal ideals. They want bigger government to make decisions for us.

Jefferson also talked about a need for secret societies. Yet the left attacks Bush for his membership in one.

He also said that war is not the most favorable action. Maybe Sheehan needs to read up on our founding fathers.

Senators Durbin & Kerry Propose Fairness Doctrine

Here it comes! More liberal idiots want to impose the fairness doctrine upon all of you. Effectively removing your opportunities for choice, and firmly putting government in control of what you hear, when you hear it, and the government will have at least some control of private businesses. Ain't communism grand?

The Hill:

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

Properly informed? Democrat leaders wouldn't know properly informed if it bit them in the ass! Harry Reid's most recent "the surge has failed" lie is proof of that.

It's irrelevant anyway. The government (Dems included) have official ways of "informing" the public at their discretion. Are you telling me that Pelosi will be required to provide the Republican side of an issue on her webpages? Of course not.

Will the country's newspapers that primarily lean left be required to hire right leaning reporters as contributers? Nope.

Will ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and all of their affiliates be required to stop providing biased coverage? Nope.

Why do you think that is? Simple ... the left has great success in these outlets. The left, however, sucks ass at talk radio. That's the target! The only bastion of conservative ideals is talk radio, and the left needs to take that away. Otherwise their monopoly on the media can never be reaffirmed. After talk radio is "reigned in" conservative blogs will be next. Not liberal blogs ... just conservative blogs.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Uh, Americans DO get both sides of the story. They get the left's side in the MSM, and the right's in talk radio. Then we debate the issues in blogs.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

It's a shame Feinstein doesn't practice what she preaches. I've never heard her present the conservative point of view when she attacks the military, war, or president.

Here's audio of John Kerry saying that conservatives gained control of talk radio, and have "squeezed down" and "squeeze out" opposing opinions.



Tonight I will play the audio of Kerry's statements on my talk show ... thereby proving that I am, in fact, allowing his opinion to be expressed as he states it. I'm not squeezing out his opinion ... I'm exposing more people to it. That's what we do in conservative talk radio.

We provide links, facts, and audio of what our opponents say and do. We provide them unedited (as in we don't splice files together to make them say something they never said), and give our opinion about it. Then we take callers on all sides of an issue, and allow opposing viewpoints to be heard. We embrace opposing viewpoints ... we don't suppress them.

Liberal talk radio doesn't do this, and that's why they fail. The liberal hosts who do provide all of the above ... succeed.

I fully expect the "King George" crowd to come out against their liberal allies in Congress, and fight for freedom. Nothing Bush has done will remove any freedoms like the fairness doctrine will.

Nations that have government controlled media are nations with dictators that suppress their population. They do this by controlling what they hear, and only providing the information that the government wants them to hear. Non of us should want the government dictating what we hear.

Constitution Banned In Atlanta

That's right, the US Constitution has been banned in part of Atlanta in order to allow only one activist group the right to free speech while effectively removing constitutional protections from another group.

World Net Daily:

The city of Atlanta has created a Constitution-free zone on public property for this weekend's 2007 Atlanta Pride festival, according to pastors and lawyers who have been trying to secure an assurance that Christians' free-speech rights will be protected.

"The Constitution does not apply in Piedmont Park this weekend," attorney Joel Thornton, of the International Human Rights Group told WND.

There's nothing quite like a march that proclaims to be fighting for "your rights" while stripping you of those very rights at the same time.

An estimated 300,000 people from all areas of the country attend the festival, which is the culmination of Atlanta's "Gay" Pride month, an event welcoming "diversity," "tolerance" and "rights."

Problem is that there is no diversity, or tolerance allowed at this particular event. Should diversity and tolerance rear their ugly heads ... they'll be arrested.

The pic above is a screen shot from a video recored at last year's event in Atlanta where the same policy of intolerance was implemented. A group of Christians were told that if they didn't get off of public land ... they would be arrested because their message was not "congruent" to the gay pride message.

Since they were told to move across the street or be arrested ... they moved across the street. Where they were attacked by raging gay pride enthusiasts. Again, their rights were violated, but this time the police didn't even bother to show up. So the Atlanta police department is ok with threatening arrest (which is illegal) to law abiding citizens, but will do nothing when people are attacked ... great.

The full video and story are on the link above.

Man Fired For Saving Woman's Life

This is becoming epidemic in this country, and he has a major lawsuit against his former employer that will be based on his constitutional rights.

The Times-Union:

When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg.

Tonnetta Lee survived Tuesday's pre-dawn shooting at her Jacksonville apartment, and her sister and a neighbor praised Bruley's actions. But his employers, the same people who own the Arlington complex where Bruley lives, reacted differently. They fired him.

Bruley, a leasing agent at the Oaks at Mill Creek, said he lost his job after being told that brandishing the weapon was a workplace violation, as was failing to notify supervisors after the incident occurred.

Bruley said he was too shaken to call his supervisor immediately after the incident, which occurred just before 2 a.m., but planned to eventually do so. He also said he was acting as a citizen, not an employee, and shouldn't have been punished for trying to protect himself and others. He never fired the shotgun.

See what I mean about a legal case based on his constitutional rights? We was not at work ... he was at home.

This is what the company had to say to him about his being fired:

A complaint Bruley said was given to him by his supervisor Tuesday said he violated several company policies found in an employee handbook. Those procedures were also explained in a recent meeting and an e-mail, the complaint said. One policy prohibits any type of weapons being used in the workplace. The complaint cited him for "gross misconduct."

Ok, the employee handbook, emails, and the meeting are all irrelevant. It is a violation of the Constitution to require that your employees relinquish their second amendment rights simply because they also live on property. There is no liability for the complex either because he was not at work during the incident, and was acting as a concerned citizen. Therefore, the complex can not be held legally liable for the incident, and Mr. Bruley is protected by good samaritan laws.

Companies are really pushing the limits with regards to controlling their employee's behavior outside of the work place. Typically, it has been a free speech issue by not allowing them to post to blogs, or have websites. Now it has advanced into a citizen's right to bear arms.

Dr. Death Released From Jail ... Religious Extremists Upset

Jack Kevorkian freed after 8 years.

The Kevorkian case illustrated the oppressive nature of religious extremists in the most simple terms. I've had many arguments with people who disagree with what Kevorkian did, and they all have one goal in common ... to force their beliefs upon other people. This is the most un-American action anyone can take.

Those who oppose you having the right to end your suffering on your terms do not believe in compassion, nor the Constitution. Human beings should be allowed to make all decisions regarding how they live their lives, and that should not be stripped away from them because one group's religious beliefs say you'll go to hell if you commit suicide. These are the same people who (rightfully) get upset when homosexuality is taught in school, but support a teacher teaching about the bible. Both are wrong, but hypocrites will always choose sides.

The typical simpleton attack is to label people like me as a part of the culture of death. If that's the case then they are a part of the culture of suffering. There is no justifiable reason why a terminally ill (and only terminally ill) consenting adult should not be able to peacefully drift off to sleep under the care of a consenting, trained professional. The only reason ever given is that it is "morally wrong", and those morals are rooted in that person's religion. Therefore, their opinion should be cast aside as the dictatorial mantra it really is. None of us have the right to force our religious beliefs upon others.

Let me be clear on this issue. Only terminally ill, consenting adults with pain should be allowed to hire someone to assist their passing. Otherwise, a hospice will suffice. No doctor should ever be forced to participate in assisted suicide. Payment to the doctor, and facility, should be paid in advance so that the taxpayer will never have to pick up the bill. Finally, I want to reiterate that there must be pain that can't be controlled. This is a frequent problem with many advanced illnesses, and a hospice is not always effective. No one should be able to hire a doctor to assist their death if they are only depressed, and medical science can determine if someone is faking.

There is no slippery slope argument here because this would easily be regulated. Any doctor not adhering to requirements of the procedure will lose their license, and be prosecuted.

Humans have the right to live our lives the way WE want, and we should have the right to choose how we pass on.

Pro-Terrorist Website Calling It Quits? Maybe.

H/T: LGF

Thanks to the hard work of all of you out there ... AlJazeerah.info is shutting down.

Dear Readers,

Al-Jazeerah.info has been a US independent forum promoting peace between the US and the Arab and Muslim worlds and between Israelis and Palestinians, for the last five years.

Some people apparently neither like peace nor tolerate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They have not stopped attacks on Al-Jazeerah, its editor, its contributors, and authors.

What's new this time is that those who oppose Al-Jazeerah.info have been orchestrating a campaign* against its Editor, personally.

A letter-writing campaign has been going on since March 22, 2007 targeting officials of the institution he works with, in addition to a continuous smearing internet and media campaign against him, personally.

I have concluded that it's not safe for me any more to continue editing Al-Jazeerah.info in this atmosphere of intimidation, which abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believed that, as an American citizen, I have these sacred rights as a given. I acknowledge now that I was wrong.

Until I'm assured of these Constitutional freedoms and rights, I'll stop editing news reports and opinion editorials about US wars and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, hoping that the campaign against my employer stops.

Readers and contributors, however, are welcome to continue submitting other topics. Let's be creative and try to find other subjects that promote peace in the world and serve humanity.

I promise to resume publication as soon as conditions change to a more peaceful and tolerant discourse.

I'm proud that Al-Jazeerah forum has enabled thousands of Americans to express themselves, warning against wars and promoting peace in their country and the world.

There's every reason for the US and Israel to adopt peaceful resolutions to international conflicts. Wars and excessive military spending have caused the US to sink into an unprecedented national debt of $9 trillion, which will eat up the economic achievements of the American people if it is not addressed as soon as possible.

The Israelis have been living in a continuous state of war for about 60 years, for denying Palestinians their human rights, including their right for self determination and having a state of their own. Military force does not solve problems. Occupation of Arab territories does not give security. Peace does. And this has been the message of Al-Jazeerah.info from Day One.

Peace!

Hassan El-Najjar

Al-Jazeerah Editor

April 7, 2007

Awwww ... poor terrorist supporting scumbag.

You'll notice he talks about the First Amendment in the letter, and on the page the letter is posted he has the text of the First Amendment ... with highlights. He actually isn't protected by the First Amendment at all. See Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. The Constitution does, however, allow for petitions. If he wasn't so focussed on supporting terrorism, and read the Constitution instead, maybe he'd know that.

Also notice that there is an Islamic flag put before the US flag on his page ... a violation of the flag code.

He then goes on to properly identify Rusty at the Jawa Report for the start of the petition campaign. Here's part of Rusty's response:

1) Al Jazeerah is not a 'peace' website, as he claims. Dr. El-Najjar's website openly supports terror organizations. For instance, Shaikh Ahamed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, is called a 'martyr' on it. Hamas is a specially designated terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

2) He claims he is being censored. The Constitution may give him the right to spin all sorts of conspiracy theories (such as one in which he suggests that there is no Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq, rather it is Coalition forces intentionally killing civilians to make Muslims look bad), but it also give me the right to speak out against him. That same First Amendment guarantees the right of petition, which is exactly what we are doing when we demand that Dalton State College fire this terror supporter.

Further, the First Amendment protects neither sedition nor support for the enemies of the United States. The latter is called treason. And sedition and treason is exactly what Dr. El-Najjar engages in every time he supports the Iraqi 'resistance'.

What may be the most ironic about his crying 'censorship' is that his website explicitly endorses groups such as Hamas which wish to impose Islamic law. Groups which would impose state sanctions on any who would dare criticize Mohammed or who would make it illegal for a Muslim to convert to Buddhism.

They suppport the First Amendment as long as it protects their incitements to violence, but wish to ditch its principles the moment they come to power.

3) While he may not openly discuss his antisemitic conspiracy theories in class, or try to recruit students for suicide-bombings between lectures, when Dr. El-Najjar encourages his students to visit his website (which I am told he does), he has crossed a line. Dalton State College cannot try to distance itself from the fact that they are paying the salary of a man who supports terrorism outside the classroom. He is now using his position as a professor to encourage that terrorism. The state of Georgia is then, de facto, supporting terror!

So, forcing him to stop publicly endorsing terrorism doesn't exactly seem all that draconian to me. Call me sentimental, but I recall a time when those who supported our enemies during a shooting war were put in prison.

Good work Team America, but more work remains.

Well said Rusty ... well said.

Catholic School Bans Students From Myspace

Why? Because they are idiots! They are, of course, using the children's safety as their argument, but that is no excuse to subvert first amendment rights outside of the school environment.

Students at a suburban Catholic school are being ordered to take down their photos, snappy comments, or anything else they may have posted on MySpace.com.

Friday is the deadline for students at St. Hugo of the Hills Catholic School to follow orders or risk suspension.

Suspension? You are going to suspend good students because they engage in a perfectly legal, constitutionally protected activity outside of school? Why don't you forbid your students from exercising? Studies show clearly that exercise raises libido, and puts people in a state of horniness ... Catholics can't accept that with their kids either.

School Principal Sister Margaret Van Velzen sent letters home to parents this week saying, in part, that if families allow children to continue their MySpace.com sites, they will not be allowed to return to school.

Now they can face expulsion? Surely law enforcement wouldn't allow an unconstitutional act such as this to happen.

Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard hails the school's decision.

What? Even the sheriff is ok with preventing kids from using the internet to communicate?

This is the only guy with any sense on the matter:

Jerry Herron, Wayne State University professor of American Studies, thinks keeping kids off the site may just offer a false sense of security.

The kids will just move their pages to another site, or they'll meet up in forums, or even private chat rooms. Will the school then realize this and ban any online activity for their students just like the government is trying to do right now?