Religious Free Speech, and the Johnson Amendment

There is the notion that Pastors can't speak of political issues from the pulpit. Up until the mid twentieth century, no such idea existed. Pastors endorsed politicians and legislation all the time. What happened was that in 1954 then senator Lyndon Johnson put into a tax overhaul bill an amendment that would silence his political opposition, which was not from any religious institutions.

It said entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:

"Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office."

It was meant to quash political free speech of 501c non profit organizations, specifically those that were opposing him in his run for Senate. As it turns out, churches are 501's. Secularists and Atheists, Leftists and the Democrat Party have used it since then to shut down free speech from religious speakers. It's applied to the incorrect notion of separation of church and state, of which, no such thing exists in the Constitution.

Here's a short vid of the history of the Johnson Amendment.

http://youtu.be/P1PVMuxUgDg

Earlier this year, Houston Pastor of Grace Community Church, Steve Riggle, spoke from the pulpit about Houston Mayor Parker, a lesbian with a partner that advocates for gay marriage. Riggle pointed out Texas and the county which Houston is in overwhelmingly (over 70%) voted for the amendment stating marriage is between one man and one woman. What the mayor had done was, as a representative of the city, gone to Washington DC and as mayor advocated for gay marriage. Riggle stated this was not representing the will of the people.

He wrote a private email letter to her, which of course she released to the press, and the attack was on. Riggle remained quiet throughout the week, did no interviews and did not respond. He said on the Thursday following his letter to her, he would address the issue in his upcoming Sunday message.

Link to the letter and message:

http://www.grace.tv/pastoral-response-2 

(Just a note, I've seen Pastor Riggle speak, and he's way more dynamic than this. He wanted to make sure his statements were measured and precise. He said it took about 50 hours to prepare this, and ensure it was exactly what he wanted to say.)

It must be understood the State has no authority to silence Pastors or anyone representing a religious institution to speak on political issues and candidates. The State, through the IRS, has tried many times to force pastors to comply, and when a church had to resources to fight back, the State\IRS has lost every time. The reason being they have no authority to do so.

It must be made clear that issues such as marriage and abortion are not political issues, they're moral issues. Atheists, Leftists, Democrat Party, have kept stating these are political issues, the result being, it has become the meme, it's assumed to be true. This lie is the foundation of their attacks to silence free speech from the pulpit. That the Democrat Party is anti religious and anti God was born out during their convention earlier this year when they removed the word "God" from their Party Platform, and that they're anti Israel by refusing to name Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  When these were added back into the platform because of national blowback, it was to a chorus of boos from the convention floor.

The totalitarians of this president's political party and his oligarchy understand, like all totalitarians before them in the past 2000 years, Christianity must be silenced for State rule to be complete and unchallenged.  Applying this unconstitutional amendment, that was part of a power play by one of the most corrupt politicians in US history, is their primary vehicle.

We must encourage our pastors to speak out on moral issues like Pastor Riggle has, and continues to.

Unless You're an Orthodox Leftist, You Don't Get Free Speech Rights

The anti-free speech Democrats\Leftists are at it again, banning speech. This happened a few days ago. Boxer Manny Pacquiao, after Obama became our first gay president by announcing he was for gay marriage (he was for it before he was against it and now he’s for it), said he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That breaks with the Leftist group think orthodoxy; homosexual trumps heterosexual. Pacquiao was to do an interview at an LA shopping center named “The Gove”. Lots of celebrities go there, and apparently are allowed to since they adhere to Statist orthodoxy. The Grove’s vice-president of corporate affairs, Bill Reich, has banned Pacquiao from the premises. He said, “Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao, we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here, now or in the future.  The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance.” Banning a Christian for having a belief different from Bill Reich and other Leftists is not intolerant though.

In the article from an interview with the “National Conservative Examiner” the author, Granville Ampong, added in the Leviticus line about homosexuality, which Pacquiao never mentioned, which set off the anti heterosexual marriage crowed (taking a page from the Leftist labeling handbook there). The response to the article was Pacquiao wants to kill homosexuals. No truth to it, but reported and acted upon anyway. The Left\Democrat Party is Big Brother. 

Something not said, and not on the property of “The Grove” gets him banned from there. God forbid that anyone not agreeing with Statist orthodoxy would be tolerated by the ever so tolerant Left. The Left makes a huge effort to shut people down. There are websites dedicated to shut down Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The Left’s most recent attempt to drive Limbaugh out of business was when he made the “slut” reference to feminist activist (Sandra Fluke) who thinks government should pay for her contraceptives. He apologized both in print and on air. Not accepted by the tolerant, caring, forgiving Left.

It was reported that 45 sponsors canceled. It didn’t happen. Most of the sponsors were advertising on the affiliates, not directly on the Limbaugh program. Those that advertised directly on his show saw sales plummet, and asked to come back. Limbaugh said no. Two of them, Shari’s Berries and the ProFlowers continued to link to his show on their websites. Lawsuit to follow I’m sure. Of course the Jurassic Press didn’t report this, only that 45 sponsors canceled on his show, which they didn’t. Anything to promote Leftist orthodoxy and shut up the opposition.

Just a couple examples of the Left\Democrat Party being anti free speech. As they are anti second amendment, anti Christian, and anti assembly, unless it’s the Occupy movement or other violent Leftist protest groups.

A Lie Cannot Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POZGYRe4drI
What the Left means by their recent lecturing about civility, is that those that disagree with them just shut up.

Religious Freedom

Though I'm not a Catholic, this vid expresses exactly what Christianity has brought to the world, often through the Catholic Church. Atheists and secularists did not bring us schools, hospitals and charities.
 

For bringing these good things that have benefited all mankind, Christians are persecuted to death in some places, to being verbally and politically attacked in others.

Here in the US we're told to keep our mouths shut and only speak of religious things in our churches and homes. We are told to keep our religion out of politics. We are told to keep our religion out of the culture. That's because Secularists want power unopposed.

Not going to happen here. I'll witness my Faith wherever I want, whenever I want. I'll bring God into the voting booth. Insult or lie about my religion and I'll go after you as hard as possible.

You Don't Need No Stinkin' Free Speech

This Kagan character with no judicial or practical legal experience gets appointed to the Supreme Court, thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to limit free speech, so she doesn't know what's in the Constitution either. Kagan: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

That’s pretty much in line with what Leftists think, and a great example of that are the trustees of Andover Township.

Some TEA Party movement members applied for a permit to read the Constitution on Constitution Day in the town square. The Statist trustees responded: “Due to your group’s political affiliation, in our opinion as a case by case option we are denying your request to use Andover Township Park.”

Let’s see. Reading the Constitution in public is not to be allowed because of political beliefs that differ from those that think they have power, and the people don’t.

And some of us are silly enough to think that the part of the Constitution that covers free speech means that people can exercise free speech. Silly us.

Fortunately these knuckleheads were overturned. Then again, if this had gone to the Supreme Court, Kagan would have sided with the trustees. I’ve got to wonder, after this, why were these trustees trusted with anything in the first place?

The "JournoList" and the Suppression of News

I didn't find it puzzling that there was full out Media support for Obama during the campaign. There was no coverage in the Jurassic Press of his 20 year connection with anti-Christian racist America hater Jeremiah Wright, how he was mentored by communists, his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife, and all the rest of his sordid pro-Statist, racist past; understandably with good reason.

We on the Right have generally recognized and accepted, up to now, that Statism was their world view and we just needed to counter it. The "JournoList" shows that they plan and talk about subverting conservatives and Republicans, often in vicious and vile ways.

This was a private chat room, if you will, that has since been closed down. Of course they say it's not big deal, much ado about nothing. Not, of course, like the 'vast right wing conspiracy'. Need I say it? If Conservatives had a similar chat venue, it would lead every Jurassic Press (alleged) newscast for days.

Some quotes:
Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, commenting what she would do if she saw Rush Limbaugh on the floor dying of a heart attack: “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out...” “I never knew I had this much hate in me.” But he deserves it.” She later issued an apology, saying it really wasn't her, she's not really that kind of person. Like Rush pointed out, 'then who was it?' Did somebody take over her body and force her to say those vile things?

Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer at the beginning of the TEA Party movement, when they were showing up at town hall meetings: “You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.” Really? They were running through the streets destroying property and beating liberals? They were rounding people up and sending them to prisons?

Richard Yeselson, freelance liberal writer and researcher: “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

We expect people like this to be reporters with a foundation of honesty and integrity?

A Blogger Lindsay Beyerstein: “I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists, but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.” This guy talking about a conservative or Republican corporate state. Aren't the Dems the ones engaging in corporate cronyism pumping $billions into corporations and hiring their CEO's into cabinet positions or making them unaccountable czars?

Another blogger, Ed Kilgore, in response to noted military historian Victor Davis Hanson, to an article on immigration, not response to the subject itself, just: “...the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, when they were doing their standard myopic rant on Fox News: “I hate to open this can of worms, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” Really? This guy is a law professor. Has he read the Constitution? Does he know about no abridgment of free speech? Freedom of the press? Does he know FNC does not broadcast, it's cable? Good grief.

The Jurassic Press is only for freedom of the press and free speech if what they put out is the only thing being put out, and the free speech is only for them and those that agree with them.

The original article from the "Daily Caller" here, and Fred Barnes take on it here. Fred Barnes was a topic of discussion on the JournoList.

This is also where they hatched the idea to call everyone that disagrees with the Statist agenda and Obama's plans to socialize America was hatched. It appears to be backfiring now. Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

Here's an article that links 106 of the 400 participants to various communist and socialist organizations. All these participants are "progressives". You won't find a Constitutionalist or conservative among them. A couple groups connected to these people are the Democratic Socialists of America and Institute for Policy Studies, which you won't find on this blog site in my "think tank" section because it's no more than a part of this administration's Ministry of Propaganda. This is a fascinating look at who is actually writing for the Jurassic Press and what their connections are. Of course George Soros is wrapped up with these guys. He's a foreigner that has made $billions crumbling the economies of nations, and is now here financing the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic. His Open Society website here.

This is the Jurassic Press. I'm happy to be, in my own small way, part of the new media.

Can't Clean Up Some Oil, But Can Clean Up Some Blogs

Here's a Statist's dream, shutting down thousands of blogs. Democrats for years have been trying to shut down sectors of the Internet, and have even tried to get legislation passed to be able to shut down the whole thing whenever they want, which I chronicled here.

The Obama Government (used to be the people's government) has just shut down a blogger platform affecting 73,000 bloggers.

There are sites that have rip off streaming of movies and games, but Vice President Biden and an agency called Intellectual Property Enforcement have used that as an excuse to shut down thousands of unrelated sites. Wordpress, which offers free blogging platforms like Blogspot, has stated that they're the platform the government shut down, affecting the 73,000 bloggers.

What we have here are a few sites running some rip off operation, and the government uses it as an excuse to shut down all those other sites. The Statist Obama Government has not released any information on what the specific transgressions are. Once again we're treated to the transparent Obama Government.

This is timed perfectly with the coming Senate approval of anti-free speech Statist Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. She believes the Constitution gives the government the right to limit speech in Amerika.
Kagan: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

Legislation to take control of the Internet, 73,000 blogs shut down in one swoop, and a Supreme Court Justice that does not believe in free speech.

Chilled yet?

Do You Value Free Speech? FCC 'Diversity Chief' Doesn't

Mark Lloyd thinks government should control the airwaves. He's a non-apologetic communist, and as a 'czar' is not answerable to anyone but Obama. He wants to break the country into eight regions to control broadcast content. “Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.” He wants up to 100% of commercial broadcast operating costs to go the FCC, and they will monitor and decide who and what gets said. His full plan, quoting from communist revolutionary Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals', he set forth in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press). His full program to control media you can read here. [Note"before they are broadcast".]

Lloyd: “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.” “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country."