Chaplain Violates Obama’s ‘Hate Crimes’ Law by Quoting Bible?

Today President Barack Obama signs the “Hate Crimes” Amendment contained within the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds “sexual orientation” to the list of federally protected classes. This new law provides for federal prosecution and enhanced penalties to violent criminals (and their so-called co- conspirators) whose “motive” or otherwise invisible heart-intention is somehow proven in a court of law as intended to incite or commit an act of violence against a person “because of” their sexual orientation.

Conservatives call this bill the “Pedophile Protection Act” because it may now offer federally protected status to 547 classes of sexual deviants, including child molesters, who are now more protected than heterosexuals, violating the principle of equal protection. It further endangers free speech by pastors who quote illegal Bible verses from the pulpit, including Romans 1:32 or Leviticus 20:13, (which I’m about to quote below), which by merely quoting pastors may be accused of “conspiring” to commit violent crimes, should anyone in the church hear their speech and later commit such violent acts against homosexuals.

My organization, The Pray In Jesus Name Project, has collected and delivered approximately 400,000 petition faxes to the U.S. Congress against this new law, which the Senate could not pass as a stand-alone bill, so Democrats hijacked the Pentagon budget to enact the homosexual agenda. In response to our petitions, the Senate adopted the good “Brownback Amendment” (R-KS) to the hate crimes bill, by 78-13 vote to add special protection for pastors to ensure the bill does not “substantially burden any exercise of religion…speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not INTENDED to:

1. plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
2. incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.”

But Senator Leahy (D-VT) added a bad side-by-side amendment diminishing some First Amendment protections for pastors, by including this new statement: “The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.”

In other words,

• A) pastors may quote the Bible publicly if their “intention” is the free exercise of religion or speech, but
• B) pastors may not quote the Bible publicly if their “intention” is to conspire with listeners to commit an act of violence.

This begs the question, if the pastor never announces whether the unspoken “intention” of his heart is A or B, how can any prosecutor, judge, or jury know whether the pastor’s secret thoughts intended A) free exercise or B) conspiracy? Without revealing the secret intention of my own heart, whether A or B, I hereby publicly quote both Romans 1:32 and Leviticus 20:13:

Romans 1:32 — “Men with men working that which is unseemly…who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.”

Leviticus 20:13 — “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

I further invite President Barack Obama, as the chief law enforcement official of America, to discern the secret thoughts and intentions of my heart, and to prosecute me for conspiracy or inciting the violent crimes of others who might read my words and act upon them, if he dares to think he knows or can prove my motives were not pursuant to the free exercise of religion or speech.

Religious Student Groups and their Rights in the Public School System

Bob Heath, from Kids for Christ USA sent me this link today. The Rutherford Institute has compiled a comprehensive report which includes information on:

• Religion in the Public Schools (and so-called “Separation of Church and State”)
• Students’ Free Speech Rights
• Religious Expression at Graduation Ceremonies and Assemblies
• Non-Student Expression on School Property
• Teachers’ Rights in Public Education
• “Zero Tolerance” Policies and School Searches

Read and download the .pdf’s HERE.

 

The Reconstruction of American Journalism

I just read through the document, The Reconstruction of American Journalism by Leonard Downie, Jr. and Michael Schudson. I found it a bit disturbing.

The article discusses the current transition of traditional media in light of the Internet, and the future funding of traditional media.

“As this report will explain, credible independent news reporting cannot flourish without news organizations of various kinds, including the print and digital reporting operations of surviving newspapers. But it is unlikely that any but the smallest of these news organizations can be supported primarily by existing online revenue. That is why we will be exploring a variety and mixture of ways to support news reporting, which must include nonmarket sources like philanthropy and government.” (emphasis mine)

The authors recommend creating government-sponsored news organizations (tax exempt and government funded – in part or in full) as the solution to this problem.

In addition, they want universities to train students in “enterprise and accountability journalism, which by definition bring new information to light, can grow into society-changing work not that dissimilar to academic research that makes original contributions to knowledge in history and the social sciences.” (emphasis mine)

My question is: if government funds the news media, who is going to watch the government? Will we be able to criticize the government if they control the media? Isn’t this a problem in China?

Also, is it the role of news reporting to “change” society? What happened to news reporters simply reporting the news? Using the media to “change” society sounds like propaganda to me. Do we really want government-sponsored, propaganda-based news?

You may (or may not) agree with the current government or like some of the current media offerings, but what will happen when we get a new batch of politicians? How will these people restrict free speech in the process of “supporting” news reporting and “providing” independent reporting. How will this or a new administration want to “change” society using the media or restricting the use of media? You can’t just look at one administration. These rules will evolve as the government evolves, either for good or for bad.

I, for one, am tired of our government bailing out failed and/or outdated companies using taxpayer money. We didn’t bail out the manual typewriter manufacturers or the stagecoach manufacturers. I’m sure jobs were lost, but progress created new jobs in the same or in new industries. If the traditional media dies, a new media industry will take its place. New jobs will be created and media will still be independent of government. Then let’s spend our government money on reeducating those who lost jobs so they can compete in the new industries.

If we keep bailing out automobile manufacturers, banks, and newspapers with government funding, we may keep the same jobs, but will it be worth it? What will we lose in the process?

Update: Snooper has commentary

Originally posted on EmptyNestMom Goes to College

Is the White House Harvesting and Cataloging Comments from Social Networking Sites?

(Updated)

In the, Can this be Serious?! category, here’s a job opportunity posted on FedBizOpps.gov for a contractor:

 

The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA maintains a presence, throughout the term of the contract. The contractor shall if possible, capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP on non-public websites. The contractor shall include in the information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP maintains a presence both comments posted on pages created by EOP and messages sent to EOP accounts on those web sites. Publicly-accessible sites may include, but are not limited to social networking sites. The contractor shall provide a user-friendly way of organizing and searching captured information. The contractor shall properly transfer the captured information, as identified by EOP, to NARA in an acceptable format for both preservation in NARA’s Electronic Records Archive and presentation at the future Presidential Library. The Contractor shall provide a method to separate content posted by other EOP component offices as required. (Application with more Information – 51 pages – .pdf)

Your stimulus money at work, folks. Ostensibly, this information is being collected for the “future Presidental Library.”

The NLPC and Director Blue are suspicious, especially in light of the White House’s recent attempt to get people to turn in in their e-mail buddies for speaking out against Obamacare.

 

Also see: Maggie’s Notebook: Obama Presidential Library: EOP Presidential Cookies? EOP Data Collector Job

 

David Barton – The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection

David Barton, of WallBuilders, describes how the Oministry is breaking down our religious freedoms before our eyes, in a well-documented, 13-page white paper entitled The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection.

Barton explains stepst that have already been taken by the current administration, including eliminating the faith-based section of the White House website, changing the policy regarding hiring practices by faith-based organizations, including restrictions on stimulus funds to higher education institutions that allow religious activities on their campuses, reducing tax breaks for charitable giving, and a recent announcement that it plans to repeal “conscience protection” for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions.

Click HERE to read the full article, or HERE to download the .pdf.

 

Freedom of Religion: A Precious American Right, an Islamic Capital Crime

Given the anti-Christian views of many Muslims and of all the Western book-and-column writing atheists and secularists, I wonder if Rifqa Bary, the teenage convert from Islam to Christianity, is not respected as a hero who is fighting for her freedom of religion but seen, rather, as someone who has taken yet another reactionary path. Perhaps if Rifqa had launched a lawsuit for the right to wear hijab or a burqa in Ohio she might immediately have gotten mainstream media sympathy…Continue reading on Chesler Chronicles >>

 

Treason and Terrorism and You

All tyrants love unlimited government. But do all advocates of unlimited government love tyranny? Well, recently major fans of big government sure have been blurting out their hysterical hatred for normal democratic disagreement.

Take Paul Krugman, New York Times rah-rah boy for humungoid government. He recently referred to opposition to the cap-and-trade bill as “treason against the planet.”

Treason, really?

Since the consequences of that policy for the food supply will almost certainly further raise worldwide prices, economist David D. Friedman asked whether Krugman himself isn’t committing some kind of murder: Because of policies Krugman pushes, thousands more will likely starve to death.

But if you think Krugman’s rhetoric is overblown, get a load of California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. In an interview in late June, she objected to Californians who influenced their Republican representatives to vote against “revenue” — her word for tax increases. She said, and I quote: “I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.”

Yes, the Democrats’ leader in the California Assembly referred to that special feature of representative democracy commonly known as “free speech” as “terrorism.”

Krugman and Bass need an education on basic terms. I guess it’s up to us to provide it.

If this be treason — or terrorism — make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

---

Please support Common Sense.
Help us reach our $52,000 goal.
Donate today.

---

 

San Diego Says No Bible Study at Home

A couple in San Diego, CA was fined and told to cease and desist for having a Bible study in their home.  The county of San Diego came to the home of Pastor David Jones and his wife that their weekly meetings were a violation of country law.  They were to “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit.”  That permit costs $10,000.

As The Canada Free Press reports the Jones were asked the following:

“‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?” The pastor’s wife replied, “Yes.” “Do you say ‘amen’?” the official asked. “Yes,” she replied. “Do you pray?” Again she said, “Yes.” “Do you say ‘praise the Lord’?” Another “Yes.” The official told the pastor and his wife they were in violation of county rules.

Fox News further reports:

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

The county, to date, is not backing down.  Bible studies are “religious assembly” which they feel requires a permit. Bible studies are violations of the law?  Be careful if you pray at the dinner table, the government may come for you next.

 

Liberty Institute: This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired.

IRS upholds the ‘religious liberty’ clause of the U.S. Constitution

From the Liberty Legal Institute:

PLANO, TX — Liberty Legal Institute announced today that the Internal Revenue Service found that pastors who gathered in 2006 for a series of public policy conferences had every right to do so and that the organizers of the events did not violate any tax laws that govern non-profit organizations.

“This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute which represented event organizers. “There is now a clear IRS statement outlining these pastors’ events and approving them as valid under the law.”

In January 2008, the IRS began its investigating into the Niemoller Foundation who held six conferences in 2006 calling pastors to stand up for moral issues and to encourage their congregants to get involved in the political process. The investigation was a result of a complaint filed by a politically liberal organization who accused the non-profit group of breaking the law by trying to influence political campaigns. Specifically, Niemoller was accused of “encouraging pastors at the gatherings to mount voter registration drives and turn congregants out at the polls.” The IRS ruled the meetings were legal.

“We educate churches on moral issues facing our society and encourage them to participate in the democratic process,” said Laurence White, director of the Niemoller Foundation and a Lutheran pastor. “The IRS has unequivocally affirmed the right of pastors nationwide to come together as spokesmen for the Word of God, to interact with political leaders, historians and scholars in discussing the moral issues under debate within our culture and to assert their Biblical responsibility to address such issues from their pulpits.”

A number of liberal groups have been in a national campaign filing IRS complaints against religious leaders and pastors. “Be careful what you hear from these liberal organizations,” Shackelford said. “They sound very confident and file many complaints yet none are found valid even by the IRS.”

---

Liberty Legal Institute specializes in First Amendment and constitutional law and is often before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Institute represents more than 4 million veterans in the Mojave Desert Memorial case, Salazar, et al. v. Buono, now before The Supreme Court.

 

Bloggers Could Be Jailed For Their Opinions

(Updated)

Democrat Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others are proposing a House of Representatives bill (H. R. 1966), that could be interpreted to put bloggers and others in jail for voicing their opinions. Here is the relevant text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

The measure, H.R. 1966, is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. It’s intention is to prevent the behavior that led to last year’s suicide of the 13-year-old Meier who was harassed on MySpace.com.

Despite the good intentions, the language can be interpreted by any person or lawyer to fine or jail bloggers if someone believes they are caused “emotional distress.” A blog like Ft. Hard Knox or others could be imprisonment under this loose interpretation. The problem with the bill is not its intent, but its vague wording that can be used by any liberal group who thinks they are being harassed, intimidated, or distressed. It is cause for concern that our First Amendment rights could be violated.

---

Also see: TechDirt – What is Cyberbullying Anyway?

 

So, where’s Obama on our National Day of Prayer?

According to the National Day of Prayer Task Force:

The National Day of Prayer is an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation. It was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. Our Task Force is a privately funded organization whose purpose is to encourage participation on the National Day of Prayer. It exists to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, to create appropriate materials, and to mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America’s leaders and its families. The Task Force represents a Judeo Christian expression of the national observance, based on our understanding that this country was birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible.

[...]

History Summary

1775 – The first Continental Congress called for a National Day of Prayer
1863 – Abraham Lincoln called for such a day.
1952 – Congress established NDP as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Truman (82-324)
1988 – The law was amended and signed by President Reagan, designating the NDP as the first Thursday in May (100-307).

Fun Facts

1. The President of the United States has called for a National Day of Prayer every year since 1975.
2. There have been 134 national calls to prayer, humiliation, fasting and thanksgiving by the President of the United States (1789-2008).
3. There have been 56 Presidential Proclamations for a “National Day of Prayer” (1952-2008).
4. Gerald Ford (1976) and George H. Bush (1989-91) are the only U.S. Presidents to sign two National Day of Prayer Proclamations in the same year.

(More History)

So, what about our current President?

According to Gary Cass, of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Obama is choosing to keep his faith “in the closet.” While Dr. Cass commends the President for asking a federal court in Wisconsin to dismiss an attempt by the Freedom from Religion Foundation to abolish the day under the guise of “separation of church and state,” he reports that that:

[Obama will] spend time alone in prayer, rather than publically gathering together with other leaders as many Presidents have done in the past. Private prayer is commendable, but as President his public example, or lack thereof, is very significant.

Obama’s self-proclaimed “devout Christian faith” has been relatively unseen since his campaign. He has not begun attending a church regularly. He forbids Christian symbols to be present at any Presidential event, even if it is in a Christian facility like Georgetown University. In an unprecedented move, Obama censors any reference to Jesus Christ in prayers offered at a Presidential event.

President Obama shocked the world when he said on his recent trip to Muslim Turkey that America is not a Christian country. Even as he shuns all Christian symbols and practices from his Presidency, in April the White House hosted a Passover Seder. This was the first time a President has hosted this Jewish religious meal. Obama was raised by his grandparents as a Universalist in which all religions are merged into a confused collection of conflicting ideas.

So it seems that while Obama is comfortable inviting and celebrating the religions of others, his “own” Christian faith he continues to shun, deny and displace within his Presidency. Makes you wonder why he would try to make his “Christian” faith such an important campaign issue when in fact his example shows that he is just a good Universalist.

(Hat-Tip GoodNewsDaily.net)

Cornell University College of Engineering Staff Stifle Student Free Speech; Updated: Police Force Return of Signs; Updated: Students Defend their Story

UPDATE 10/24/08: We received the following today from Tristen Cramer:

CORNELL COALITION FOR LIFE STANDS BY EARLIER STATEMENT
Pro-Life Student Organization Responds to University Administration

In response to statements made by Cornell University’s administration, the Cornell Coalition for Life (CCFL) stands by their earlier press release as a fair and accurate description of the events of Wednesday, October 22.

“It is incredible that putting up signs explaining that a baby’s heart first beats 25 days after fertilization and other biological facts could lead to this situation. We are surprised and disappointed to see that the administration has decided to issue a statement denying that the staff members acted improperly instead of simply apologizing and admitting that the Elena Campaign should not have been removed in the first place,” stated Tristen Cramer, senior at Cornell and former president of CCFL.

The “Elena Campaign”, a series of educational signs detailing the biological facts of fetal development, was improperly removed by a staff member of the College of Engineering at approximately 9AM on Wednesday. Despite the fact that the president of CCFL immediately
provided proof of administrative approval for the display, the signs were not returned to the organization until an hour and a half later.

Though the staff then admitted that the proper approval was in place, the students were strongly encouraged by the Associate Dean of Administration not to resume the display because of an “unwritten policy” regarding opinionated displays on the Engineering Quad.

UPDATE 10/22/08: From Adam Kissel, of FIRE’s The Torch:

Thanks to a quick-thinking administrator outside the College of Engineering and to the Cornell Police, the violation of the students’ expression rights lasted scarcely two hours. But who knows how long Warren and Dove would have held out if the police had not come to enforce the students’ rights.

ORIGINAL POST 10/22/08: Facilities Staff Remove Previously Approved Pro-Life Display

We received the following from Tristen Cramer, a senior at Cornell University:

Less than one hour after the Cornell Coalition for Life (CCFL) set up their “Elena Campaign” signs in the Engineering Quad, the signs were abruptly removed by Dawn Warren, an administrative assistant, and taken to the Facilities Office of the College of Engineering. The “Elena Campaign” is a series of light-hearted educational signs with pictures and text detailing the biological development of an unborn child. Though CCFL had gone through the proper administrative avenues to get approval for the display, Warren removed the signs without permission because she did not personally approve of the content.

Tristen Cramer, senior at Cornell University and former president of CCFL stated:

“It borders on the absurd that the facilities staff at the College of Engineering finds photos depicting biological fetal development to be controversial or offensive. Furthermore, it speaks volumes that this member of the Cornell staff chose to censor speech she disagreed with rather than facilitating an open discussion about the issue.

“The Cornell community should be aware that our right to free speech regarding relevant current issues is hindered by this so-called ‘unwritten policy.’”

Together, Dawn Warren and Cathy Dove, Associate Dean for Administration in the College of Engineering, attempted to prevent members of CCFL from retrieving the signs. Only when the Cornell Police were brought in did Warren and Dove relinquish the property. Even then, Dove tried to intimidate the students and requested that the signs not be put up again, referencing an “unwritten policy” among the College of Engineering to prevent “opinionated displays.”

Katherine Weible, junior at Cornell University and current president of the CCFL said,

“As an engineering student, I am surprised and disappointed that some of our staff would censor the issues that we are exposed to. In their claims that all engineering displays must be engineering related, they are severely short-changing all engineering students.”

For more information about the Cornell Coalition for Life or about the Elena Campaign, email Tristen Cramer.

---

Also see:

• Leslie Carbonne: Cornell v. Elena
• Blue Collar Muse: Cornell University Staff Stifle Students’ Free Speech
• LifeNews: Cornell University Officials Remove Students’ Abortion Display After Approval
• Publius Forum: Cornell Staffer/Dean Oppress Student’s Free Speech
• Marginalized Action Dinosaur: Cornell university sez no free speech, early adopters of the fairness doctrine.
• Newsbusters: Media Ignores Cornell Staffer & Dean Oppressing Student’s Free Speech
• Stop the ACLU: Cornell Staffer/Dean Oppress Student’s Free Speech
• American Conservative Daily: Cornell Staffer/Dean Oppress Student’s Free Speech
• The New Media Alliance – Warner Todd Huston: Cornell Staffer/Dean Oppress Student’s Free Speech

---

Following are the signs that were used.