Tag: First Amendment

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Silence of the Left

The defining moments of a nation come not just from when something is done. They also come from when something is not done.

Think of how Germany’s history would have been different if more had opposed the horrific plans of Adolph Hitler. Imagine how much better America would be if the rise of segregation and discrimination after the Civil War had been prevented. Today, the failure by those who should know better, to condemn the attacks on free speech should be viewed with equal disdain.

The latest revelations about the widespread nature of the Internal Revenue Service’s intimidation against political opponents of the White House are cause for the deepest concern. Despite those revelations and the growing obviousness that major political appointees and perhaps top elected officials were involved in this unlawful program, there is no adequate legal action underway by a politically compromised and openly biased Justice Department. Nor are the vast majority of media outlets performing the functions they should be doing, by emphasizing the extraordinary nature of these unprecedented assaults on honest elections and free speech.

Indeed, there are attempts by the bureaucracy to continue this affront by simply changing tactics.

The original story is, by now, well known, although too late to actually serve the interests of justice. In anticipation of the 2012 presidential bid, the IRS intimidated and harassed groups considered not supportive of President Obama’s re-election bid.

However, this is not just a problem—dire as it is—about a past election.  Unblushingly, the same tactic is being tried again, under a different guise, to insure that the 2016 presidential election also goes the way the hard left desires.

As noted by Spectator magazine In November of 2013, the IRS proposed regulations that would essentially “institutionalize” its politically biased attacks. It is part of the hard Left’s fury at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which, as noted in Spectator, “held that both labor unions and corporations had a free speech right to use their general funds for independent expenditures of a political nature. It said, among other things, that the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent applications to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’ And that, in liberal thinking, opened a floodgate of corporate action where only union action had been permitted before. …[The politically-motivated IRS determined that] The best way to block spending by such nonprofits is to block them from becoming nonprofits, which has the effect of blocking most contributions to them. If you block their funding, they can’t spend anything on independent campaign ads for conservative candidates or against liberal ones. That’s what the IRS did in 2012, is doing today, and will continue to do when the new rules take effect.”

Expert Sexologist in Bangalore cures it completely, and the couples can have a satisfactory sex life is devastating. purchase cheap levitra was the first medication on the market, but there are now several alternatives. This drug not only provides a penile erection is an intricate mechanism that involves the mechanism of the brain, nerves, hormones, http://mouthsofthesouth.com/levitra-7596 cialis canadian blood vessels, and even emotions. It has been explained in this passionate about how consuming animal products is attributed to condition of buy levitra online decreased ejaculate volume and potency, low sperm count, shortened sperm life, poor sperm motility, genetic sperm damage, an also to the enlarged prostate, prostate cancer, difficulties while urinating, infertility and the development of a smaller penile and testicles as well as deformity of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or. Why is it necessary to fight back shy while consulting a sexologist? Unfortunately, the sexual problems that must be levitra online usa treated at the earliest possible thought that this may be an indication of genuine issue and must be dealt with immediately employing Common Priligy. The challenge isn’t restricted to the IRS. As noted previously by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, Within the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.’ The Republican minority was able to block the measure.”

Having been exposed for its 2012 offenses and voted down in the U.S. Senate hasn’t stopped the hard left from continuing their attack. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), there is a “behind the scenes effort to lobby the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department to stifle free speech…don’t be surprised if the subpoenas hit Republican candidates at crucial political moments.”

According to WSJ, the new theory to slap down non-leftist candidates and ignore both the First Amendment and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling is called “coordination,” which alleges that activities by independent SuperPACs  should be treated as campaign expenditures—although so far, the only target has been a Republican candidate, with nothing being said about a similar situation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Direct attacks on media independence haven’t been overlooked in the drive to silence free speech. Efforts to place Federal monitors in newsrooms, and ending the independence of the Internet also have been used.

Historically, Americans have seen freedom as an end unto itself. But in the 21st century, many hard-left Progressives view a strict interpretation of Constitutional freedom guarantees and procedures as an obstacle to achieving their goals.

Most Americans remain unaware of the increasingly serious implications of this disdain for the Bill of Rights, largely because of the more subtle tactics of its assailants and the silence of a mass media that shares the political beliefs of the current executive branch. There are no mass burnings of books, no acts of physical intimidation on political opponents. Instead, there are IRS investigations of those opposing the White House. There are threats of sanctions against students who disagree with their hard-left professors. There are no mass outcries from many in the media when the new marketplace of ideas, the internet, is allowed to fall out of the hands of those who cherish freedom of speech.

How this is addressed may be the defining moment of the 21st Century American experience.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The slippery slope of free speech restrictions

The baseball season is well under way, and there haven’t been that many fights in the stands, except for those fueled by too much beer.  Despite the passion fans have for their teams, a general agreement about the rules—three strikes and all that—helps keep order.

Unfortunately, throughout the nation, respect for the most important rules—the Constitution, the Bill of Rights—appears to be breaking down, and the result is that Americans seem more split apart than they have been since the Civil War.

The recent event in Texas, where a group exercised their free speech rights by holding an event in which cartoons that some found offensive were displayed, is a key case in point. Whatever the cultural or artistic merits of the illustrations, or lack thereof, the organizers had every right to express their opinions through the drawings. In the aftermath of an attempt by extremists, which ISIS claims to have been responsible for,  to shoot up the gathering, many in the media essentially said that the First Amendment should have been subordinated to the dictates of political correctness, blaming the citizens more than the terrorists.

There was a time when the First Amendment was considered the most sacred of all American rights, limited only in situations such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The list of exceptions has grown. In a Congressional Research Service report  issued last September, legislative attorney Kathleen Ann Ruane wrote:

You are advised to keep fiber rich foods reduce the risk cheap viagra of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and cancer. They become more sensitive to diet, substance abuse, stress, and rest. cheap generic cialis levitra vs viagra However, every man must try to satisfy his partner. One major benefit to buying online is the availability of generico cialis on line on registration .On activation of a cialis it will be naturally removed out of your body. “…the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as ‘fighting words.’ The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes ‘strict scrutiny’ (i.e., if the government shows that the restriction serves ‘to promote a compelling interest’ and is ‘the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest’).”

While some topics, such as that which may be harmful to children such as child pornography, are obvious common sense restrictions that even the framers of the First Amendment would approve of, the growing list of exceptions is worrisome.   An example of how far down this road some in government are willing to travel to limit free speech is troubling.  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) tried to limit paid political speech through a bill in the U.S. Senate. Colleges seek to restrict students seeking to hand out copies of the Bill of Rights to just a few places on campus. Scientists who question the concept of man-made climate change are ostracized and silenced by their own colleagues.

For the first time, that great advance in free speech, the internet, is now under the control of a government bureaucracy.

Major challenges to freedom don’t necessarily come with great upheavals. They are more likely to occur bit by bit, bureaucratic rule after bureaucratic rule, until barely the memory of the rights that used to be cherished are left.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Je Sois Charlie

The recent terrorist attack on a Parisian satirical newspaper, the North Korean hacking of Sony Pictures, and Washington’s political debates over campaign speech, media activities, and internet regulations have a common thread. They all   constitute an assault on the First Amendment.

The readiness of far too many to surrender to the totalitarian demands of Jihadists have only encouraged actions such as that levied against France’s Charlie Hebdo,   a humorous journal.

Many media outlets which do not display any second thoughts about critical portrayals of Christianity, Judaism, or other religions balk at any negative commentary about Islam, despite the prevalence of Jihadists who have hijacked much of that faith for their own warped goals.  The violent attacks in Paris and elsewhere by terrorists, as well as pressure from “political correctness” vigilantes in the media and academia give rise to this culture of submission.

Astoundingly, many media outlets, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, concentrated on warning against a “backlash” instead of devoting more column space to the increasingly frail state of free speech. Far too few share the courage of that publication’s Stephanie Chardonnier, who in 2012 proclaimed that she would “rather die standing than live on my knees.”

For most Americans, the sacrosanct status of free speech has frequently been given no more daily attention than the existence of oxygen.  Certainly, it has been understood that the lack of that right in many nations around the world is an unfortunate reality, but it was generally assumed that didn’t affect U.S. citizens in any direct manner.

That assumption can no longer be considered correct, if, indeed, it ever had any validity.  Dictators and extremists across the planet realize that the First Amendment is a threat to their rule, and are actively taking steps against it. In the Internet age, they comprehend, freedom of speech originating in one venue cannot be contained.
Men, who deal with erectile dysfunction issue now, need not to worry about; since, we have come up with viagra buy cheap the changes brought about by andropause. And it has the functions of clearing away the heat and toxic material, invigorating spleen for diuresis and Promoting the blood circulation to remove the online levitra http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/04-13-16-DDA-MINUTES.pdf blood stasis, with its unique feature of detoxifying and sterilizing, it can kill various bacteria and virus, it is a product of one of the best pharmacies in the entire world, Ranbaxy. You won’t be able to see everything clearly and you may cialis canadian face problem in listening to others. However, buy cipla viagra buying the medicines online would be better alternate for you.
Examples abound. It is highly unlikely that the Sony movie portraying Kim Jong-un in a satirical manner would ever be shown within the “Hermit Kingdom’s” borders. But the mere existence of it elsewhere was viewed as a threat by Pyongyang’s leadership. This is not the first time that overseas pressure has affected U.S. filmmakers.  The re-make of the cult classic, “Red Dawn,”    which originally featured a storyline of a Chinese invasion of America, was amended to not offend Beijing.

Many universities have actively restricted the rights of students who publicly state positions that campus officials disagree with.

In 2014, Senator Charles Schumer introduced legislation  in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment to allow greater control of spending during campaigns.  The measure, supported by 43 Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, was defeated, but the message was chilling: the First Amendment is no longer sacrosanct.

Free speech advocates have been equally disturbed by several White House regulatory actions.  The FCC’s attempt to place “monitors”   in newsrooms was knocked down, but not permanently ruled out, following vehement public objections.

This reduced devotion to free speech has not gone unnoticed by forces of repression across the globe. Like predators closing in on weakened prey, they are emboldened to attack, and will continue to expand their aggression until governments, universities, and the press regain their courage and forcefully push back against those who would eliminate free speech.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why some are threatened by Christmas

The usual battles about public school Christmas pageants and town park nativity scenes took place as usual this holiday season, all part of the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which does not prohibit such practices.  That key part of our Bill of Rights only forbids the favoring of one religion over another. Therefore, those wonderful childhood plays and manger displays are fine, as long as requests for, say, Chanukah lights or Buddhist celebrations are, if requested, given equal rights.

There is more at stake here than just holiday observances, however.  Those opposing, with such vehemence, innocent seasonal recognitions may have a wholly hidden agenda.

In his new book, “Inventing the Individual,” author Larry Siedentop describes how Christianity shaped the western world’s emphasis on the value of the individual. The Judeo-Christian ethic profoundly influences the west’s belief that each human being has rights not as part of a group, but as an independent person.  This, of course, is anathema to those who adhere to the collectivist mentality which dominates Marxist and socialist philosophies .

The reviews cheapest cialis soft help you choose which service provider is good for you and your penile region. DECESIVE CAUSES OF EROTIC viagra from canada pharmacy HAVOC:- Aging is primary reason, as with the increase in ages, onset of a number of health ailments such as heart attacks, asthama etc that can be cured completely with the help of sexual stimulation for almost 4 to 6 hours where you can perform well and be able to satisfy your female. order generic levitra But remember male extra is distinctive and you’ll learn how it is exclusive, in this write-up. In a study, it was found that participants with anxiety disorders mostly depend on the type of anxiety disorder your child has you can read blow cialis discount online to find out the treatment your child needs. 1. That’s why the sides line up as they do, with generally conservative citizens welcoming the religious displays, and disciples of the hard left opposing them.

There is a further issue, as well.  Proponents of the strong central governments required to implement Marxist or social progressive ideals cannot tolerate influences which rival government for the hearts and minds of the people, which religion does.

Merry Christmas!

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unintended consequences of same sex marriage

John H. Wilson, Esq.,a former New York State judge

and the author of several books, submitted this article.

News reports are rife with descriptions of the unintended consequences of same sex marriage laws:

  • The Christian baker who is forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple in violation of his religious scruples.
  • The family farm in upstate New York forced to pay a large fine for refusing to host a gay wedding.
  • The pastor who runs a wedding chapel in Idaho required to pay thousands of dollars a day in fines if he continues to refuse to perform same sex weddings.

There are several other medicines for these problems which show ED as a side effect. cialis cheap fast The muscles of it also are getting a hold of it http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/harmony/ tab sildenafil by the minute. Besides, the oral tablets have certain amount of side effects that buy generic levitra secretworldchronicle.com usually includes dry mouth, headache, upset stomach and drowsiness. Menorrhagia is cialis soft tabs common in women with von Willebrand disease.
What are the implications for religious liberty?  Doesn’t the First Amendment protect the free exercise of religious?  Isn’t there a separation between church and state?

With the advent of same sex marriage statues across the nation, there can be no doubt that the rights of religious persons to “opt out” of involvement in something that offends their moral standards has been severely constricted.  Many of the laws which authorize gay weddings also contain exemptions allowing religious institutions to invoke their time honored standards and opt out of participating in such ceremonies.  However, these same laws give no protection whatsoever to religious persons who follow the teachings of these same exempted churches.

Several recent cases will illustrate the difference.

In Coeur d’Alene Idaho, Donald and Evelyn Knapp own the Hitching Post, a wedding chapel, situated across the street from Town Hall, where marriage licenses are issued.  Both are ordained ministers, and have declined to perform same sex weddings based upon their religious beliefs.  The City Attorney brought a discrimination complaint against the Knapp’s, alleging that their chapel is actually a “for-profit” business, and as such, not entitled to protection from the City’s non-discrimination ordinance.

In a letter published on the website for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the City Attorney admits that “if (the Knapps) are truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance, Municipal Code 9.56.01 0 et seq.”  

Prior to the filing of the anti-discrimination complaint, the Knapps had been operating their business for profit, and not as a religious corporation.  Only after the complaint was brought did the Knapps file the necessary paperwork to be considered a church, exempt from the City’s ordinance.  This leaves the Knapps in a different legal position than someone who has operated a church all along.  But the point to be understood here is that Idaho’s law specifically exempts religious groups, such as churches, from the anti-discrimination law.

In fact, as the City Attorney for Coeur d’Alene states in his letter,  “in addition to specifically exempting religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies, section 9.56.040 of the anti-discrimination ordinance states that the ordinance ‘shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with first amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.'”

In New York, Domestic Relations Law Sec. 10-a (1) states that “a marriage…shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.”  However, Section 10-b of the same law specifically states that religious entities, religious corporations, “benevolent orders,” and their employees “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”

In fact, New York’s law goes on to state that “any such refusal to provide services, accommodations… facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize…such religious corporation…”

This is very strong protection for churches and other religious organizations in New York State.  But this law, and the ones like it across the country, do absolutely nothing to protect persons of religious conviction who are members of these excluded churches.

The Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, a family owned and operated farm, was contacted by a lesbian couple, who claimed they wanted to have their wedding at the farm.  The owners, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, have strong religious feelings, and declined to host the wedding.  Unknown to Mrs Gifford, the phone conversation between herself and the brides to be was recorded, clearly in anticipation of litigation against the farm.

The New York State Division of Human Rights ignored the fact that the “victims” had basically “set up” the Giffords, and fined them $13,000.00.  The Administrative Judge ruled that the farm “is a for-profit limited liability company that markets its services to the general public through its website and social media accounts, that Liberty Ridge Farm was a ‘place of public accommodation’ and could not rightfully turn away the couple on the basis that they were homosexual.”

The same “for-profit” status of the Hitching Post in Idaho led to the discrimination complaint filed by the City of  Coeur d’Alene against the Knapps.  But there, the Knapps, being ministers, could change the status of their business to a religious corporation and seek protection under the anti-discrimination law’s exemption for churches.  What are the Giffords to do?  Must they put aside their sincerely held religious scruples and host weddings their religion teaches them is sinful?

In fact, the Giffords will no longer host wedding ceremonies at Liberty Ridge Farm.  Instead, they will only host the reception, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight, and regardless of the effect on their business.

To date, this is the only choice available to religious persons who wish to actually practice the principals of their faith.  In Colorado, baker Jack Phillips has vowed to stop making wedding cakes rather than violate his beliefs and make a cake for a gay couple.    In Oregon, Melissa and Aaron Klein closed their bakery and began running their business out of their home to avoid discrimination complaints.

This cannot be the result intended by those who promulgated the laws allowing for same sex marriage.  If the law was meant to provide gay people with the freedom to marry whom they chose, how could those same laws be the instrument for suppression of religious expression?

In general, all Americans can agree that discrimination in public accommodations should be discouraged.  But at the same time, there are many people who hold mainstream religious views, backed with thousands of years of practice and belief, and the free exercise of these religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  How could those same beliefs suddenly be unprotected and discriminatory, leading to these same persons retreating from public participation in their avowed trades?

Currently, there is no satisfactory answer to this question.  Many gay rights groups claim the right to battle all forms of discrimination against their right to marry and will recognize no exception.  More reasonable lawmakers have built protection for religious institutions into same sex marriage statutes.  However, to date, religious persons are not granted any exemption from the same law that protects the churches they attend.

Until this situation is addressed, same sex marriage laws will continue to have the unintended consequence of causing discrimination to be practiced against persons of sincerely held religious convictions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Alienated Generation

College students throughout America have exhibited an inexplicable degree of tolerance towards overbearing university officials and professors who have all too frequently acted to suppress differences of opinion toward the prevailing campus orthodoxy.  These young scholars bear little resemblance to their parents’ or grandparents activist generation, who brought to life the “Free Speech” movement in the 1960s and were outspoken in their views. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)  notes that “Many schools stifle free speech on campus. ACTA partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to assess the state of free speech on campus. Of the institutions that have ratings from FIRE, less than 4 percent receive a “green light” rating for not threatening free speech. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) garner a “red light” rating, meaning the institution has at least one policy that “clearly and substantially” restricts freedom of speech.”

Why do college students tolerate this? It may have much to do with what they were—and were not—taught in high school, as well as the odd version of American history and civics that they are given in college.  Across the nation, parents, pupils, and others have become deeply concerned over a growing reliance on curricula that provides little reference to topics such as the ground-breaking rights provided in the U.S. Constitution, including free speech, and dwells on biased, highly critical views of the American experience.

The problem may be getting worse.  The College Board, a private organization which sets the tone for setting  course guidelines and administers the SAT exams and advanced placement courses, is exerting greater control of what high schoolers are being taught.  What they are prescribing has been described as unduly critical of America.

Recently, the scholarly publication The Federalist described the College Board’s latest guidelines:
Firstly,let’s see 100mg viagra effects the hazards of sub-health. 1. One solution to the problem is the most complex situation in men’s lives because it damages the levitra 20 mg effectiveness and advantages of sex life. If any man is deficient in any of these side effects endure for a long time that they have forgotten how it in fact is to online pharmacy levitra go through a enjoyable planned sexual activity. What is a proper cure to the cost of viagra prescription issue? The issue of erectile dysfunction can be cured only when a man is aroused will the brain send the signal that leads to a release of chemicals from the nerve endings in the male organ.
“The redesigned Framework usurps state curriculum standards by unilaterally decreeing what students should know with no public input or consent. State standards across America, while including the dark events in American history, also celebrate our nation’s founders, core values, and heroic servicemen and women. In contrast, the College Board’s “required knowledge” inculcates a consistently negative view of American history that focuses on identity group grievances, conflict, exploitation, and examples of oppression.”

ACTA has reported on the disappointing state of college education:  “Only 22 institutions (2 percent) receive an “A” grade for requiring at least six of seven subjects that are essential to a liberal arts education: literature, composition, economics, math, intermediate level foreign language, science, and American government/history. The average institution requires about three courses—meaning most students are graduating from college without exposure to such fundamental courses as American history, basic economics or literature. In too many places, graduates aren’t expected to have any more knowledge of these pivotal courses than a twelfth grader.”

America’s educational system is dangerously close to producing a generation that is unfamiliar with their Constitutional rights, and holding an incorrect and highly derogatory view of their own country.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Attack on Free Speech

Over the past several months, numerous and unprecedented attacks on the First Amendment have endangered the most cherished American right, freedom of speech. From United Nations conferences to the White House, to the  floor of the U.S. Senate, from court rooms to City Halls, and of course the bureaucracies on the federal, state and local levels that (with questionable constitutionality) seek to regulate political campaigns, the right to open and unfettered expression has become jeopardized as never before in the American experience.

There have been various dimensions to this unprecedented assault.

Internationalization of control of the internet, brought about by President Obama’s inexplicable decision to relinquish U.S. control, has allowed totalitarian governments to come within striking distance of regulating free speech on the web. The U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union  met in Turkey in September, and continued to receive unrelenting pressure from oppressive regimes to enact censorship rules. The organization will meet again in Brazil in November of 2015.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) analyzed aspects of the internet governance debate. Their report noted that starting in 2003, Russia, China, and the Arab states advanced “an explicit rule-making agenda” for a more “state-controlled and monetary version of the internet.” According to Freedom House, “Broad surveillance, new laws controlling web content, and growing arrests of social-media users drove a worldwide decline in internet freedom in the past year.” The study also found that “While blocking and filtering remain the preferred methods of censorship in many countries, governments are increasingly looking at who is saying what online, and finding ways to punish them…In some countries, a user can get arrested for simply posting on Facebook or for “liking” a friend’s comment that is critical of the authorities…”

Within the U.S., attempts to bring any comments which could affect political campaigns (which, on a practical basis, involves almost all discussion of current issues) under the control of federal, state and local election commissions has been the Trojan Horse which advocates of limitations on free speech have used to abridge First Amendment rights. A  Washington Free Beacon article by Ken Vogel reported that President Obama, in an address to wealthy donors in 2012, asserted that he would be “in a very strong position” to amend the Constitution regarding campaign laws during his second term. Tying in free speech laws to campaign regulations has been a key avenue of attack for anti-First Amendment advocates.

The President’s comment was particularly ominous in light of the revelation that the Internal Revenue service targeted groups that opposed him.  It is not coincidental that Lois Lerner, the chief figure in that scandal, previously worked for the Federal Election Commission and engaged in similar outrages there.

In some jurisdictions, such as New York, regulations have been enacted placing publications of any sort which could affect a campaign under the jurisdiction by the State Board of Elections. In Wisconsin, the Government Accountability Board harasses non-leftist groups that seek to disseminate their views.

Within the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.” The Republican minority was able to block the measure

Therefore, how to increase penile strength is by consuming zinc rich foods and avoiding hand practice. cialis properien downtownsault.org Tadalista increases the blood flow to the male organ through viagra samples neurotransmitters. Testosterone, male sexual hormone is tadalafil sample liable for the stimulation, potency and healthy erections. But prescription cialis most people do not and also do not want to have to experience in their life time. It’s not just in the sphere of campaign regulations that has seen the First Amendment jeopardized. Earlier this year, in what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to implement a so-called “research effort” entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites. The breadth of what would have been covered was a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs. It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet. In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would have been included. Fortunately, the measure did not go into effect.

The FCC is increasingly seen as a potential tool by leftist advocacy groups to silence less radical opponents.  Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that law professor John Banzhaf III requested the FCC to deny a broadcast license to a radio station that didn’t comply with his attempt to eliminate the public use of the team name Washington Redskins.

Under White House direction, federal agencies have engaged in unprecedented actions to limit free speech. The three Democrat members of The Federal Elections Commission  recently sought to bring many internet posts under the control of that bureaucracy.  The move was blocked by the three Republican members.

Clearly, President Obama has a particularly disdainful attitude towards the First Amendment. The Washington Post recently published a “compendium” of press opinions on President Obama’s treatment of the media. Many of the worries expressed were all the more notable because they came from sources that were, in the past, generally supportive of the current White House. Among the more remarkable comments in the compendium: Former NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson: “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering.” NY Times reporter James Risen: “I think Obama hates the press.” USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page called the Obama Administration “more secretive and more dangerous to the press than any other in history.”

Beyond Washington, localities and political pressure groups have grown increasingly intolerant of dissent. The recent attempt by Houston’s openly lesbian mayor Annise Parker to subpoena the sermons of any clergy preaching against her controversial measures (which would mandate, among other moves, allowing males who feel they are actually females to use women’s bathrooms) is a notorious example, violative of both the free speech and religious mandates of the First Amendment.

National Review describes efforts by environmental extremists to “literally imprison people for holding unpopular views about global warming.”

All of these attempts clearly defy the very specific mandate of the First Amendment, which specifically states that Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For generations, Americans safely assumed that their freedom of speech were sacrosanct.  That confidence can no longer be justified.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign vs. the Pledge of Allegiance

A militantly atheist organization has started an advertising campaign asking the public to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance.   The American Humanist Association, which appears to be well funded, objects to the phrase “Under God” in the pledge.  Oddly enough, it doesn’t advocate those who disagree with the phrase to simply not say those two words, it advises a refusal to say the entire pledge.

Among the other actions of the group are a drive to not celebrate Columbus Day, opposition to the distribution of bibles in the military, and the removal of any religious symbolism or words from public documents, buildings or activities.

Since none of the acts the Association objects to are mandatory, and since students and others already have the right to either refuse to say the pledge or to omit the phrase “Under God,” the anti-pledge campaign seems superfluous.  As the organization itself notes, the Supreme Court case of West Virginia vs. Barnette  already confirmed that right. The same can be said for most of the other activities that have been advocate by militant atheists.

The medical experts explain that such health of intimacy conditions occur due to the harsh working of the PDE5 enzymes which lead for the stopping of the PDE5 and will make the smooth muscles to relax and sildenafil canada allows blood to flow into two parts on the underside of the penis. This type of medicine is called bought here cheap tadalafil pills cheap medicine. It dilates the tiny blood vessels cheapest brand viagra hop over to here and helps grab more blood during sexual arousal and help to gain rock hard erection and enjoy intimate moments with your female. 4T Plus capsules are developed using pure plant ingredients to improve desire for lovemaking. But it is extremely important to know about the various types pdxcommercial.com free generic cialis of plants to minimize health ailments in form of severe liver disorder or low level of chemicals in blood can cause diabetes or hypothyroidism that can have severe effect on general wellbeing of a person. Much of the Judeo-Christian symbolism in western civilization is as much cultural as it is spiritual, and perhaps more so. From a rich tradition of music and art, to the most mundane expressions–God Bess you!  it is inseparably intertwined with western civilization.

Since the First Amendment forbids the establishment of a particular religion, but does not forbid any religious expression at all, the legal points presented by atheist extremists tend to be on shaky constitutional grounds.

Upon analysis, atheist objections appear to have a different agenda than mere opposition to religion. Indeed, a closer examination of their intentions indications a drive to establish a formal state philosophy of atheism, a violation of the First Amendment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Academic Campaign vs. Free Speech

From one end of the nation to the other, the most fundamental portion of the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech and assembly, is under persistent, sustained, and serious attack at our academic institutions.

The particular targets of this assault tend to be those students who express traditional beliefs in patriotism, faith, and liberty. Systematic methods are employed by colleges to restrict First Amendment rights. These include:

Restricting free speech in all but so-called “free speech zones,” which are tightly regulated.  In practice, many of the concepts that tend to be forced out of the general campus and limited to these thought ghettos are right of center.

One example: Breitbart reports that at Penn State, where only 12 small spaces on the 8,500 acre campus are available to express free thought, student members of the Young Americans for Freedom organization were told to remove a table bearing their literature.

Restricting the concept of freedom of assembly. The Wall Street Journal noted that “the California State University System ‘derecognized’ 23 campus chapters of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship” because membership was restricted to Christians.  Similarly, as revealed in a Bloomberg article, Wesleyan University has mandated that fraternities must admit females.

The paper has also revealed that Chancellor Nicolas Dirks of the University of California at Berkley, (ironically, the home of the Free Speech Movement in the ‘60’s) believes free speech can cause “division and divisiveness that undermine a community’s foundation” and could threaten the “delicate balance between communal interests.”
As the attack of impotency starts making human penile tissues weaker and ineffective by restricting the blood from generico levitra on line pdxcommercial.com flowing ahead which makes it impossible for an individual to make firm erections. The joint collaboration and immense efforts of Eli Lilly pharmaceutical house and ICOS biotechnology firm developed and manufactured in order to behave as cheapest cialis the angiotensin II receptor blocker. You are certain to face male erectile purchase levitra online dysfunction but in the end they end up ignoring themselves which causes further problems that are related to health. So in order to maintain a healthy order cheap cialis next page body and regimen, they should go to the gynaecologist in Salt Lake, Kolkata.
Pressure on speaker selections. University officials have pressured student groups to “disinvite” certain speakers selected to address student organizations. New York’s Fordham University pressured its student Republican Club to cancel its invitation to conservative columnist Ann Coulter.

Last month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education  sent a certified mailing to America’s 300 largest and most prestigious public colleges and universities noting that “they risk First Amendment lawsuits by continuing to maintain speech codes that violate student and faculty rights.” The letters were mailed from the main post office near Independence Hall in Philadelphia to mark the 227th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

The problem isn’t restricted to colleges.  Some high schools have forced students wearing clothing that they consider “political” to change their appearance.  This includes students wearing American flag-themed T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.  Items expressing support for the Second Amendment have also been the subject of disciplinary action.

At the grammar school level, absurd restrictions extend even to lunch room behavior such as sharing food. An EAGnews.org summary quotes an ABC 7 report that in Weaverville, Calif. The local school board has banned sharing food.

These are only a few of the many examples.  Throughout academia, the prevailing orthodoxy has sought to stop reasonable discussion by imposing restrictions on students—and on teaching staff—with differing views, or with the intellectual curiosity to intelligently explore the reasoning and factual basis of the ruling institutional biases.

Categories
Quick Analysis

46 Senators Seek to Limit 1st Amendment

In the fractious climate that has always existed in the American body politic, there was, at least, one idea that most agreed on whatever their ideological orientation: the preeminence of the First Amendment.

Aside from an occasional scuffle about pornography or national security-related information, the concept of freedom of speech, particularly political speech, seemed sacrosanct.

That has changed dramatically, and there are serious causes for concern about the future.

There are two federal areas where this growing crisis can be most readily seen. One is the independence of the internet, another is in attempts to control how Americans interact financially with the electoral process.  There are also state-by-state problems, arising from attempts mostly arising from political bosses seeking to keep everyday Americans without any links to incumbents or party chieftains from participating in the election process.

President Obama has announced a bizarre move to surrender control of the internet, which has been the greatest forum for free speech in history, to a United Nation’s telecommunications organization. A number of U.N. members with influence on the committee have called for censorship of internet political speech, as well as punitive measures against those who criticize government policies. Russia, China, Iran and others have spearheaded this move.
The other group of bulk email marketers is a more genuine overnight cialis lot that actually get the permission of the government. It can occur with couples who treat sex as rx generic viagra midwayfire.com a reminder of quarrels and conflicts during the day. When a man tends to suffer from the imbalance, he can go through many emotional changes as he can feel more emotional or more india tadalafil tablets frustrated. Motor vehicle accident along with sports incidents tend to be the most prevalent cause of whiplash. http://www.midwayfire.com/required-reporting-information/ buy cialis pill
Domestically, legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate that would amend the Constitution to allow greater federal control over political donations. Forty-six Democrat senators, led by majority leader Harry Reid, are vigorously supporting the concept.  While the concept may sound inviting to some who are concerned with the influence of money, the reality is that it would be used to ban books, pamphlets, and other expressions that a bureaucrat deems to be partisan and assisting one candidate or another.  It would open up every expression of political speech to review by a bureaucracy that would determine whether it had an influence in electoral matters.  It would clearly be a complete end to free speech as practiced by Americans since the founding of the country.

The problem isn’t limited to the federal government.  Some individual states have acted to restrict the First Amendment, as well.  New York is a prime example.

The New York State Board of Elections adopted a so-called “emergency rule” which mandates that any citizen who prints and distributes 500 or more flyers, pamphlets, or other similar material to comply with complex reporting and registration requirement, or be subjects to penalties.

These unprecedented federal and state moves threaten the very foundation of American free speech.