Pastors Test Expanded Hate Crimes Law

Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law.

Calling the new law – which broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a clear threat to religious liberty, the group sought to defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths.

“You may choose to disbelieve or disagree with us but you have no right to seek to silence us,” said Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, as pro-gay clergy and some from the gay and lesbian community gathered with signs reading “My love is legit.”

“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Scarborough declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”

After a decade-long dispute, the hate crimes legislation was tacked on to a must-pass defense appropriations bill this year and passed by the House and Senate. President Barack Obama signed the bill last month.

Clergy, religious broadcasters and conservative groups fear the legislation will subject them to prosecution for preaching what they believe the Bible says – that homosexual behavior is sin. While some believe they are exaggerating the effects of the expanded hate crimes law, the group on Monday was convinced they could be targeted for their speech and beliefs.

Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action and author of The Criminalization of Christianity, cited Title 18 of the United States Code regarding accessories to crime. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

“That’s how they go after speech,” Porter explained at the rally.

The group also pointed to cases in Canada and the United Kingdom where Christians have already been feeling the negative effects of similar hate-crimes legislations.

Paul Diamond, a barrister from Great Britain, said people are scared to exercise their rights as a number of preachers, including Aake Green from Sweden, and other individuals have been threatened with imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality or for speaking out against its promotion.

“Our freedoms are very much inhibited in the last few years as Judeo-Christian values are driven from the public square,” he said. “We’ve been there. … We have lessons to tell you. And this is a road you don’t want to go down.”

Amid the arguments, a couple of ministers preached short sermons in hopes of sharing the Gospel with the homosexual community.

“God loves the homosexual,” the Rev. Grace Harley of Jesus Is the Answer Ministries in Silver Spring, Md., declared.

As someone who previously lived as a transgender (as a man) for 18 years, Harley testified that God set her free and can set others free from all kinds of sexual immorality, not just homosexuality. Jesus died on the cross so that you may be saved, she preached.

Offering a personalized version of the biblical passage Luke 13:13, she said, “Immediately she was made straight and glorified God.”

“I don’t just walk as a woman,” she noted, “but now I know the truth.”

ChristianPost.com

Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.

It is perversely providing legitimacy, justification and political cover for undemocratic countries like China and Iran to hunt down dissidents online and censor free speech while using the Orwellian doublespeak of regulating to “preserve an open Internet.” Undemocratic regimes are always looking for “openings” and excuses to further crack down on their people’s freedom of speech and assembly. Surely, the FCC must appreciate that internationally, actions speak louder than words.

The FCC’s proposed “Open Internet” regulations are illegitimate. First, they offend constitutional due process in that they assume companies are guilty of anticompetitive behavior until proven innocent; the FCC would regulate roughly 2,000 companies, for what one has admitted it did, and for what the FCC alleges another has done. Second, they offend constitutional equal protection in that they treat similar companies very unequally. Third, they offend constitutional protection against Government takings because they ban competitive companies from pursuing business models that are legal today. Fourth, they offend constitutional free speech because the FCC apparently does not agree with the Supreme Court that companies have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

The FCC’s proposed rules also overstep the FCC’s legal authority. Without congressional authorization of net neutrality legislation, the FCC is granting itself near limitless jurisdiction over the Internet. Moreover, the FCC’s proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious. They would arbitrarily reverse FCC precedent and factual determinations; arbitrarily move the competitive goalposts mid-game; and regulate competitive companies’ business practices more strictly than any monopoly in the last 75 years.

Further undermining America’s credibility to lead on the Internet policy going forward is that the proposed Internet regulations are not justified. They are a solution in search of a problem. The near perfect voluntary industry compliance over the last several years simply does not warrant a permanent ban on legal business behavior. To top all this off, the FCC has offered no evidence of market failure to justify regulating this competitive marketplace.

In sum, America risks both Internet freedoms and its Internet policy leadership when it proposes such a radical policy change without the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority or the justification of facts. International Credibility 101 says: if you want others to follow your lead, be worthy of following.

BigGovernment.com

FOX News 1, White House 0

Lord knows I don’t agree with 100% of everything coming from Fox News or CNN,ABC,NBC or MSNBC for that matter, but Obama is just making this worse on himself by trying to stifle dissent. You know Mr. Obama, we do have a 1st amendment still.  I am surprised as to what the TV pool did, but I give them  big thumbs up for this one.

Congressman Mike Pence had a few words to say about conservative commentators in radio and television and the White House antagonism toward their views.  You may watch the video below to hear what he said.

Yesterday the White House attempted to maneuver the other news networks into leaving FOX News out of the pool of reporters that share the cost and duties of daily coverate of the presidency.  The pool is a five-network rotation of reporters that cover Obama’s every move.  See FOX News.

However, the administration was going to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for an interview to every other member of the White House pool except for FOX News.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the interview unless FOX News was included.  “I’m really cheered by the other members saying “No, if Fox can’t be part of it, we won’t be part of it,’” said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, who called the move to limit Feinberg’s availability “outrageous.”

“What it’s really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy — we know this — only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information,” Zurawik said.

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. pointed out that the administration was potentially in violation of the Constitution with its attempt to restrict access to the “eyes and ears” of the country.

“What was averted was a very serious Constitutional violation by the White House,” he said. “There cannot be selective and arbitrary access to the White House based on some subjective determination.”

Meanwhile, President Obama says that he’s not “losing a lot of sleep” over the whole controversy.  Good thing, because we wouldn’t want him to be troubled by restricting access to the press or attempting to control the media.  See the NY Daily News.

RightlyConcerned.com

Hate crimes bill – law by the weekend?

Well the Democrats finally got it………they had to attach it to the Defense Appropriations Bill to get it passed, because as a stand alone bill it had no chance. Now I’m hoping someone like the ACLJ  challenge the Constitutionality of this bill immediately. The Hate Crime bill is unconstitutional no doubt about it. It violates the 1st, 14th amendment and double jeopardy.

A spokesman with the American Family Association says the hate crimes bill passed Thursday afternoon by the House could have a chilling effect on free speech and religious freedoms in the nation. If the bill passes the Senate, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or disability. (See Associated Press story below)

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming.

“For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought,” he laments. “Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions – and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.

“It’s also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality.”

Fischer says he would not be surprised if the bill passes through the Senate by the weekend. “I suspect the president is putting pressure on some Democrats in Congress to get this done so he can sign it by Saturday night,” says the AFA spokesman. ”[That very evening] he’s going to give the keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. That’s the major homosexual advocacy group in the nation.  I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner.”

He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. (Let’s hope the courts overturn this, as they should,it’s unconstitutional) “Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal,” Fischer admits. ”It’s doable, but again [there's] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 – so we’ll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now.”

The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion Pentagon policy measure that now heads to the Senate.

OneNewsNow.com

Hate Crime Bill Stealth Action: House Defeats Effort to Remove Language from DoD Bill

Go to faithandaction.org and truthtellers.org for more info. Call your senator today 202-224-3121 this bill could be voted on by tomorrow (Thursday 10-08-09)

Hate Crime Bill Update: House Defeats Effort to Remove Language from DoD Bill

Earlier this evening the U.S. House defeated a Republican motion to instruct conferees seeking to strip the hate crimes provision from the Defense Authorization bill to which it is attached.  The vote was 178 to 234.  You may recall that in July, the Senate voted 63 to 28 to add the provisions of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the defense bill.  Nearly identical legislation passed the House earlier this year on a bipartisan vote of 249 to 175.  Conferees are expected to retain the hate crimes provisions in the final version of the conference report and today’s vote is a strong show of support for the hate crimes language.

So what’s next?  House Conferees have been appointed and a vote on the final conference report in the House is expected on Thursday.  The Senate action on the conference report should follow next week and then the bill will go to President Obama for his signature.  Finally the federal government will have the tools it needs to help combat hate-motivated violence.  Stay tuned for more updates.

HRCBackstory.org

http://www.stand4marriagedc.com/

Cross in California’s Mojave Desert Offended One Person

Well here we go again. One person is “offended” by a cross miles from civilization in the  Mojave Desert, which in reality is a memorial made in 1934 for soldiers who lost their lives in World War I.  The 1st amendment was never intended for this type nonsense. If the founding fathers intended for this type stuff why did the founding fathers do it and why did the courts let it continue for 175 years? That’s because it was only for “Congress” the 1st amendment was written for and they are the ONLY ones that can violate the 1st amendment. Are we going to tear down all the crosses in all cemeteries all over America next? You know they might offend someone as well. In this video I’m posting the guy comments that the British think we’re crazy for doing this type thing and he’s right.

High Court to Hear Key Religious Monument Case

A case before the Supreme Court, Wednesday, could impact the display of religious symbols on government property.

Justices will be asked to determine if a cross erected in California’s Mojave Desert oversteps the boundaries separating church and state.

The eight foot cross– which is now covered with plywood until a final decision is made– was put up more than 70 years ago, not as a religious symbol, but to memorialize the fallen soldiers of World War I.

Still, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit after a park employee complained, saying the cross was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government.

Those on both sides of the issue say this is an important case.

“The courts have universally said merely being offended is not enough, otherwise, everybody would be in court,” said Colby May of the religious rights group the American Center for Law and Justice.

“In other words you’re offended by the government spending money on a particular program, you’re offended by government being involved in Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or whatever the case may be,” he added.

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church & State said this case has the potential to be a blockbuster.

“It raises a couple of issues,” he said. “One: can the government or private entities even display their religious symbol on government property? And also, is the cross really an appropriate symbol to memorialize all war dead, does it memorialize non Christians?

Past courts have left confusion about the issue, with some ruling  and others ruling against religious displays on government property.

The Supreme Court even ruled on the same day that a 10 Commandments display had to come down in a courthouse while a separate 10 Commandments monument could stay up next to the state capitol in Austin, Texas.

Some court observers feel the justices with this case could set a more clear precedent.

“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to do the right thing and allow the cross to stand,” said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America. “Otherwise, it will then have to bulldoze Arlington Cemetery, put plywood around our coins, and eliminate and erase the religious symbols throughout, not only our nation’s capitol, but throughout our country.”

Still, it will likely be several months before a decisive ruling on the controversial issue is made by the high court.

CBN.com

Fort Oglethorpe High School in Georgia cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire

I’m including here a speech made by Bryan Fischer of the Focal Point program on American Family Radio that explains the original intent of the Founding Fathers in a short time and the best I’ve heard ever so far. I want to add one thing he didn’t explain quite far enough and that is the reason the 1st amendment specifically says “Congress” only “shall make no law”. The reason for that is because Congress is the only branch of the three branches of government that is given the Constitutional authority to legislate (make laws). Although activist judges have been making “new laws” on this subject since 1947 when they created the “separation of church and state”, the courts and executive branch has no such Constitutional authority. Therefore the courts have in the past and continue to unconstitutionally make new laws in all areas as well as executive orders from the executive branch.

Georgia cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire

Banners at a Catoosa County, Georgia high school football field have messages designed to inspire victory: “take courage and do it” and “commit to the Lord” — while the latter is religious, the cheerleader banners have been scrapped and banned, a local news station reports.

The banners are the paper ones the players run through at the beginning of the game, and they have been common sights in the school’s football stadium since 2003, local officials say. Community members are rallying to bring back the banners:

“The cheerleaders are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat,” said local youth minister Brad Scott, who was LFO High’s class president in 2004. “The cheerleaders are just using scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.”

The school in question, Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School, released a statement that says the message constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with bible verses to be displayed on the football field.” An area outside the stadium has been designated so the signs can be used there, one school official says.

But the ban has sparked a rally for tonight to bring back the banners, and support from the the town mayor. He said the signs don’t infringe on anyone’s religious rights and are good for school spirit. Banning them infringes on the rights of the cheerleaders:

“If it’s offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game,” he said. “Nobody’s forced to come there and nobody’s forced to read the signs.”

County officials also say the U.S. Supreme Court has “ruled that religious activities at high school football games create the ‘inescapable conclusion’ that the school endorses the religious activity.”

The dust-up has some of the players, upset with the ban, holding a team-led prayer on the field before the game.

NetworkNationalPost.com

Frank Lay & Robert Freeman Found Not Guilty

I want to add something here to show how ridiculous this lawsuit was. Pace High School Principal Frank Lay asked the schools athletic director, Robert Freeman, to bless a meal where sports boosters had More..gathered to celebrate the completion of a new field house. This was a donor function, not a student school function.  They weren’t even on school property, they were at a church and yes some students were there because of the culinary program (the students cooked the meal), but you have to ask yourself, how ridiculous is this. A school board member turned them in for this and started the lawsuit that cost the school $500,000. Hundreds of people went to the federal court house and protested in the rain. There was also prayer and God answered that prayer for all of us. This is just plain insanity here in the US where things like this happen today and to think for almost the first 200 years we prayed and read the Bible in our schools and it was ok. Even the founding fathers did it and it was ok with them. We have strayed so far from our roots today.

BREAKING NEWS: Lay, Freeman Not Guilty In School Prayer Case

A federal judge found Pace High School educators Frank Lay and Robert Freeman not guilty of criminal contempt Thursday after evidence failed to prove they willfully violated a temporary injunction that prohibited the promotion of religion in Santa Rosa County schools.

PHOTOS: Click to view crowd photos in front of the courthouse.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers announced her ruling about 6:20 p.m. after deliberating for about an hour. When she returned to the courtroom she took several minutes clearing up misunderstandings surrounding the contempt charges.

“The rule of law is what governs … (it’s) the foundation for not just our order, but for our liberties,” Rodgers told the packed courtroom. “To suggest that the court has criminalized prayer … is offensive and insulting.

“The court’s duty is to apply the law, not public opinion, no matter how popular.”

Following the lecture, Rodgers first addressed Freeman, Pace’s athletic director, and found him not guilty. She concluded when he prayed at a school event at Lay’s request, his action was “inadvertent and was based on habit rather than intentional violation” of the injunction.

Rodgers spent much longer addressing Lay. She told him that as Pace’s principal he had the responsibility to set a good example, and by allowing the prayer at a school function he set an unfortunate precedent.

“At the end of the day, I do have some doubts about whether you intended to comply (with the injunction),” Rodgers said.

However, she said that too much ambiguity existed as to whether Lay intentionally violated the court order or simply forgot about it, as the defense argued during the trial.

After Rodgers left the courtroom, Lay’s and Freeman’s family and friends hugged each other and cried.

Meanwhile, a large crowd stood outside the courthouse waiting for Lay and Freeman.

They erupted into applause and cheers as the two men stepped outside. After the crowd quieted down, Lay addressed them with a big smile.

“I want to thank my Patriot family. You stood in the rain all day long,” Lay said. “And above all I want to thank the chief counsel, God the Father.”

Twelve people testified during the seven-hour trial, including Lay and Freeman, Santa Rosa County Superintendent of Schools Tim Wyrosdick and School Board member JoAnn Simpson.

Simpson attended the Pace High field house dedication where the prayer took place Jan. 28.

She testified that not only had Freeman offered a blessing over the food, but students were in the room at the time. When asked how she knew that, Simpson responded, “I (did) not bow my head during the prayer.”

“Why not?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall Hensel asked.

“To be totally honest, I was totally shocked because Mr. Lay had been in all our meetings (concerning the injunction),” Simpson said.

Whether or not those students were in the room became a point of contention throughout the rest of the trial.

According to defense attorneys Barry Beroset and Harry Mihet, the dedication luncheon was an adult function. As Lay and Freeman understood the injunction at that time, it applied only apply if students were present.

“That’s what they thought, rightly or wrongly,” Mihet said “And that’s why they were not on guard when this fleeting and spontaneous prayer came about.”

The defense attorneys also argued that force of habit prompted the prayer, rather than the intent to violate the injunction.

“This (the blessing over a meal) was ingrained in everything they do … It was a thing done of reflex, not with malice,” Mihet said.

During their testimonies, Freeman and Lay reinforced that habit — not the intent to disobey an order they disagreed with — led them to pray at the dedication.

“It was a normal thing he and I were both raised doing,” Freeman said.

NWFDailyNews.com

Members Of Congress Support Men in Pace High School Lawsuit

Here is another ridiculous example of how far America has come. Prayer has been done in schools since before our country’s founding and then all of a sudden in the 1960s declared unconstituitonal by the courts, with no changes in the Constitution or 1st amendment. I find this amazing, when you study the founding fathers and see what they did and said, that this would be happening here in America, a “Christian nation.”

Justice Scalia Defends Public Religious Expressions

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is defending recent rulings that allow religious expressions in the public square.

He says the founding fathers would have wanted it that way.

Speaking to the Jewish newspaper Hamodia, Scalia said the First Amendment is not meant to exclude religion, but to honor it. He noted that the high court recently allowed the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Legislature.

He said that America might be under God’s protection because,”We honor him as a nation. We invoke him in our country.”

Scalia said he was at a judges’ conference in Rome during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, when a foreign judge told him he wished his country’s leader could invoke God during a national emergency as President Bush did.

CBN.com

Members Of Congress Support Men In ACLU Prayer Case

September 16, 2009

Congressional Prayer Caucus members, including U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller, are supporting Frank Lay, Pace High School principal, and Robert Freeman, the Pace athletic director, as they head to federal criminal charges for praying.

Sixty members of Congress have joined a chorus of Christians backing a Florida high school principal and athletic director who are due to go on trial this week for praying during a school-sponsored luncheon.

Members of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus have said they are standing with Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman, who face up to $5,000 in fines, six months jail time and loss of their retirement benefits for allegedly violating a court order prohibiting prayer. The pair’s trial is scheduled for Thursday.

Click the image of the letter to enlarge in pdf format.

“Please know that we are standing with you in prayer and support as you face your trial on Thursday because of an offering of prayer,” the letter signed by Miller, Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia and Mike McIntyre from the DNC wrote. The men wrote the letter as members of the Congressional Prayer Congress, a group comprised of  54 “members in the United States House of Representatives dedicated to protecting religious liberty, acknowledging tbe important role that prayer plays in American life, and recognizing our nation’s rich, spiritual history”.

“The tradition of offering prayer in America has become so interwoven into our nation’s spiritual heritage, that to charge someone criminally for engaging in such an innocent practice would astonish tbe men who founded tlus country on religious liberty,” the letter states.

northescambia.com

Jaw Dropping Arrogance From Congressman Baron Hill of Indiana

Here’s a great argument for term limits. You won’t believe what this man says at his town hall meeting. No wonder he didn’t allow any video taping. This is unbelievable and as Steve always says; “You Just Couldn’t Make This Stuff Up” ……….

“This is my town hall meeting — and I set the rules.”

“Let me repeat that one more time — this is MY town hall meeting for you and you’re not gonna tell me how to run my congressional office…”

Jaw Dropping Arrogance From Obscure Congressman

C. Edmund Wright
It is not just the career safe seat members of Congress and the Senate who are vulnerable to getting caught up in the arrogance and elitism of power.  Relative back bencher Baron Hill from Indiana’s 9th District might well have surged into the lead in the contest to see which member of congress had the most out of touch and arrogant attitude during the town hall meetings.

You have to watch this video to believe it. It starts right after he has announced that there will be no videos allowed and goes into question and answer.  The first question is from a school student trying to fulfill a class assignment.

OldThinker.com