U.S. city looks to penalize Bible believers

Critics charge ‘anti-bias’ requirement punishes people with moral convictions

SOURCE

Think it’s hot in Texas these days? Just wait a few weeks, until the San Antonio City Council ends its summer hiatus and resumes work on a proposed change to its  nondiscrimination ordinances that apparently will discriminate against all who take the Bible at its word and follow it.

That’s because the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.

Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Continue reading

Judge blasts speech limits at Supreme Court building

SCSpeech

But Supremes bash back with new set of ‘regulations

SOURCE

A federal judge has blasted the Supreme Court’s plaza policy, which forbids people frombeing in “assemblages” or carrying signs that are intended to attract attention, declaring such limits in the shadow of the building where the First Amendment is supposed to be protected unconstitutional.

With hours, the Supremes bashed back, installing a new set of restrictive “regulations” specifying what can and cannot happen on the high court property including the plaza.

It was Judge Beryl Howell who wrote in an opinion this week that such limits – outlined in federal law and based on the “dignity” of the location – are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

“The absolute prohibition of expressive activity in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” the judge wrote. “The court therefore must find the statute unconstitutional and void as applied to the Supreme Court plaza.”

Continue reading

It’s Not About Guns: Gun Control Is People Control

Commentary By Gordon King

This video is so AWESOME!!!  You must see it.  A very brave and honorable man.  We need more people like this in our country to stand up and make their voices heard.  Too bad we don’t have politicians like this!  This man makes me feel patriotic again!

Watch the former Obama Secret Service member’s speech below:

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com

April 29, 2013

Gun free zones don’t lower crime rates or even prevent mass shootings, so what do they do? Gun control allows megalomaniacal politicians to exercise control over law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional legislation that paves the way towards eroding the Bill of Rights at large.

The simple fact of the matter is that the attacks on the Second Amendment should concern you, even if you don’t own a gun. In fact, I am definitely not someone you would consider a ‘gun nut’. Far from it, I actually grew up with the impression that guns were killing weapons that the average person would never truly need. After all, you could simply call a gun-wielding police officer if anything went wrong. So what drove me to become passionate on protecting the Second Amendment, even to the point of producing the new documentary Disarmed: A History of Gun Control?

It comes down to the fact that gun control and the attacks on the Second Amendment amount to much more than guns themselves. In fact, the Second Amendment’s fall will signify the fall of the Constitution at large — the very fabric of the United States. You see if the government can override the Second Amendment, why can’t they override the First Amendment? Or how about the Constitution as a whole? If we can confiscate all modern firearms and override the Constitution through federal or state law, then the Constitution now becomes a secondary piece of paper.

THE POLITICAL DOMINO EFFECT

Now gun control advocates would never want to give up the First Amendment. In fact, virtually everyone who hates the Second Amendment (which is actually an extreme minority blown up by the media) loves the First Amendment. They would tell you that giving up the First Amendment would ruin the country, no one would be granted free speech — our freedom would collapse overnight.

The error here is assuming that we can permit the government, a government full of power-hungry sociopaths, to eradicate one Amendment while assuming we will preserve the others. How could anyone think this? The answer is that they aren’t thinking, they’re responding to events that the media broadcasts to them in a certain light. Mass shootings in schools and movie theaters have pushed the mantra that it’s the guns that are to blame and nothing else.

 

You’re not supposed to ponder on why Batman shooter James Holmes traveled out of his way to the one movie theater that did not allow attendees to bring in their legal concealed carry weapons. You’re not supposed to ask about the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in one of the most extreme ‘gun free’ zones in the nation. You’re especially not supposed to investigate into why Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold was so afraid of the looming concealed carry law in the area. Instead, you’re supposed to emotionally react to the issue of guns. And from that reaction, your response is not supposed to be logical but emotional.

It’s not logically to think that destroying the Second Amendment and eroding our rights to own a weapon will not cause a political domino effect that leads to the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. No, it’s an emotional response that says ‘ban the guns’ without logical thought. Even examining the statistics reveals this to be the case as well.

FORMER OBAMA SECRET SERVICE: IT’S PEOPLE CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL

Former Obama Administration Secret Service member Dan Bongino stated it correctly when he explained in a passionate speech that gun control is not about controlling guns. Instead, it’s about ‘people control’. After withdrawing from the Secret Service without retirement pay to inform the public regarding gun control, Dan Bongino reveals that he is also not a ‘gun nut’ as some might think. It simply comes down to protecting our rights.

.

top of page ^

Obama Supporters Sign Petition to Ban Free Speech

After supporting repeal of Second Amendment, Californians target the First

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 15, 2013

Following their support for repealing the Second Amendment, liberals in California evidently have a new target in their sights – the First Amendment. A video by social analyst Mark Dice shows Obama supporters signing a petition to ban free speech.

Playing the role of a big government liberal, Dice told respondents that people who disagree with Obama are racists and extremists and should have their constitutional right to speak out annulled.

“This will repeal the First Amendment so that those right-wingers can’t say hateful things about Obama. I’m tired of these people having the right to say what they want to say….you don’t have the right to disagree with Obama these days in these tough times,” Dice told one Obama supporter as he readily agreed and signed the petition.

Others were told that the petition was to “repeal the First Amendment of the Tea Party and anyone who criticizes Obama.”

“You just repealed the First Amendment,” Dice told another man who signed the petition, to which the man responded by nodding enthusiastically.

Another black man who signed the petition agreed with Dice when he said that Republicans shouldn’t be allowed free speech, responding “it’s getting pretty bad.”

When told that freedom of speech has its limits and that everyone should get behind Obama, another black lady responded, “mmmm hmmm, it only goes so far.”

Just as we witnessed in Dice’s previous video showing Californians signing a petition to repeal the right to own firearms, the most disturbing aspect of this is not that some people are in a total trance and will agree to sign anything, but that many of them actually vehemently agree with abolishing fundamental liberties.

Only two of the people in the clip – the ones who actually read the petition – refused to sign it.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 11:57 am

.

top of page ^

Obama signs ‘end to free speech’

Legal advocate says bill criminalizes 1st Amendment activity

free-speech

In a terse online statement, the White House has confirmed that Barack Obama has signed into law an update of restrictions around the White House, the vice president’s resident and other locations – a move critics say signals the “end to free speech.”

The White House said yesterday Obama “signed into law: H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.”

The critics say there’s more to the bill than that.

John Whitehead, president of the the Rutherford Institute, explained the plan came about as a knee-jerk reaction to a crazed assailant’s attack on U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., a year ago.

“The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assembly in all areas where government officials happen to be present,” he wrote.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said it was something he could not support.

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” he said. “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity – even if that activity is annoying to those government officials – violates our rights,” he said.

The bill states, “Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions; knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.”

Significantly, though, the definition of “restricted buildings” is anywhere someone protected by the Secret Service “will be temporarily visiting.”

“A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison,” Whitehead warned.

“Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone who the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits,” he said.

At the Examiner, Philadelphia columnist Tim McCown concluded: “Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul’s Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog page notes that the imprecise language, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definitely be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans.”

He continued, “Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state.”

On Paul’s website was this: “Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.”

Whitehead noted that members of Congress, feeling the wrath of Americans pummeled by rising fuel prices, a tanking economy and unpopular war efforts, “Have been working hard to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance – avoiding town-hall meetings, making minimal public appearances while at home in their districts, only appearing at events in controlled settings where they’re the only ones talking, and if they must interact with constituents, doing so via telephone town meetings or impromptu visits to local businesses where the chances of being accosted by angry voters are greatly minimized.

“While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

“If these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no march on Washington. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King’s call for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ would have been silenced by police in riot gear,” he said.

He also criticized so-called “First Amendment zones” or areas.

“Free speech zones have become commonplace at political rallies and the national conventions of both major political parties,” he said. “One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire. Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, ‘One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.’

“Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” he said.

.