Freedom of Speech in America

[American Patriot]

Stop Congress From Silencing Gun Owners
NRA-ILA ^ | 1/16/07 | n/a

This week--perhaps even tomorrow--the U.S. Senate is taking up legislation that could stifle gun owners’ voices in the legislative process.


To ensure gun owners remain able to speak out in support of our Second Amendment rights, during debate this week on S.A. 3, the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act�, Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will offer an amendment to strike Sec.
220--the section that would force countless groups of ordinary citizens to register with the federal government as “lobbyists,� with all the attendant restrictions, costs, and penalties.


The First Amendment protects an unqualified “right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.� One of NRA’s greatest strength is our members’ ability to fully use the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment. But Sec. 220 would, for the first time in American history, regulate “the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials.� Among its everyday adverse effects would be the following:


Organizations answering mail, e-mail, or telephone calls from people who may or may not be members would have to either verify each person’s status as a paying “member� as defined in Section 220, or refrain from urging those people to call Congress about legislative issues. Of course, every day, NRA engages in these types of activities with members and non-members alike.


Organizations would have to screen e-mail subscriptions to exclude subscribers who are not paying members or else report all e-mail alerts as “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.� This would have a severe impact on the Friday NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert--and on Special Alerts like this one.


Sec. 220 would also do a great disservice by increasing the power of the anti-gun media to the detriment of the people. For example, a privately-owned newspaper could run editorials every day advocating drastic restrictions on Second Amendment liberties--without being subject to any reporting requirements. However, if a staff member of a pro-gun organization, such as NRA, writes a letter to the editor of that newspaper that expresses an opposing view and urges readers to call their senators, that letter would be a “paid effort to stimulate grassroots lobbying.� The organization would have to report the cost of the staffer’s salary for writing and submitting the letter. This requirement would apply even if the newspaper never publishes the letter, since it is still a “paid attempt … to influence the general public.� (Emphasis added)


Similarly, if the grassroots organization pays an advertising agency to create and place a newspaper ad in the same newspaper, the advertising agency would have to register as a “grassroots lobbying firm� within 45 days of being retained and report costs of the communication--even if the ad never runs! The registration requirement would signal the group’s plans to opponents, and constitute a prior restraint on free speech, contrary to principles of the First Amendment.


Violations of any of these complex, technical provisions could be punishable by massive civil penalties and felony prison terms under the substitute bill that the Senate will consider. Ultimately, Sec. 220 would force so many organizations to report so many activities that the information would become useless. It would simply be impossible for interested observers to sort the wheat from the chaff.


The First Amendment protects the “right of the people�--not the “right of people who can afford teams of lawyers, accountants, and disclosure specialists.�


Because the ability of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public is so central to the First Amendment and our ability to protect the Second Amendment, we urge you to contact your U.S. Senators immediately and urge them to support the Bennett-McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike Section 220 in the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act.� You can reach your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.


You may also e-mail your Senators by clicking here:


http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/.


Once you have contacted your two U.S. Senators, please urge your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners to do the same!

[American Patriot]

Republicans & Democrats Want To Make Criminals Out of Bloggers
MensNewsDaily.Com ^ | 01/18/07 | Ze'ev Haas

Thomas Paine is turning over in his grave as we speak. Both Republicans and Democrats are looking to squash our Constitutional Freedom to criticize our own government, a G-d given right that patriotic men and women fought and died for.

Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.

(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...




Political Bloggers Could Be Required To Register Or Face Jail Time
Information Week. ^ | January 17 2007 | Mitch Wagner

An outfit called GrassRootsFreedom.com is reporting that the U.S. Senate is considering legislation that would require political bloggers with readership over 500 to register as lobbyists. If they fail to register, they could face criminal penalties up to one year in jail.

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists.

(Excerpt) Read more at informationweek.com ...

[American Patriot]

Note to admin:

Don't move this thread to guns. This is a far, wider-ranging issue than just gun rights. The NRA and several other people are bringing this up.

Basically, this site will become an issue if this type of stuff goes through.

[American Patriot]

The Rogue Jew (3 votes, average: 10 out of 10)
Loading ...
Republicans & Democrats Want To Make Criminals Out of Bloggers

January 18, 2007
Vox Populi, Current Events, War, Politics By The Rogue Jew
Thomas Paine is turning over in his grave as we speak. Both Republicans and Democrats are looking to squash our Constitutional Freedom to criticize our own government, a G-d given right that patriotic men and women fought and died for.
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.

In the first few days of the new session of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and big Washington insiders such as Public Citizen and Common Cause will try to silence critics by regulating us through quarterly reports to Congress. Failure to report would result in civil and potential criminal penalties.

Pelosi & Company’s lobbying legislation “reform” would define political communications to and even between citizens as “lobbying.” This turns the definition of lobbying on its head and is in violation of the First Amendment.
Moreover, their legislation would treat grassroots activists more harshly than the K Street lobbyists and the big corporations and unions. They get loopholes that the smallest critics using the Internet wouldn’t enjoy. Communicating to as few as 500 people would trigger the registration and quarterly reporting to Congress.
In truth, the grassroots legislation would help protect corruption in Washington by silencing critics and diminishing the ability of grassroots causes to communicate with the general public.

The Senate, voted 93 - 2 in favor of adding criminal penalties to S.1 making this bill the biggest intrusion into our personal freedoms since Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept. ordered the murder of the Branch Davidian’s and the Castro ordered kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez.

“The bill would require reporting of ‘paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,’ but defines ‘paid’ merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers,” Viguerie said.
The Senate passed an amendment on the bill Jan. 9 to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone “knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.”

As an American I defend even dumbasses like Jimmy Carter and David Duke to have their freedom to spew their hate filled rhetoric as well as my own freedom. That is what America is all about.
Corrupt Politicians with thin skins who are afraid of losing their cushy jobs fear people like Joseph Farah, the guys at LGF, Michelle Malkin, and even the little guys like myself at MensNewsDaily.Com who like to pee in their pool from time to time. We need to step up and defend our rights to Shoot Off our big fat mouths and keep schmucks like Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, and Obama/Osama in line. What would we do without the Freepers?

Imagine if the Drudge Report wasn’t there to inform us about Clinton’s inability to keep his rocket in his pocket?

[American Patriot]

Bloggers Might be Fined $200,000 by the Federal Gov’t
Men's News Daily ^ | 1/18/07 | Warner Todd Huston

Thomas Paine wrote one of the most famous tracts of the Revolutionary era. Titled "The Rights of Man", it was a tract that many said, should it not have existed, the Revolution could not have occurred. In fact, historians contend rightfully, that the writings of our founders and their contemporaries were incredibly important as much for their content as for their ability to spread the ideas over which we went to war with Great Britain across the hard to travel geography of early America.



Our Founders were true "grassroots" organizers. Without their words, we could not have won the Revolution.



Now the Federal government wants to destroy that same sort of process used to spur our citizens to free themselves from Monarchical despotism. The Federal government today wants to quash the ability of small citizen's groups to disseminate information to like minded people by instituting oppressive reporting rules and by claiming they are "lobbyists" bound by Congressional oversight. And if they don't they face oppressive fines.

Under the legislation, grass-roots organizations that attempt to "influence the general public" to contact members of Congress would have to register as lobbyists and file financial reports -- or face a $200,000 fine. The requirements could apply to a preacher who goes on TV or radio and tells listeners to call their congressman in support of a particular issue, such as a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage."

It could also affect internet Bloggers and emailing services that advocate for certain policies or political positions before an audience of hundreds or thousands of continuing visitors to their sites.

But issue groups spanning the political spectrum -- from National Right to Life and Focus on the Family to the League of Conservation Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union -- say the expanded definition of lobbyist will imperil citizens' constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government.
"This bill goes way too far," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "This gets at the citizen groups who are really the ones making their voices heard about our democracy."

And so it does. With their ballot box win behind them and in their rush to fool the public that they are "doing something", the Democrats are trying to force a bill on the American people that is anti-American and little more than a refined version of the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s that threw newspaper editors and political leaders in jail in this country.
Senator Robert F. Bennett (R., Utah) attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would exempt grassroots agencies.

"This should be struck from the bill," Mr. Bennett said. "I was taught in civics in high school that [contacting Congress members] was what we were supposed to do."

Not if your imperial Democratic Senate has their druthers, Mr. Bennett.
Our Founders fought for the God given rights of men and one of those rights is the right to free political speech. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and many hundreds of their brothers at arms toiled for years behind their pens to raise the consciousness of their fellow citizens to free us from the shackles of the King. We bloggers are the direct descendants of the tract writers, newspaper publishers, and article authors who were our Founding Fathers.



Right now, they all are spinning in their graves as Congress tries to eliminate free speech.

[American Patriot]

Malaysian paper files 1st-ever defamation suit against bloggers

Jan 18 10:03 AM US/Eastern

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan. 18 (AP) -- (Kyodo) _ A major newspaper company has sued two Malaysian bloggers for defamation, an unprecedented move that the opposition warned Thursday is aimed at stifling dissent.

The New Straits Times, one of the country's largest media groups, filed suits against Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Attan over a series of postings on their respective websites attacking top officials of the company.

Ooi, who cannot be reached, said in his hugely popular, politically inclined website Screenshots that a hearing of the suit has been fixed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Jan. 30.

"My lawyers are now taking care of it," he said.

Ahiruddin, a former editor of the Malay Mail, one of the newspapers in the New Straits Times stable, also confirmed receiving the libel suit on his website, Rocky's Bru. His case will be heard Jan. 25.

"They are applying for an injunction against Rocky's Bru. They are suing me for libel...I am now looking for a lawyer to represent me," he said.

Details of the suits are still unknown, but it is believed to be related to issues surrounding the departure of former New Straits Times group editor Brendan Pereira.

Pereira, who is also one of the plaintiffs in the two suits, has been accused by the bloggers of plagiarism in one of the articles he wrote just before the company announced his leaving last October.

Both Pereira and the New Straits Times rejected the plagiarism allegations and maintained Pereira's resignation had been discussed even before the article was written.

Another plaintiff in the two suits is the media group's deputy chairman, Kalimullah Hassan.

Both Ooi and Ahiruddin have often painted Pereira, Kalimullah and the New Straits Times as spin doctors and mouthpieces for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said this is the first time bloggers have been sued for defamation.

"The NSTP defamation suits will have a chilling effect on freedom of bloggers and citizen-journalists as litigation is so expensive that its costs will cripple and paralyze the ordinary individual blogger," he said in a statement.

The suit comes on the heels of recent warnings from the government that it would take action to control bloggers who spread "disharmony, chaos, seditious material and lies" as one deputy minister termed it.

[American Patriot]

Lobbying backlash could hit bloggers
C/Net ^ | January 18, 2007 | Declan McCullagh



A bill that Senate Democrats have touted as a means to curb corruption in Washington could instead target some political bloggers with new regulations and even criminal penalties.



The legislation, which began as an attempt to rewrite federal lobbying laws in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal, has ballooned to more than 9,000 words and a thicket of complicated rules. It was the subject of a failed attempt by Senate Democrats on Wednesday to defeat a Republican filibuster over a line-item veto, and debate is continuing Thursday afternoon.


Much of the bill's wording is obtuse. But one section says that certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists--or face up to 10 years in prison.


"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."


The controversial requirement lies in Section 220 of the massive bill, which supporters of the legislation say is intended to curb the practice of lobbyists setting up "astroturf" groups. But in a conference call on Thursday, a broad range of groups including the ACLU, the Free Speech Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition and National Right To Life said it would hurt their own groups' abilities to influence Congress and place unreasonable restrictions on Internet politicking.


"We have concluded that this would certainly include bloggers," said Mark Fitzgibbons from American Target Advertising, which provides services to mostly conservative organizations. Fitzgibbons, who runs the GrassrootsFreedom.com advocacy site that opposes Section 220, warned that the legislation "has no regard for the media being used" and includes the Internet.


Under the legislation, a "grassroots lobbying firm" must register with the government or face civil and criminal penalties. "Grassroots lobbying" is defined as a person engaging in "paid efforts" to encourage the "general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials." That person must also spend or receive at least $25,000 related to his or her political efforts over any three-month period.


A letter that Fitzgibbons wrote last week uses the example of a political blogger who raises money for a newspaper ad that costs $25,000 would be affected by the rule.


"Nobody I know doubts that the 'culture' of Washington and Congress itself need serious attention and cures," he wrote. "Attempts to regulate communications to the general public made by those who do not have Washington lobbyists, however, shifts the blame away from the real culprits within Congress and Washington."


The growing outcry over Section 220, especially from conservative groups including Gun Owners of America, has led some key supporters of the overall legislation to defect and oppose that language. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said that he will vote for Amendment 20 by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) to strip out Section 220.



"This provision actually has fairly limited impact, but the way it's written and the way the (current law) is written it's very confusing," Guinane said.


"I think there's been some misinformation here that's whipped up some hysteria in the blogging community that's not justified."


Guinane acknowledged the language was confusing, and said that she would prefer to see it rewritten rather than completely eliminated through the Bennett amendment. "I'd rather see them clarify 220 so it's perfectly clear to everyone how limited the impact of this provision would be," she said.


Originally, Section 220 had only civil penalties (existing law specifies fines of up to $50,000). But last week, by a vote of 93-2, the Senate added criminal penalties for failing to "comply with any provision"--which is what, in part, caused the new outcry from grassroots groups that would be affected by it.

[American Patriot]

Trump fined over huge flag at Palm Beach club
MiamiHerald.com ^ | Jan. 19, 2007




WEST PALM BEACH - (AP) -- Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach voted Thursday to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.


Code enforcement officials have accused the real estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.


Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.


''The town council of Palm Beach should be ashamed of itself,'' Trump said Thursday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ``They're fining me for putting up the American flag. This is probably a first in United States history.''


Trump's club hoisted the 15-by-25-foot flag atop the 80-foot pole at the sprawling waterfront site on Oct 3. The town had given him until Nov. 27 to remove the flag or apply for approvals.


''I think Mr. Trump, the property owner, picked this fight. I think he's been provocative,'' said Martin Fried, a member of the town's Code Enforcement Board.


Trump said Thursday he would not pay any fines and would keep the flag flying.


''It's all up in the court,'' he said. ``It'll be a long time, unfortunately.''

[American Patriot]

talkradio talkradio
Uploaded by hotternews

Listen... and wonder...

[MinutemanCO]

There is some weird stuff coming at us. This potential legislation, I'm quite certain, would label almost all of the founding fathers of this nation as perveyors of "hate speech". It makes me sick to think what this nation has transformed into. One question... do you think that the authorities that would be enforcing this legislation will target imams and other religious leaders of Islam for hate speech violations regarding this very issue? You can be certain that Moslems will preach against homosexuality in an even more vehement way than a Christian preacher.

http://www.afa.net/hatecrime2.asp

June 14, 2007

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

A bill in Congress could make it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality

Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut

If pastors and other Christians don’t aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they could be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.
The proposed law could make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!
Senate bill S. 1105 could make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime� punishable by law. This dangerous legislation could take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:

• A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words “natural family,â€Â� “marriageâ€Â� and “union of a man and a womanâ€Â� a “hate speechâ€Â� crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!

• CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

For the Alliance Defense Fund’s summary of this bill, click here.

Take Action

We are looking for one million Americans willing to take a stand and not allow a small group of homosexual activists to take away our freedoms. Can we count on you? Click on the link below to sign our Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom. Please forward this to others, especially your pastor, and ask them to get involved in protecting our freedoms of speech and religion. This threat to our religious freedoms is real!

[American Patriot]

Family's license plates deemed offensive
yahoo.com ^ | 09/24/07 | AP

MERLIN, Oregon - The state of Oregon has ordered a family to turn in the vanity license plates on its cars because their Dutch last name, which is written on the plates, is similar to an offensive word.

The plates, UDINK1 UDINK2 and UDINK3 are on the vehicles of Mike and Shelly Udink and their son Kalei. Two of the plates are five and seven years old. One was issued last year.

Last summer, Kawika Udink's application for UDINK4 was rejected and the state ordered that the other three plates be returned.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

[American Patriot]

ACLU given 'veto power' over free-speech rights
One News Now ^ | 7/7/8 | Jeff Johnson Christian groups are appealing a federal judge's ruling that bars the Gideons from distributing Bibles to students of the South Iron Missouri School District.


The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed.


"In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.


But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech."


Staver is asking the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Perry. He says that, to his knowledge, no other U.S. court has ever ruled that a private, third party should be given veto power over private religious speech.

[American Patriot]

Houston & Texas News
Quanell X holds two MemÃ*n comic books purchased from Wal-Mart on South Post Oak. The main character, deemed racist by some in the U.S., is popular in Mexico.

MELISSA PHILLIP: CHRONICLE

July 7, 2008, 11:20PM
Comic draws charges of racism
Customers ask Wal-Mart stores to remove book

By LESLIE CASIMIR
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle





Beloved by Mexicans for his dim wits, street smarts and playful disposition, long-running comic book character MemÃ*n PinguÃ*n — a little black boy whose face resembles a monkey — is at it again.
His zany adventures chronicled in a hugely popular book series for decades are up for sale at your neighborhood Wal-Mart store in the Libros en Español section, right next to the store's cadre of African-American books.


The latest issue: MemÃ*n para presidente.


By Shawnedria McGinty's American standards, the image was shocking. The African-American woman who was shopping at the store on South Post Oak over the weekend immediately asked a store manager to remove the books from the shelves. A manager told her he would comply.


"I said, wait a minute: Is this a monkey or a little black boy?" said McGinty, 34, of Meyerland. "I was so upset. This is 2008."
But as of Monday afternoon, the books were still on the shelves at many Houston stores, prompting community activist Quanell X to demand that Wal-Mart apologize for selling the racially charged books.


"Even Hispanics of conscious minds sense this is racist and that to sell this is totally unacceptable," said Quanell X, who spoke in front of the Wal-Mart on South Post Oak and demanded officials issue an apology. "It is a disgrace — it's an insult to all African-Americans."


Quanell X, who was contacted by McGinty, requested a meeting with regional Wal-Mart officials.


A Wal-Mart spokesman said the books were removed late Monday at the Meyerland location, but would not say if the comic books would be pulled at other Houston locations. A Houston Chronicle reporter bought three MemÃ*n comic books for $7.44 each at another Wal-Mart on Dunvale.


"We will be evaluating the best course of action," said Phillip Keene, a company spokesman.


MemÃ*n is no stranger to controversy. In 2005, the Mexican postal service released a series of new stamps commemorating the comic book character, who debuted in the 1940s. The stamps sold out quickly, but the debate endured and swirled between the U.S. White House and the Mexican White House.


To some in America, MemÃ*n's stereotypical image of exaggerated lips and ape-like characteristics represents a racist period in the nation's history when black-face characters were popular.


The stamps were deemed offensive by President Bush and a number of American leaders, including civil rights icon Jesse Jackson. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said he didn't understand what all the fuss was about and insisted that MemÃ*n's image was not racist, but a beloved character embraced by all Mexicans.


"When you read the stories, he's always the hero — he saves the day," said Raul Ramos, professor of Mexican-American history at the University of Houston, who added that the racial dynamics in Mexico — where stereotypical "Sambo" characters do not exist — are far more complex than in the U.S. "He's kind of the Charlie Chaplin figure, the rascal who is able to overcome the difficult situations. So he's a very populist character in that way."


Omar G., 45, who was shopping at the Meyerland Wal-Mart with his four American-born children, said he did not want his children to read it.
"I grew up reading the comic book as a kid in Mexico, but for here, it is offensive for some people," said Omar, who did not want his last name published. "To see it here in Wal-Mart, I am surprised."
leslie.casimir@chron.com

[American Patriot]

Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?
HotAir ^ | July 8, 2008 | Ed Morrissey


"Efforts in both chambers of Congress have Republicans wondering why Democrats seem to fear free speech. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has proposed limitations on how Representatives can post information to the Internet in a time when we should be demanding more transparency, not less. According to a source in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein has begun her own campaign to force Senators to seek permission before communicating over the Internet."

"In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing members to get approval for the act of communicating on external websites. Further, it would appear that the Feinstein proposal would attempt to exercise editorial control over these sites, at least indirectly." "As my source put it, these are the key issues:....."

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

[American Patriot]

OPINION

Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech

By ARLEN SPECTER and JOE LIEBERMAN
July 14, 2008; Page A15

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1215...n_commentaries


Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.


That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers.


Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner's legal fees.


Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there.


Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.


Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of "House of Bush, House of Saud," a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies, though some refused to do so.


To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1.


Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.


First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams argues that "the values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each." We agree. But it is not in our interest to permit the balance struck in America to be upset or circumvented by foreign courts. Our legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards. No more. No less.


We have seen this type of libel suit before. The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods. At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.


Now we are engaged in another great struggle -- this time against Islamist terror -- and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.


Mr. Specter is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

[American Patriot]

Lawyers in YouTube Lawsuit Reach User Privacy Deal
Asia One ^ | 07.15.2008 | Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO, US - DEFENDANTS and plaintiffs in two related copyright infringement lawsuits against YouTube have reached a deal to protect the privacy of millions of YouTube watchers during evidence discovery, a spokesman for Google Inc said on Monday.

Earlier in July, a New York federal judge ordered Google to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom Inc and other plaintiffs to help them to prepare a confidential study of what they argue are vast piracy violations on the video-sharing site.

Google said it had agreed to provide plaintiffs' attorneys for Viacom and a class action group led by the Football Association of England a version of a massive viewership database that blanks out YouTube username and Internet address data that could be used to identify individual video watchers.

'We have reached agreement with Viacom and the class action group,' Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said. 'They have agreed to let us anonymise YouTube user data,' he said.

Viacom, owner of movie studio Paramount and MTV Networks, requested the information as part of its US$1 billion (S$1.35 billion) copyright infringement lawsuit against the popular online video service YouTube and its deep-pocketed parent, Google.

Judge Louis Stanton of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Google on July 1 to turn over as evidence a database with usernames of YouTube viewers, what videos they watched when, and users' computer addresses.

Privacy activists from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups argued in response that the order 'threatens to expose deeply private information' and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental habits were revealed.

Viacom said at the time that it needed the data to demonstrate video piracy patterns that are the heart of its case against YouTube. But it sought to diffuse privacy fears, saying it had no interest in identifying individual users.

One outstanding disagreement between the two parties is on how to handle YouTube viewership data of YouTube and Google employees, which Judge Stanton also had ordered YouTube to turn over as part of the July 1 ruling covering YouTube consumers.

In a legal stipulation agreed to by attorneys for all major parties in the case, the sides agreed that the new data privacy agreement did not cover these employees and that they would work out to hand over this data separately in coming weeks.

YouTube faces two separate, but parallel lawsuits, that for purposes of preliminary motions and evidence discovery are acting as if the two cases were consolidated. Viacom filed the first lawsuit, and a separate class action was later filed by the English Premier League soccer, several other European sports leagues, along with music publishers and videographers.

The cases are unlikely to come to trial before 2009 or 2010.

[American Patriot]

Another assault on Americans' Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion!

Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name'
Christian News Wire ^ | July 23, 2008 | Chaplain Klingenschmitt

WASHINGTON, July 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the city council of Fredericksburg, Virginia had proper authority to require "non-sectarian" prayer content and exclude council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from the prayer rotation because he prayed "in Jesus' name."

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the decision, said: "The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith."

Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating solely because of the Christian content of his prayer.

A full text copy of the decision, with added commentary by Chaplain Klingenschmitt is here: http://www.PrayInJesusName.org/Frenz...nstOconnor.pdf

Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain who faced court-martial for praying "in Jesus name" in uniform (but won the victory in Congress for other chaplains), defended Rev. Hashmel Turner:

"The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by establishing a non-sectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion. Justice O'Connor showed her liberal colors today, by declaring the word 'Jesus' as illegal religious speech, which can be banned by any council who wishes to ignore the First Amendment as she did. Councilman Rev. Hashmel Turner should run for mayor, fire the other council-members, and re-write the prayer policy. And if he appeals to the Supreme Court, I pray he will win, in Jesus' name."

[American Patriot]

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1944
HASHMEL C. TURNER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA; THOMAS
J. TOMZAK, in his official capacity
as Mayor of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia,
Defendants-Appellees.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
VIRGINIA FOUNDATION,
Amicus Supporting Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge.
(3:06-cv-00023-JRS)
Argued: March 19, 2008
Decided: July 23, 2008

Before Sandra Day O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired),
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation, and
MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Associate Justice O’Connor wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Shedd joined.
COUNSEL ARGUED: R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Martin Rolfe, HUNTON &
WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: J. Bradley Reaves, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia;
James J. Knicely, KNICELY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Williamsburg,
Virginia, for Appellant. Maya M. Eckstein, Terence J. Rasmussen,
Thomas K. Johnstone, IV, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia;
Elliot M. Mincberg, Judith E. Schaeffer, PEOPLE FOR THE
AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Rebecca K. Glenberg, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION, INC., Richmond, Virginia, for
Amicus Supporting Appellees.

OPINION
O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired):

Appellant Hashmel Turner claims that the Council for the City of
Fredericksburg, Virginia, violated his First Amendment rights when
it implemented a policy beginning in 2005 requiring that legislative
prayers be nondenominational. Because the prayers at issue here are
government speech, we hold that Fredericksburg’s prayer policy does
not violate Turner’s Free Speech and Free Exercise rights. Likewise,
the requirement that the prayers be nondenominational does not violate
the Establishment Clause.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: RIGHT AWAY JUSTICE O’CONNOR GETS IT
WRONG. RELIGIOUS SPEECH IS NEVER GOVERNEMENT SPEECH, SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT PRAY. WHENEVER SOMEBODY PRAYS, THEY
CEASE TO SPEAK FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND SPEAK ONLY FOR
THEMSELVES, DURING THE LENGTH OF THAT PRAYER.

TURNER WAS DENIED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND PUNISHED WITH
EXCLUSION, ONLY BECAUSE HE PRAYED IN JESUS’ NAME. HE WAS
CERTAINLY VIOLATED.

AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IN 1991, LEE V.
WEISMAN, THAT "The government may not establish an official
or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment
of a religion with more specific creeds...The State's role
did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with
the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi
Gutterman with a copy of the ‘Guidelines for Civic
Occasions’ and advised him that his prayers should be
nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal directed
and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only
sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi
would not be invited back, we think no religious
representative who valued his or her continued reputation
and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's
displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of
our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of
the business of government to compose official prayers for
any group of the American people to recite as a part of a
religious program carried on by government, Engel v. Vitale,
(1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to
do."

O’CONNOR MUST DISAGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE THIS
RULING. (AND SHE ADMITS SHE DOES....READ ON....)

I.
The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia ("the Council")
begins every meeting with a Call to Order, which consists of an opening
prayer offered by one of the Council’s elected members followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance. Only Council members are allowed to
offer the opening prayer, and the Council members rotate the Call to
Order duty. Until 2005, members of the Council were allowed to offer
denominational prayers.

2 TURNER v. CITY COUNCIL OF FREDERICKSBURG
Turner was first elected to the Council in 2002. He is an ordained
minister and a part-time pastor of the First Baptist Church of Love.
Turner’s religious beliefs require him to close his prayers in the name
of Jesus Christ. Turner’s prayers on behalf of the Council reflected
this practice.

In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to file a
lawsuit if the Council’s practice of opening with sectarian prayers
continued. The City Attorney examined the relevant case law and
concluded that the safest course of action was to continue offering
prayers, but to offer nondenominational prayers which did not invoke
the name of Jesus Christ. The Council adopted their attorney’s suggestion
and promulgated a prayer policy on November 8, 2005. Turner
abstained from voting in that decision.

On November 22, 2005, Turner’s name came to the front of the
prayer rotation. Knowing Turner’s beliefs on the matter, the Mayor
asked Turner if he planned to close his prayer in the name of Jesus
Christ, in violation of the newly adopted policy; Turner said that he
would. The Mayor refused to recognize Turner and called on another
Council member to deliver the opening prayer instead.

Turner filed this suit, claiming that the Council’s prayer policy was
an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and that it violated his
Free Exercise and Free Speech rights. The district court granted summary
judgment to the Council, and this appeal followed.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: EVERYBODY ADMITS THE FACTS, THAT
TURNER WAS PUNISHED WITH EXCLUSION FROM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF HIS CHRISTIAN PRAYERS.

II.

As a preliminary matter, we must decide whether the legislative
prayer at issue here is speech that must be attributed to the government,
or whether the Call to Order prayers were given in a personal
capacity.

The Fourth Circuit has adopted a four-factor test for determining
when speech can be attributed to the government. In order to determine
whether the speech in question is government or private speech,
we consider:

(1) the central "purpose" of the program in which the speech
in question occurs; (2) the degree of "editorial control" exercised
by the government or private entities over the content
of the speech; (3) the identity of the "literal speaker"; and
(4) whether the government or the private entity bears the
"ultimate responsibility" for the content of the speech.
Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Motor
Vehicles, 288 F.3d 610, 618 (2002), citing Wells v. City & County of
Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1141 (10th Cir. 2001). Applying these factors,
we conclude that the legislative prayer at issue here is governmental
speech.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PRAY, UNLESS
IT CHOOSES A GOVERNMENT GOD. ONLY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CAN
PRAY. THUS TURNERS PRAYERS WERE ALWAYS OFFERED AS A PRIVATE
CITIZEN. BY RULING THAT PRAYER IS “GOVERNMENT SPEECH” O’CONNOR
HAS ESTABLISHED A GOVERNMENT-FAVORED VERSION OF GOD. (A FALSE
GOD, A NEUTERED NON-SECTARIAN GOD, AN IDOL TO WHICH WE MUST
ALL BOW, OR FACE PUNISHMENT OF EXCLUSION AND DENIAL OF EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY.)

First, the purpose of the program suggests that the speech is governmental
in nature. The prayer is an official part of every Council
meeting. It is listed on the agenda, and is delivered as part of the
opening, along with the Pledge of Allegiance. The person giving the
prayer is called on by the Mayor. The prayers typically ask that Council
members be granted wisdom and guidance as they deliberate and
decide how best to govern the city. We conclude that the central purpose
of the Council meeting is to conduct the business of the government,
and the opening prayer is clearly serving a government purpose.
KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: PRAYER DOES HAVE A GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSE, BUT ONLY SO FAR AS IT CELEBRATES THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE
CITIZENS TO PRAY. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PRAY.

As to the second and third factors, the Council itself exercises substantial
editorial control over the speech in question, as it has prohibited
the giving of a sectarian prayer. While Turner is the literal
speaker, he is allowed to speak only by virtue of his role as a Council
member. Council members are the only ones allowed to give the Call
to Order.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: BUT THIS CALL TO ORDER CAN CERTAINLY
BE DELEGATED TO PRIVATE CITIZENS WHO MAY ROUTINELY BE CALLED
UPON TO TAKE TURNS, PRAYING EACH ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER OWN
FAITH.

The only factor about which there is any question is whether the
government or the Council member who delivers the prayer bears the
ultimate responsibility for its content.

In the prayers Turner offered before the current prayer policy was
adopted, he prayed, "As we are about the business of this locality, we
ask Lord God, that you will cleanse our hearts and our minds that we
make the right decisions that’s best suited for this locality." JA 489.
KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: APPARENTLY EVEN THIS PRAYER IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY “NON-SECTARIAN” FOR O’CONNOR’S UNUSUAL TASTES.
It is true that Turner and the other Council members take some personal
responsibility for their Call to Order prayers. But given the
focus of the prayers on government business at the opening of the
Council’s meetings, we agree with the District Court that the prayers
at issue are government speech.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: PRAYERS ARE NEVER GOVERNMENT
SPEECH. GOVERNMENTS CANNOT CHOOSE WHICH GOD, WHILE
REMAINING IMPARTIAL. ONLY CITIZENS CAN CHOOSE WHICH GOD.

Turner has not cited a single case in which a legislative prayer was
treated as individual or private speech. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has
determined that more difficult cases than this one should be classified
as government speech. For instance, in Simpson v. Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005), the Board
of Supervisors invited religious leaders from congregations throughout
Chesterfield County to give prayers on a rotating basis. Id. at 279.

The identity of the speaker, and the responsibility for the speech, was,
in that case, less clearly attributable to the government than the
speech here, because the speakers there were not government officials.
Simpson nonetheless held that "the speech . . . was government
speech." Id. at 288.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: THIS IS CRAZY. NOW O’CONNOR BELIEVES
THAT EVEN VISITING PASTORS ARE SPEAKING AS GOVERNMENT ACTORS,
WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY INVITED TO REPRESENT DIVERSE FAITHS, NOT
THE GOVERNMENT’S FAVORITE RELIGION, AS O’CONNOR WRONGLY
SUPPOSES THAT SIMPSON RULED. THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, OR EVERY
PRIVATE PETITION OFFERED IN A GOVERNEMENT FORUM WOULD
QUALIFY AS GOVERNMENT INITIATED SPEECH, WHICH IS OXYMORONIC.

III.
Turner claims that, under the Establishment Clause, the government
may not dictate the content of official prayers. He points to Lee
v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), which held that a school principal,
who directed a rabbi to deliver a nonsectarian prayer, violated the
Establishment Clause. The Court explained that "[i]t is a cornerstone
principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that ‘it is no part
of the business of government to compose official prayers for any
group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program
carried on by government.’" Id. at 588 (quoting Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962)). Thus, Turner says, the government cannot
require that nonsectarian prayers be given.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: O’CONNOR SKIPPED THE MOST IMPORTANT
DICTA WITHIN THE LEE RULING: “Principal Lee provided Rabbi
Gutterman with a copy of the ‘Guidelines for Civic
Occasions’ and advised him that his prayers should be
nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal directed
and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only
sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi
would not be invited back, we think no religious
representative who valued his or her continued reputation
and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's
displeasure in this regard.”

Turner’s argument misses the mark. As the Lee Court went on to
explain, the school’s direction to deliver a nonsectarian prayer was a
"good-faith attempt to ensure that the sectarianism which is so often
the flashpoint for religious animosity [was] removed from the graduation
ceremony." Id. But the Establishment Clause question that was
raised was not whether the school had made a good-faith attempt to
accommodate other religions; instead, the question was "the legitimacy
of its undertaking that enterprise at all when the object is to produce
a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise which students,
for all practical purposes, are obliged to attend." Id. at 589. We do not
read Lee as holding that a government cannot require legislative
prayers to be nonsectarian. Instead, Lee established that government
cannot compel students to participate in a religious exercise as part of
a school program.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: O’CONNOR HAD TO DISTINGUISH FROM
LEE, AND DISAGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT’S DICTA, TO ENFORCE
HER OPINION. BUT LEE CLEARLY HELD THAT A GOVERNMENT CANNOT
REQUIRE ANY PRAYERS TO BE NON-SECTARIAN.

The Supreme Court of the United States has treated legislative
prayer differently from prayer at school events: "[T]here can be no
doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has
become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance
on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances,
an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment.’"

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: OF COURSE INVITING CITIZENS TO PRAY
DIVERSELY DOES NOT ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT RELIGION. BUT
STRICTLY REGULATING THEIR SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS CONTENT DOES.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983). Opening
prayers need not serve a proselytizing function, and often are an "acknowledgement
of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

Id. So long as the prayer is not used to advance a particular
religion or to disparage another faith or belief, courts ought not to
"parse the content of a particular prayer." Id. at 795; see also Wynne
v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2004).

We need not decide whether the Establishment Clause compelled
the Council to adopt their legislative prayer policy, because the Establishment
Clause does not absolutely dictate the form of legislative
prayer.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: AT LEAST SHE RECOGNIZES THE FREEDOM
FOR OTHER COUNCILS (LIKE TULSA OKLAHOMA CITY COUNCIL) WHOSE
POLICY SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS DIVERSITY OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
CLEARLY SOME COUNCILS MAY ALLOW PRAYERS IN JESUS NAME, WHILE
FREDERICKSBURG DOES NOT. SEE THE BETTER TULSA POLICY HERE:
http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy12/TulsaPrayerPolicy.pdf

In Marsh, the legislature employed a single chaplain and
printed the prayers he offered in prayerbooks at public expense. By
contrast, the legislature in Simpson allowed a diverse group of church
leaders from around the community to give prayers at open meetings.
Simpson, 404 F.3d at 279. Both varieties of legislative prayer were
found constitutional. The prayers in both cases shared a common
characteristic: they recognized the rich religious heritage of our country
in a fashion that was designed to include members of the community,
rather than to proselytize.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: NOW THREE VARIETIES OF LEGISLATIVE
PRAYER ARE FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL, 1) GOVERNMENT-PAID CHAPLAIN,
2) DIVERSITY OF VIEWS (I.E. TULSA), AND 3) NON-SECTARIAN MANDATED
(I.E. FREDERICKSBURG). AT LEAST PRAYER IS SAFE. BUT #3 MANDATING
RELIGIOUS SPEECH CONTENT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED.
The Council’s decision to provide only nonsectarian legislative
prayers places it squarely within the range of conduct permitted by
Marsh and Simpson. The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in
nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come
from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular
faith.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: THEN WHY IS TURNER’S CHRISTIAN FAITH
BEING EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATION? THE COURT’S WORDS ARE
SELF-CONTRADICTORY. DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY “EXCEPT
CHRISTIANS” IS NOT VERY INCLUSIVE AT ALL.

The Council’s decision to open its legislative meetings with
nondenominational prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause.
KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: IS NON-DENOMINATIONAL DIFFERENT
THAN NON-SECTARIAN? O’CONNOR USES TERMS INTERCHANGABLY.
EITHER WAY, SHE IS REGULATING THE CONTENT OF THE SPEECH, AND
THE CONTENT OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF. THAT’S WRONG, AND SHOULD
BE OVERTURNED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

IV.
Appellant also argues that the prayer policy violates his Free Exercise
and First Amendment rights. As Simpson explained:
[T]his issue turns on the characterization of the invocation
as government speech. . . . The invocation is not intended
for the exchange of views or other public discourse. Nor is
it intended for the exercise of one’s religion. . . . The context,
and to a degree, the content of the invocation segment
is governed by established guidelines by which the [government]
may regulate the content of what is not expressed.

Simpson, 404 F.3d at 288 (internal citations omitted) (second omission
in original); see also Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of University
of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) ("[W]e have permitted
the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed
when it is the speaker.").

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: AGAIN, GOVERNMENTS CANNOT CHOOSE A
FAVORITE RELIGION, AS O’CONNOR PERMITS.

Turner was not forced to offer a prayer that violated his deeplyheld
religious beliefs.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: ACTUALLY, HE WAS DIRECTLY FORCED TO
CONFORM, OR FACE THE PUNISHMENT OF EXCLUSION.

Instead, he was given the chance to pray on behalf of the government.
KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: ACTUALLY HE WAS DENIED THE CHANCE
TO PRAY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Turner was unwilling to do so in the manner
that the government had proscribed, but remains free to pray on
his own behalf, in nongovernmental endeavors, in the manner dictated
by his conscience.

KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: THE WORD ‘JESUS’ IS NOW ILLEGAL
RELIGIOUS SPEECH, BANNED BY O’CONNOR’S TWISTED READING OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. ‘GOD’ IS PERMITTED, BUT ‘JESUS’ IS BANNED.
THAT’S NOT FREEDOM. YOU MUST ‘LEAVE JESUS OUTSIDE’ IF YOU WANT
TO SPEAK IN A GOVERNMENT FORUM. O’CONNOR IS WRONG, AND SO IS
THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG.

His First Amendment and Free Exercise rights have not been violated.
KLINGENSCHMITT COMMENT: TURNER HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
For these reasons, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

--------------------------
KLINGENSCHMITT FINAL COMMENT: THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED
EVERYBODY’S RIGHTS BY ESTABLISHING A NON-SECTARIAN RELIGION,
AND REQUIRING ALL PRAYERS CONFORM, OR FACE EXCLUSION. JUSTICE
O’CONNOR DID A GRAVE DISSERVICE TODAY, BY EXCLUDING PEOPLE
WHO PRAY “IN JESUS’ NAME.”

JUSTICE O’CONNOR WILL REPENT ONE DAY FOR THIS RULING, WHEN SHE
STANDS BEFORE ALMIGHTY GOD, AND HEARS HIM SAY, “EVERY KNEE
SHALL BOW, AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS, THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.”
REVEREND HASHMEL TURNER SHOULD APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT,
AND I PRAY HE WILL WIN, IN JESUS’ NAME.

For media interviews, contact:
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
719-360-5132 cell
chaplaingate@yahoo.com
www.prayinjesusname.org

[American Patriot]

Muslim Fine Whine of the Day: You Can't Tell the Truth About Who Sells Oil
debbieschlussel.com ^ | August 7, 2008 | Debbie Schlussel Arab Muslims are outraged--OUTRAGED!--at Michigan Republican Congressman Mike Rogers over a stupid, shoddy, but entirely non-offensive video he made, in which an Arab is depicted as an oil producer. The video is posted below.



This story reminds me of the time I screened the movie, "United 93," about the 9/11 hijacking of United Flight 93. After the movie, I asked a few Muslim attendees what they thought, since I noticed the frowns on their faces. "It was biased because they made the hijackers Muslim," the hijab-encrusted woman said.



Yup, the Muslims and Arabs want you to think that the hijackers of the planes on 9/11 didn't have names like Mohammed Atta or Nawaf Al-Hazmi. The makers of "United 93" should have invented new hijackers named Patrick Houlihan and Brian Cohen and John Smith.

Congressman Mike Rogers Says No To Islamic Terrorist Imad Hamad (Hamadafat by Six Meat Buffet/Preston Taylor Holmes)
And so it goes with the current Muslim outrage over an amateurish video made by Republican Congressman Rogers, in which--at about 2:22 in--one of three men depicted as oil producers is wearing a keffiyeh, the Arab male headdress. After all, when we think of who produces and sells America oil, we'd never think of Arabs, would we? The Arab Gulf made its money from selling peanuts, computers, and Twinkies, right? You know, Bilal Al-Gates of Microsoft?



Well, apparently, you can't say that Arabs--Arab Muslims--are the ones selling a good deal of the oil to us. And apparently you can't recognize that the majority of the countries in OPEC--the illegal monopoly, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--are Arab (Muslim) ones.

(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...

[American Patriot]

Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence
Thu Aug 7, 2008 6:39pm EDT

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Publisher Random House has pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could "incite acts of violence."

"The Jewel of Medina," a debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, 46, was due to be published on August 12 by Random House, a unit of Bertelsmann AG, and an eight-city publicity tour had been scheduled, Jones told Reuters on Thursday.

The novel traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death. Jones said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be postponed indefinitely.

"I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed ... I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder," said Jones.

Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.

Jones, who has just completed a sequel to the novel examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other publishers, Perry said.

The decision has sparked controversy on Internet blogs and in academic circles. Some compared the controversy to previous cases where portrayals of Islam were met with violence.

Protests and riots erupted in many Muslim countries in 2006 when cartoons, one showing the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban resembling a bomb, appeared in a Danish newspaper. At least 50 people were killed and Danish embassies attacked.

British author Salman Rushdie's 1988 book "The Satanic Verses" was met with riots across the Muslim world. Rushdie was forced into hiding for several years after Iran's then supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proclaimed a death edict, or fatwa, against him.

Jones, who has never visited the Middle East, spent several years studying Arab history and said the novel was a synthesis of all she had learned.

"They did have a great love story," Jones said of Mohammed and A'isha, who is often referred to as Mohammed's favorite wife. "He died with his head on her breast."

(Editing by Alan Elsner)