Another Reason Not to Be a Democrat

Reason number 76372 not to belong to the Democratic Party:

They target a private citizen to silence him from using his constitutionally-protected first amendment right to free speech.

It’s ok to disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I happen to agree with much of what he says, and think he’s a positive influence. And if you disagree, that’s your opinion, too.

But government entities have no business harassing private citizens’ free speech. This must be part of the “change” Obama promised to inflict upon Americans.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

US Government Restricts Free Speech and Expression of Religion

The “separation of church and state,” such as it is, should keep the government from imposing a religion upon the people of this country.

But regulations that squelch the speech of pastors? Can the US Government tell pastors what they can and cannot talk about?

There is no law that I’m aware of that restricts the speech of pastors, but IRS regulations in place for over 50 years threaten to withdraw the tax-exempt status of churches that speak on politics. I am convinced this is a contributing factor to the decline of morality in the USA. The churches are the center of what we consider moral in the country, and if the pulpits are silent, immorality blossoms.

Some pastors have begun specifically defying this regulation by specifically mentioning candidates by name. Their goal is to overturn the IRS regulation through the court system. Listen: all rules and regulations in this country should follow the US Constitution, right? Here’s the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution –

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That tells me that the government can’t pass any laws on what churches can and cannot say, anymore than they can tell newspapers what they can and cannot print. Read that amendment and explain to me how it could be interpreted otherwise.

If you’d like to read more, the Alliance Defense Fund is spearheading this project.

“Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.

It’s a government restriction on the freedom of speech and the expression of religion. I cant see how anyone could interpret the Constitution any other way.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Offending the Religious

NBC aired “The Book of Daniel” against the objections of Christian conservatives. Poorly written, appealing to few people, too controversial for advertisers, the “Book of Daniel” was dropped.

European newspapers have published cartoons depicting Mohamed with a bomb for a turban. Muslims rioted, kidnapped Europeans, burned effigies.

Both freedom of speech examples. Both examples of offense to religion. The reactions are quite different, but not the spark.

While Reporters Without Borders defended the media’s “right to make fun,” many newspapers argued free speech was not an excuse for gratuitous insults.

“Newspapers are not obliged to republish offensive material merely because it is controversial,” wrote Britain’s Guardian.

“The provocation became a violation of a people’s values, not a defense of one’s own important values,” said Finland’s Hufvudstadsbladet. “Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, but that should not be taken as an obligation to needlessly blaspheme others’ basic values,” said Ilta-Sanomat.

Protest calls multiplied at Friday prayers from Muslims, for some of whom the physical portrayal of the prophet is strictly forbidden. Imams said free speech was not the issue.

“They are not doing it to exercise their freedom, they are doing it to provoke people and create havoc,” said Abdulkadir Orire, leader of the Nigerian Muslim group Jama’atu Nasril Islam. “Freedom of expression is going beyond the limit.”

In Senegal, Imam Assane Cisse of the Cheikh Ibrahim Niass brotherhood said the cartoon had “nothing to do with freedom of expression,” but simply showed a lack of respect.

I’m glad to see that some people are starting to realize that because you can say anything you want, doesn’t mean you should.

Boycotting "Winter Holidays"

Yep, I’m boycotting “Winter Holidays” as a completely useless and meaningless psuedo-pagan holiday.

I’m celebrating Christmas. The birth of Christ, a reminder He came to die for our sins, the loving and giving we share with each other as we remember the loving and giving Jesus gave to us. I’ll happily pile on the odd Christmas traditions of trees and mistletoes and lights and presents and poinsettias and reindeer and whatnot. Christmas is a beautiful season.

If the ACLU gets their way, Christmas would be gone. Every year the non-existent “separation of church and state” doctrine chips away a little more of Christmas. This week I’ve seen stories of removing any religious reference from Christmas and school bands can’t play Christmas songs that contain references to Jesus or Santa Claus, even if the lyrics aren’t included.

The “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist in the US Constitution. In fact, it ends with “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, […]” The “Year of Our Lord” cannot refer to anybody but Jesus, and the US Contitution is, by definition, constitutional.

Instead the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” If I want to celebrate a religious and wholy holy Christian Christmas, I have that right. Whenever and wherever I wish to celebrate it.

I find it amazing that when I lived in Singapore, the country happily celebrated Christmas as a Christian holiday. They also celebrated Hari Raya Puasa, Ramadan, and Hari Raya Haji for the Muslims, Vesak Day for the Buddhists, Deepavali for the Hindus. Chinese New Year and the completely secular National Day, too. A little something for everyone. But in the mostly Christian USA, with the help of the ACLU, we’re trying to ban Christmas and celebrate “Seasons Greetings,” whatever that is.

Why hasn’t Christmas been completely outlawed? Pardon My English has an opinion – it’s all about money:

Let’s face it. The only thing that is keeping Christmas from being completely wiped out by secularism is its value to society as an economic engine. At Christmas, businesses collect huge amounts of their yearly revenue, simply because the holiday involves the giving and receiving of gifts. If Christians decided to make their presents, to stick to cookies and parties, or to just give their funds to the church and the poor at Christmastime, the public square would be denuded of its wintertime religious activity faster than you can say, “Merry Snowday.”

I’ll be celebrating Christmas this year with all the love and joy and celebration that goes with it. Cold generic people can celebrate the cold generic Winter Holiday, but I’m having none of it.

Zell Miller, Patriotic Democrat

Zell Miller gave a rousing patriotic speech last night to explain why he’s switching party lines to vote for George Bush. His heart and mind is his conscience, and he’s proudly stated something that’s important to me.

I am not necessarily a Republican. I don’t hold certain ideals because Republicans tell me to; I am a Republican because they hold my ideals. I’ll abandon my party, too, if they abandon me. And the Democrats have abandoned Zell.

I was going to post only excerpts, but the speech is so well done and captures the essence of patriotism, I’m going to list the entire speech here:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley’s most precious possessions.

And I know that’s how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man’s name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America “all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.” In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their “private plans” than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time. And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between “here lies a president” or “here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,” he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most? Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today. Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn’t like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That’s the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday’s war. George Bush believes we have to fight today’s war and be ready for tomorrow’s challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under. George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a “yes-no-maybe” bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in “Amazing Grace,” “Was blind, but now I see,” and I like the fact that he’s the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man’s soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that’s not any history. It’s our family’s history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we’ve got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you. God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

"Baby killer!"

Those words ought to frighten you – our country’s biggest mistake was treating returning Vietnam soldiers with contempt. It weakened our military, drove a wedge down the middle of America, and abused tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans.

Are those days long gone? Are the days when people like John Kerry organized groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War and said that soldiers “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam” and protested, not against the politicians, but against the soldiers trying their best to protect American citizens?

Apparently not – here’s a story of a soldier’s rude treatment in Seattle this week during the annual Grand Old Fourth of July parade.

That’s when Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who served in Iraq, marched in the local event. He wore his medals with pride and carried a sign that said “Veterans for Bush.”

Walking the parade route with his mom, younger siblings and politically conservative friends, Jason heard words from the crowd that felt like a thousand daggers to the heart.

“Baby killer!”



If you ever witness people treating our soldiers this way, shout them down. Yes, they’re using their freedom of speech – but you have freedom of speech, too, and the right and responsibility to support that soldier that protects that freedom of speech. Soldier don’t just follow orders, they risk life and limb on behalf of the United States and her citizens like you and me. Demoralizing our soldiers with the ugly whispers from Vietnam is the worst thing we can do to our country’s and our soldier’s morale.

When soldiers return from the battlefield, they should be welcomed as heroes, no matter what the politics are.

If you’re the kind of person that has venom like that spitting out of your mouth, save it for the day the terrorists are having a parade down main street.

Link to story found via Indepundit.