The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

first amendment

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Westboro

by

Wednesday the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the controversial Topeka, KS Westboro Church. With the 8-1 ruling, it has echoed across the United States in such a fashion that people are almost as outraged at the Court as they are with the picketing and hateful speech.

This ruling however, probably should have never made it to the Supreme Court. It should have been a cut and dry ruling in favor of Westboro. And, while a super-majority of the American people disagree with that, they do certainly have the right to free speech so long as it is on public property. If it was on private property, this ruling could have swayed the other way.

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to “bury his son in peace.” Instead, Alito said, the protesters “brutally attacked” Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” he said.

However, this ruling does fall in line with previous court decisions.

“The bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” Roberts said, quoting the flag-burning ruling by liberal icon William J. Brennan Jr., is that the government cannot punish words or ideas “simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

If you wish to read the entire Supreme Court ruling on the case, click HERE. (PDF)

Ground Zero Mosque; Religious Toleration or Intoleration?

by

There is a great deal of attention being placed on the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, and if it should or shouldn’t be. However, debate on the foundation of religious toleration is where attention should be focused.

Playing on the emotions of Americans, is the idea of building the GZ Mosque. Still feeling and seeing the aftermath of the fall of the twin towers is where people are allowing confusions and emotions to play into the formulation of opinions. And, while that is not wrong, it isn’t right either.

Even the Founding Fathers debated heavily on this very subject, and in so much that the Statue of Libertycries, “Give me your tired,  your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” That’s it. At the end, there is no addition that says, “except Muslims.”

The Anti-Federalists proposed, during the Virginia Convention on June 27, 1788 when debating a proposed Bill of Rights:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only be reasopn and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefor all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.

However, toleration could lead to intoleration when supposed that the religious belief of one leads to the harm of another. Case in point, the ludicrous act of the events on 9-11. Waged in a ‘holy war’ on the West, Muslim followers – carried out on religious belief – were in cause of harm to another. At which point, when a nation of tolerant people became intolerant.

In echoing the sentiments of the Founding Fathers, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said recently in an address:

The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

A nation founded on the idea of freedom of religion, America has been tolerant to those welcomed in her arms. And, America must continue to show mercy, compassion and tolerance to those of the Muslim faith. However, when the constraints of the Muslim faith place harm on others by claim of ‘religious laws’ in the form of Sharia Law, caution must still be a leading factor.

Islam: Free to Exercise Religion?

by

With Islam continuing to emerge as an issue, the debate over exercise of religion takes debate. However, there are fine lines which make it difficult for some.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free exercise thereof – 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

While people are free to choose their religion and how they practice their faith, Islam has come forward namely because of its own set of laws. Sharia law is controversial to those who are not practicing members, but the reason it is heavily debated is that it doesn’t follow conventional laws.

The debate is because Sharia law provides a ‘religious activity’ that both harms public peace and others’ rights. This in itself should be enough to end the issue. But, compassion for others to freely worship their Creator is a foundation of America. Which furthers the fine lines over the practice of Islam.

A foundation of Islam is to oppose those who oppose them. And, while you can’t pick and choose what parts of religion can be allowed, the debate continues.

For more on this issue:

When Congressmen Attack

by

It’s no secret by now that Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) physically handled a student. If it is news to you, please watch the video:

As you can see, Etheridge was clearly placing his hands on this student. And for what? Who knew that a simple question like, “Do you support the Obama agenda” would get you a reaction like that?

Adam Goldsteinwith The Huffington Post had this to say:

The talking points here ask questions like: why isn’t the interviewer willing to identify himself? Is he an RNC operative? Is this an ambush interview designed to discredit Etheridge? Is this part of a plot to score political points?

Let me make this really simple: I don’t care.

I don’t. I don’t care if it’s a Republican operative–congressmen shouldn’t assault Republican operatives. I don’t care if it’s an ambush interview–congressmen shouldn’t attack ambush interviewers. I don’t care if it’s the ghost of Richard Nixon, foaming at the mouth rabid and wearing nothing but a placard accusing Etheridge of being of questionable parentage. No matter who this is, Etheridge doesn’t have the legal right to put hands on him for asking a question.

Some people are trying to deflect blame by questioning the motives of the would-be interviewer, as if the law of assault was a complicated moral issue. It isn’t, by the way. It’s a simple moral issue. If someone asks you a question, you don’t get to start grabbing him or her. Asking whether the questioner has some political motive is as morally bankrupt as asking what specifically Tina Turner said to Ike before he started hitting her–as if there were any answer that would suddenly make the conduct okay.

While it really doesn’t matter what was asked, and if the student did or didn’t give his name, the underlaying problem is this is a violation of the protection to the freedom of information. As citizens, we are protected when it comes to the right to bear arms, freedom of speech and press, but are we protected when it comes to being informed?

The Obama administration feels that there is too much information out there, and also feel that there should be some level of policing of that info as well. So, watch what you say and who you say it to. Especially around angry Congressmen who support the Obama agenda.

What did Etheridge have to say after the assault?

“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina , I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.” – via CNN Poilitical Ticker

California School Causes Uproar Over Student’s Patriotism

by

On May 5th, some California students were told by faculty members to take off their shirts. The only problem. They had the American Flag on them. But why would that be a problem? After all, this is America right? Aparently not on May 5th.

FoxNews.com | California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo

Administrators at a California high school sent five students home on Wednesday after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts and bandannas — garments the school officials deemed “incendiary” on Cinco de Mayo.

The five teens were sitting at a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., on Wednesday morning when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of them to remove their American flag bandannas, one of their parents told FoxNews.com. The boys complied, but were asked to accompany Rodriguez to the principal’s office.

The five students — Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel and Clayton Howard — were then told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home, though it would not be considered a suspension. Rodriguez told the students he did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags.

Little did the faculty know, the fight that would break out would be between millions of patriotic Americans against them. After all, this is America and the students were just celebrating their heritage by wearing shirts that were patriotic.

If you are a little outraged by this, please feel free to contact those responsible.

Call the school: 408-201-6100
They deserve to hear from the rest of the country.
Nan Rasor Principal – Nick.Boden@mhu.k12.ca.us
Superin…tendent: wes.smith@mhu.k12.ca.us
Deputy Superintendent: bonnie.tognazzini@mhu.k12.ca.us
Asst Superintendent HR: jay.totter@mhu.k12.ca.us
Director of Curriculum: pat.blanar@mhu.k12.ca.us
Director of Curriculum: esther.carlson@mhu.k12.ca.us

For more commentary:

First Amendment Confirms Freedom To Think For Ourselves

by

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, is at it again with another wonderful article for his Standing Guard journal. Posted are some of the highlights, but it is well worth the time to read the entire post.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ban on pre-election corporate and union political speech in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January, we expected expressions of outrage from the speech-ban crowd—but the venom, lies and intentional distortion by the media and self-serving politicians are truly shocking.

A Jan. 23, 2010 commentary in The Washington Post is typical. Columnist Ruth Marcus fumed, “In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.”

“Intellectual dishonesty?” That defines the near universal reaction of media and anti-First Amendment politicians.

First … here is what the court did not do. It did not remove the ban on direct contributions by corporations to candidates and campaigns. It did not—as President Barack Obama rudely shouted at the Supreme Court Justices invited to hear his State of the Union address—reverse “a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.”

In terms of you and me, and our National Rifle Association, here is what the court actually did:

In its 5-4 decision, the high court struck down the onerous sections of BCRA that made it a felony—because we are a non-profit corporation—for the NRA to use dues or contributions to the association to pay for any broadcast that even obliquely refers to a federal candidate. Those criminal sanctions were locked in 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

When Congress passed the gag order on our corporate speech, it exempted media corporations, and that special exception to censorship is gone as well—deemed unconstitutional by the court.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy nailed it in his majority opinion: “Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content.”

Simply put, the corporate speech of the NRA cannot be treated differently from the corporate speech of CBS, NBC or The New York Times and The Washington Post or any other media outlet. If their speech is sacrosanct, so is ours.

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

Censorship—like the BCRA ban on paid political speech—has as much to do with the rights of listeners as it does the right of the speaker to put forth ideas. It is the heart of the First Amendment. As Justice Kennedy declared: “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Read the entire post HERE.

Supreme Court Rules On Campaign Spending

by

In a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on overturning campaign spending limits. This ruling sent Democrats into a frantic frenzy over the constitutionality of the ruling. However, that is exactly what their ruling was based on. The Constitution.

President Obama added:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

In one light, this ruling does seem to silence the small-wallet voice of the people. However, it was the voice of big business that had their First Amendment taken away previous to the overturn. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO both urged the court to strike down the McCain-Feingold provision, as did the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) said, “This is poisonous to our democracy,” while Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D, MD) said, “This will allow the biggest corporations in the United States to engage in the buying and selling of elections.”

For more commentary:

Religious Leaders Issue Declaration Over Federal Abortion Funding

by

In an effort to declare opposition over federally funded abortions, a coalition of Christian leaders have united and released their declaration.

Fox News – Bishops Press Obama to Strike Senate Provision Allowing Federal Abortion Funding

More than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics, issued a joint declaration Friday reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay marriage and pledging to protect religious freedoms. The 4,700-word document, called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was unveiled on Capitol Hill during a press conference Friday.

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.   We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.  We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.  We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions. 

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.  In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

While this is not the declaration in its entirety, it is a ver compelling read. It is highly suggested that it is read. If you value the meaning of life, you should read this. If you value that sanctity of marriage, you should read this.

First Amendment Under Attack

by

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, ” Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Never before has free speech been tested as it is being tested today. Free speech against the media is something that is challenged all the time, with special attention when an opposing view is in question. One view that is under heavy attack is that of Fox News. The White House is waging a war against Fox, namely because of its opposition and the opinion shows showcased in its evening lineup.

One front of this war on free speech is being led by the Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd. As the Diversity Czar, he holds enough power to make the fight a lot harder than it should be.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association (NRA), wrote in his column Standing Guard at American Rifleman Magazine:

One of the radical ideological appointees embedded in the Obama political machine is a man with a dream for the First Amendment. His name is Mark Lloyd, and as Obama’s “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), he plans to wield immense power over the way Americans can communicate.

In his vision, a day would come when talk radio would be replaced with government-approved “progressive” local radio and by a smothering National People’s Radio.

In the Orwellian name of “diversity,” censorship will reign.

In his powerful FCC post, Lloyd is shaping the critical components of the Obama administration’s backdoor censorship of electronic and digital communications. He is doing it through the “regulatory” process—outside any specific congressional authority. FCC has the power to determine who gets broadcast licenses and who is barred. Political misuse of that power is the key.

But keep in mind that with this administration, criticism is always treated as nothing more than a “distraction” from the relentless agenda.

Lloyd declared, “… that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of our country to the detriment of informed public discourse and the First Amendment.”

Got that? The free market of ideas—where individual Americans choose with their radio dials—exists “to the detriment of the First Amendment.”

With Lloyd empowered as “Diversity Czar” at the FCC—and Soros ultimately pulling the strings—this effort in the coming months to turn radical anti-First Amendment theory into public policy will move at a rapid pace. It will be merely one part of a flood of “Change” aimed at silencing any political opposition at any cost.

So, in theory, you will not be able to choose what you want to listen to. You will be forced to listen to a myriad of radio voices. Long gone would be the days where you turn the dial to one station to listen to like-minded talkshow hosts, instead you would have to search and search to find five minutes you may or may not agree with.

One strange bit of irony in this is that the arguement for free speech is being voiced by a leading member of the NRA. Some say that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the 1st Amendment.