REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Friday, September 21, 2018

Undermining the First Amendment

Gay rights groups in Oakland and elsewhere want to shut you up -- that is if you say anything that might reveal the truth about the nature of their lifestyle.

Today Americans are living in a new kind of fear -- not of terrorism or nuclear annihilation, but of liberal thumb-suckers who want to undermine the First Amendment. For those of you who refuse to take the time to actually read the First Amendment, here it is in all of its glory.

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.

Currently in Congress a secret bill is being discussed that will enact penalties for people who dare to say anything that might offend someone else "so-called" -- Hate Speech. The Bill is secret because the mainscream liberal media won't cover it so that it can pass through Congress and get signed into law by the president without so much as a whimper from the people. Make sure to say good-bye to the First Amendment as the ink dries on the signature.

The whole inspiration for this article comes out of Oakland, that bastion of ethical and moral purity on the east side of San Francisco Bay. It seems that a group of women working for the Oakland city government requested equal time for their group, "Good News Employee Association" on the e-mail system and bulletin boards. The focus of the group is to provide a "forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With Respect for the Natural Family, Marriage, and Family Values." Their request came after other groups had been given the opportunity to utilize e-mail and bulletin boards to announce their organization's activities - including groups that support homosexual rights.

The city'ss response was a warm and compassionate, "not only no, but hell no." Their rationale was that the Good News group was "determined to promote harassment based on sexual orientation." The city further went on to say, "If the women posted any more flyers, or sent their message via email, they would be disciplined and perhaps terminated."

Of course the women of the group went to court over this and their case fell upon the docket of the fair and impartial Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco. The bastards that comprise that court ruled against the group essentially saying they promote hate speech. How nice.

This purpose of this article is not to engage debate about homosexuality being a choice, it is to point out the level of stupidity to which liberals have sunk in order to promote their flawed and abhorrent agenda. Psychopathic judges sympathetic to the wacko liberal agenda are more dangerous to America than al-Qaeda.

The judges of the Ninth Circuit Court deserve to be impeached, removed from the bench, disbarred, charged and convicted of treason, taken out and shot. These three judges have sold out to the liberal agenda and by misusing their authority on the bench have begun chipping away at one of the most fundamental rights secured by the Constitution.

They effectively violated three aspects of the First Amendment when they sided with the city of Oakland - another outfit deserving of conviction for treason - telling these women they could not organize a gathering (right to assemble), could not advertise the gathering (right to free speech) and based all of this on the fact that they were a forum of people of faith (right to free worship).

There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from the City of Oakland or the Ninth Circuit Court. Both entities are operating as weak-minded and spineless protoplasm unwilling to abide by the words inscribed over the steps of the United States Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under The Law".

Americans have the right to assemble peacefully, which these women were willing to do outside of work hours and away from their workplace out of respect for their co-workers. Americans have the right to worship God in anyway they see fit without fear of Congress stepping in and telling them otherwise, which these women were denied the right to do by their employer which happens to be a government agency. Americans have the right to announce their intention to organize to let group members and other interested parties know when and where, which these women were denied this right because the city of Oakland was afraid that someone would be offended that religious groups were being allowed to assemble.

Christian Americans know all too well the promises in the Bible, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD" and that the nation that will humble itself and pray to the LORD, God, will heal their land."

The liberal agenda doesn't like this kind of teaching because it violates their belief that they are in control of their own lives and they will stop at nothing until the whole country bows down to the altar of socialism.

Just an afterthought here: liberals want to make America a Socialist nation, so it stands to reason they would be "national socialists." Hmmm -- wasn't National Socialists the real name of the German Nazi Party?

[Information for this article was obtained from political columnist George Will referenced by Chuck Colson for his article "Shutting Down Free Speech."]



About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

12 comments on Undermining the First Amendment

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Kay C on July 27, 2007 at 06:13 pm
Yes, the first amendent makes it abundantly crystal clear that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and is prejudiced - much as Native Americans, women, and African Americans were treated as second class citizens, so it now goes with gays. Unfortunately, there is always some marginalized group that others can bully and demean - (which says far more about the one who is doing the demeaning); the constitution however, in all its glory, stands for the pursuit of happiness for all - not just for some.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on July 27, 2007 at 09:49 pm
I think you missed the point of the article.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Jen on July 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm
1. If this "Hate Speech" bill is so secret then how do you know about it? Do you have a reference? A bill number so that I may go search Thomas? 2. I dont know anything about this case in Oakland, but from your article they state that it is a group for "people of faith". If I do not believe in God, but want to discuss things like "The Natural Family" can I join? If not, that would be discrimination. 3. Its a government agency. They are not allowed to endorse any sort of religion. Allowing a "Faith-based" group to use their infrastructure to circulate their materials could be construed as an endorsement. Yes- The ninth circuit is notoriously liberal. Im not so sure that is such a bad thing, and you have failed to convince me that they have gone too far in this respect.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Kay C on July 28, 2007 at 01:54 pm
No, D.E., unfortunately I did not. Perhaps you missed the point of my comment.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on July 30, 2007 at 01:38 am
Okay Mr. or Miss Anonymous, let me spell it out for you AMERICAN LIBERALS = GERMAN NAZIS Is that clear enough for you? And by the way, they are far more closer than you think. I've been reading Mein Kampff and I have found it to be very similar to the liberal political play book with the biggest similarity being the consolidation of the national media to parallel and disseminate only that which is "approved". Hugo Chavez has done it in Venezuela and liberals are trying to do it here. Finally, Anonymous Reader, I deleted your comment solely on the grounds that it was posted under the cowardly name of "anonymous poster" because obviously you recognize that I am right, but you are so afraid of being exposed as a hypocrite that you chose to post anonymously so as to not alert others that you do actually agree with me. When you have the courage to step into the light "Deep Throat" you will find that the world isn't so dangerous -- only far-left liberal wackos are the ones you have to fear. DEC
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on July 30, 2007 at 01:39 am
Kay C: Actually, I think you did miss the point of my article, but at this point I have found that trying to hold honest debate with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing...it's a waste of time and annoys the pig. DEC
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on July 30, 2007 at 01:51 am
Jen: Here is a link to an article on the legislation: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/HateCrimes.pdf In the article appears the following: "The “hate crimes” language, more accurately described as thought crimes language, is titled the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It was attached to H.R. 3132 in a stealth move by Rep. John Conyers (DMI)." The whole Hate Crimes issue is an amendment to the Children's Safety Act (HR 3132). The legislation was originally introduced in 2005 as a type of national "Jessica's Law", but Conyers slipped his amendment in to extend the act to include "hate crime" because he knew that an open debate on hate crime legislation would suffer a horrible and flaming demise. I have not found much recent activity on this since Democrats have wasted all of their time arguing over "non-binding resolutions" to show their dislike for the president and chasing anything they can to undermine him. So I'm sure that it is sitting in a pile of "real work" for Congress to begin when they quit playing their kindergarten games. DEC
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on July 30, 2007 at 01:57 am
Jen: Oh and one more thing: Please show me exactly where in city, county, state or federal law that employees of a city cannot organize a faith based group on their own time? I am assuming you are going to pull out the old "separation of church and state" argument, but before you do, I would ask that you please read the Constitution carefully and tell me the exact Article and Section that contains any variation of the phrase "separation of church and state." I'll give you a head start: contrary to popular misbelief and misconception, it is not found in the First Amendment. DEC
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Jen on July 31, 2007 at 03:15 pm
D.E. Thank you for the information. I have read The Constitution…and The Bill of Rights. Many times, though it’s been a few years. Hell…I even own a copy of it. Please allow me to comment. 1. Always go to the original source. This will make your arguments sooooo much more forceful. Not to mention more accurate. www.traditionalvalues.org is a biased source. I, myself, would never quote from there OR a site like moveon.org. These are places that you might get an idea from, but you have to do the legwork yourself since the information is often misrepresented. In your comment, you quote from their website, which is their interpretation of the legislation, as opposed to the actual bill. These kinds of references provide ample opportunity for people to blow holes in your logic. I just went to Thomas and read the text of title X. Yes…it is a rider on a bill meant to protect children. It doesn’t really belong there. This kind of crap is quite common. That’s why the president has the power of the line item veto…one of the many checks and balances. No…I do not believe that we should consider something dubbed a “hate crime” any more heinous than regular old garden variety crime. However, I see nothing in this bill that refers to speech…and that is what you seem really upset about. As far as I can tell, you can still stand outside the federal building and scream “I hate homosexuals and want them to burn in hell”. You never could actually set fire to a homosexual, but it seems that now, if you do then…I guess you are in more trouble than you would have been before (although it reads to me more like “we’ll spend more money investigating hate crimes” than punishing hate crimes). So, let’s agree that this should have been a separate bill. Let’s also ask W. why he didn’t use the line item veto (is that not allowed for house bills or something? I’m rusty on the details here). While we are at it, let’s also agree that this is bad legislation that violates the tenets of The Constitution and provides special protection to a particular class of people (as if this is a new thing). That’s what the Supreme Court is for. They are there to interpret the constitution and ensure that legislation enacted does not run contrary its principles. A case must first be brought before them. Title X doesn’t really apply to the “Good News Employee Association’s” case. Which brings us to the 1st amendment. NO…it doesn’t explicitly state “separation of church and state”, but that is its intention…according to Thomas Jefferson anyway. This principle has been held up time and time again. No law respecting an establishment of religion has also come to mean no endorsement of a particular group’s faith. You are free to worship whatever god you want…but I don’t want to hear about it when I have to be at work. And…I shouldn’t have to. Right? Would you support govt. time and resources (email, paper, etc.) be used to circulate fundamentalist Islamic ideology? I suspect not. I know I wouldn’t. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we don’t allow any religious group to do so. These ladies are pushing an agenda. They can have their group, remove any reference to God or Faith, and advertise in the lunch room. Or…they can pass out their flyers, after work, as people leave the parking lot. It’s a government agency…they all leave at the same time.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on August 03, 2007 at 12:53 am
Jen: I thought you wanted to know to which bill I was referring. I found the number and gave it to you. Regardless of which site published it. It could have been www.GODLOVESYOU.com, but it was the information you requested. You wanted to review the bill -- I gave you want you wanted. I never said that the article was or was not biased, I just gave you information. Sure, I could have gone in search of other sites, and several did come up, but they all listed the same reference number, so I took the first one I came to. The fact still remains that the hate crimes amendment was attached in an underhanded manner and should have been its own separate piece of legislation. But as I said, no liberal in his or her right mind would attempt such a move because of the fact that it would die a flaming death before ever reaching the White House. As for endorsement of one faith over another, you certainly must be aware that more and more Americans are joining the "anti-Christian" movement, which operates on the belief that any religion is okay, so long as it isn't Christianity. There was a time in this country when it was perfectly acceptable for a county courthouse to display a Nativity Scene on the lawn at Christmas. No one questioned it and everyone liked it. Now it's against the law. That's just plain stupid. Like it or not, America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and tenets. John Adams said that America's government demanded adherence to faith and was not conducive to any other ideal. Alexis de Toqueville once said that "America is great because America is good and if America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great." Part of that being good was due to the citizen's belief and adherence to its religious foundation. I can point to almost any social or economic problem in America and find that a severe lack of spirituality and belief in God is the underlying problem. Of course, most Americans stick their fingers in their ears and chant, "I'm not listening - LA-LA-LA!" because they don't want to admit that by removing the Ten Commandments from schools, kids no longer have a problem with killing each other for no reason. Kids no longer have a problem with having sex at the age of 12. Kids no longer have a problem with telling their parents to "F--K OFF". Kids no longer have a problem with getting a gun and robbing a 7-11. It can all be traced back to the notion that America thinks it doesn't need God anymore. I just re-noticed your comment "these ladies are pushing an agenda." How do you know? They just want to get together with like-minded individuals from work. Is it wrong for people who work together to socialize off the clock? So what if they are sending messages across the e-mail system to each other or hanging flyers on bulletin boards. Pro-gay rights people at that office had free reign of the e-mail system and the bulletin board. These ladies wanted equal time and I support them in that demand -- and I strongly condemn the office and the Ninth Circuit Court for denying them their equal time. Here's a better idea, tell everyone at the office (including the pro-gay rights coalition) that the e-mail system is off limits to this kind of communication and that bulletin boards are for agency-sponsored events or announcements only. Would that make you happier?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Jen on August 08, 2007 at 07:35 pm
Well, as to your reference. Yes...you did provide me with your reference. The one you used for the story. I was simply saying that if you had gone and looked at your references source document you would have found that it had nothing to do with abridging the right of free speech...which is how you introduced it. This is really common, and if you want to call it journalism...you have to fact check. Otherwise...its blogging. I already agreed with you that it should be a bill on its own standing and that it would probably be a bad bill if it were. I don’t know about any "anti-christian" movement, and I think it’s a bit myopic to say that a lack of spirituality is the root of any social or economic problems (and didn’t you blame the ACLU in your next piece?). Your answer is "Have faith in god?" Which god? There are many. Screw the 10 commandments and just teach the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. It worked for me. Kids have sex when they are 12 because sex is marketed to them. I’m thinking about shows/products like Bratz (still can’t get over that one). Kids tell their parents to F off because many parents I see are too lazy and self-centered to even pay attention to their kids much less earn their respect (and they buy them shit like BRATZ). I can point to almost any social or economic problem in America and find that apathy, selfishness, and willful ignorance is the underlying problem. I don’t need to believe in God (and I really don’t think I do), or be raised with church (and I wasn’t) to know that I should try to be a decent human. And I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears...I just don’t agree with you. And right...I’m assuming they are pushing an agenda...based on my personal experiences. They don’t have to reference faith. People that don’t think like them wont come to their group once word gets around that they chat about God and the deplorable nature of homosexuality. How many interest groups have you gone to check out only to find that they really weren’t the place for you? Did you go back? But really…looking back over what you wrote…I need to see the opinion of the court (they write one for every decision handed down) so that I can see the specifics of the case in order to form an educated opinion. So, I’ll back off because I really don’t have time right now. What I would really like to know is how the court arrived at the idea that the group was “determined to promote harassment based on sexual orientation.” I mean…what was in these emails/flyers that got everyone’s panties in a bunch anyway? At this point though…let’s just agree to disagree.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Jen on August 08, 2007 at 08:09 pm
oops I meant "deplorable nature of homosexuality". I don't really care what people do in their bedroom when I'm not there.
 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x