Aug 11 2009
Ted Nugent has a well deserved (and proud) reputation for being loud, crude and crazy, but here, he makes a calm, reasoned and very sensible case for gun rights.
This is several years old, but still relevant.
Apr 02 2008
Via Stop the ACLU:
Flying pig moment: The infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court actually gets one right!
The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. “Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.
She noted that the Everett monument does not have nearby benches or evening lighting and is surrounded by trees and that impair its viewing. Such a setting prevents a visitor from concluding that the monument has been placed in a sacred space on public grounds.
The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.
The notion that these monuments commemorating the Judio-Christian rooted symbol of law is somehow establishing a religion or even imposing one is absurd to begin with. Any precident from a faulty decision to follow this ridiculous argument is flawed to begin with. I find it rather silly that the lack of lighting and the view being obscurred by surrounding trees was even a consideration in this decision, however the I can’t complain about the final outcome other than the possibility future decisions may be influenced from precident set here by such silly reasoning.
Apr 01 2008
Now, let me state outright that if the grade was due to the quality, this would not be on my blog.
It wasn’t. It was because the religious artist had the audacity to include a scriptural reference on his.
See the pictures below. First, the failing art:
Now the two that passed:
And:
So all three are of fairly equal quality and show great talent by the artist.
The problem? The bible verse in the first picture.
Via Michelle Malkin:
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the Tomah Area School District over an unconstitutional policy that bars religious free speech. Citing a policy prohibiting depictions of “blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs,” officials penalized a Christian student for his artwork depicting a Bible verse and a cross but did not penalize students who included demonic illustrations in their artwork.
Mar 09 2007
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington DC’s ridiculous handgun law, citing of all things the Second Amendment.
In all seriousness what is intriguing is “why’ they did, and even more curious is what the Dissenting Justice and the City Cited as their justification to keep the law.
D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.
The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms.
Right there strikes to the heart of the issue. Most gun control lovers cite the militia provision in the Second Amendment as proof that private gun ownership is not covered. But the Appeals Court ruled the opposite, which is the main argument pro gun groups have consistently maintained:
Mar 08 2007
The Fox News network takes a lot of unfair criticism because it’s opinion shows (Hannity and Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor etc) are predominantly of a conservative bent. All opinion shows have a bias.
Their actual news is as close to being actually balanced as anyones is. They tend to report more sides of an issue, whereas the other cable and network news shows tend to tailor their news to the left, in my opinion. They do so by reporting for the worst and ignoring the positives or Iraq, and ignoring or down playing some stories that are unflattering to Liberals and their causes.
That said, I still tend to skip around on the news as much as I can, to get a generous blend. Not even fox gets a free pass of presumption.
Hot Air posted this video today of Fox News Chairmen Roger Ailes spoke at the Radio-Television News Directors Association awards ceremony where he was one of the recipients for the First Amendment Award, and this is the speech he delivered. It is a powerful reminder of the real nature of our First Amendment freedoms.
Oct 03 2006
From Stop the ACLU
Here is a prime example of how the philosphy of “seperation of church and state” being overzealously pushed has confused many school officials into violating student’s Constitutional Rights. The Rutherford Institute will be defending this student’s rights. Somehow it slipped under the ACLU’s radar.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit in defense of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a seventh grader who was ordered by Maryland middle school officials to stop reading her Bible during free time at school or face disciplinary action.
…
On September 14, 2006, seventh-grader Amber Mangum was approached by the Vice Principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Prince George’s County, Md., while reading a Bible in the school cafeteria during her lunch period. In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “[s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”
Jun 23 2006
For those not paying attention, a long running battle in San Diego has forced the city to defend itself from a disgruntled athiest who is demanding the city remove a 29-foot cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.
This is one of those cases where I have to wonder why the person at the center of this, Philip Paulson is really doing this.
This is a war memorial, and if you honestly do not expect some sign of religious imagery, then you are being foolish. The cross has stood there since 1913 for crying out loud. Why is it such a threat to this guy? Is it really worth all the fuss he has poured into this?
Since 1989 every attempt the city has made to preserve this memorial, all of which are supported overwhelmingly by the community has ended in a court with a judge overturning them. It sickens me frankly.
Here is the latest chapter.
9th Circuit Court denies stay in Mt. Soledad cross lawsuit; supporters remain hopeful
Apr 13 2006
The ACLU has taken a consistent stance on flag burning. For it apparently, if these articles below are an indicator (source-ACLU.org)
A quick search found articles dating back to 1998.
So I know they will be immediately ready to defend this guy:
A Tucson man was arrested Tuesday for his role in the burning of a Mexican flag as part of a counterprotest at a pro-immigration rally.
At about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tucson police cited Roy Warden, 58, on suspicion of assault, criminal damage and reckless burning, and then released him, according to Sgt. Decio Hopffer.
Oh, I grant that the charges are all directed at public safety and property issues, but I have to wonder if the same charges would have been issued at an immigrant group burning the American Flag.
Apr 11 2006
The ACLU has become the spearhead of intolerance that seems to focus more on religious people then not. It seems odd that so much limitation of christian values happens toward Christians, particularly since religious freedom is supposed to be a mainstay of our constitution. There is a dramatic double standard that a person who is a christian fundamentalist cannot be allowed to have views that are intolerant of say, homosexuals, because it is unfair to the homosexual. Lost is that making such a pronouncement is inherently unfair to the christian.
Tolerance is supposed to be mutual acceptance and respect. It often is not, instead it is about forcing people to change their beliefs, an act that one would consider intolerant.
In the public arena, there should be enough room for people to maintain beliefs and others to say "I disagree" and walk away. But there isn’t.
And this is not to absolve Christians from forcing confrontations that need not be forced, and of having views that are extremist and intolerant, because some indeed do.
But the average Christian does not, they are sincere and loving, they just think that certain aspects of humanity are matters of sin.
Mar 13 2006
I am easily a huge believer in free speech, both in using it, and in defending others rights to use it in ways I find outrageous. But there are a few types that push me to limits and make me want to slap the daylights out of the people.
One of those is taking advantage of an event like a funeral to make a political statement. It kills me that people can disregard the feelings of grieving families and think they are morally justified in making their politics override good manners and sensitivity. Someone died, show some respect.
This case is one of the ones that really burns me. Fred Phelps. This guy is hardly new, he has even threatened to come here and do the same thing he does in this article.
What makes this particularly disgusting it my state’s legislature ended their session with a bill to ban protests at funerals dead on the floor.
On a religious aside, I am tired of people using tragedies to proclaim that God is punishing us, and particularly disgusted that it is used in Gay Bashing. People like Phelps, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell make me gag.
Leaning Straight Up Honors:
