FIGHT ENDA
Protect the religious liberties of employers and employees.
What is ENDA? aka Employment Non-Discrimination Act
ENDA is a "one size fits all" solution to alleged discrimination that erases all marriage-based distinctions. It grants special rights to homosexuals while ignoring those of employers. The federal government should not force private businesses to abandon their moral principles.
FRC Action opposes this legislation on the following grounds:
Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
The issue is not job discrimination.
The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses.
The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses.
It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge.
ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations.
ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association.
ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Republican Senators Must Filibuster Elena Kagan
by Erick Erickson
Americans have now learned about the extreme views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
Kagan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee contained much clear evidence of her expansive view of federal power and her lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment. Kagan’s views on the Commerce Clause and Americans’ right to “keep and bear arms” make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Senators should filibuster her nomination to stop her sitting on the highest court in the land.
Much has been made of Kagan’s banning military recruiting from the campus of the Harvard Law School when she was dean there and her extreme views on abortion. there is also her career of political activism, which should serve as a disqualifier for Kagan to serve as a judge on any court.
Those issues are very important and are reasons enough to vote no on her nomination, but just to reach the now-accepted Senate standard of “extraordinary circumstances” for a filibuster, senators need to look no further than Kagan’s record on the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right of all Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves.
Senators are reluctant to use the “f-word”–filibuster–yet it is a perfectly appropriate procedural tool to use to block an extremist nominee who will vote on the Supreme Court to take away crucial individual rights.
The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have power .... to regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) asked Kagan during the committee proceedings last week, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, Americans you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day, and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land … does that violate the Commerce Clause?” Kagan did not answer directly, instead called it a dumb law then said, “Courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they are senseless.” This is a classic dodge of the question.
Coburn was not finished. Kagan was asked a follow-up question by Coburn and she replied that “deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters affecting interstate commerce.” Coburn concluded by saying that “you missed my whole point.
We're here because the courts didn't do their job in limiting our ability to go outside of original intent on what the Commerce Clause was supposed to be.”
Clearly, Kagan would uphold the individual mandate contained in Obamacare and would rubber-stamp President Obama’s expansive view of the proper role of the federal government.
Kagan is also clearly hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Kagan, while she was clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote a memorandum in 1987 that she had “no sympathy” for an individual challenging the constitutionality of a gun ban. Kagan, as counsel for former President Bill Clinton, was a central player in the Clinton efforts to restrict gun ownership nationwide. The Los Angeles Times said in an article a few months ago that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration.”
As President Obama’s Solicitor General, Kagan failed to file a brief in the McDonald v. Chicago case that found the states must obey the 2nd Amendment. So, in her capacity as a clerk to a Supreme Court justice, as a counselor to a President and as the solicitor general of the United States, Kagan has a long life of anti-2nd Amendment activism.
In the hearing last week, Kagan further evidenced hostility to gun rights. She dodged questions from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) about her view on the right to “keep and bear arms.”
Kagan said that “I know that the scholarship in this area has suggested that there’s a very strong view that there is an individual right under the 2nd Amendment.” This is a mere statement of fact. Kagan refused to voice her support for a natural right of self-defense and did not explain in detail her views on why she thought it constitutional for her to fight against Americans’ constitutionally recognized right.
Justice Sotomayor argued last week in the McDonald decision that the landmark Heller decision holding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right should be reversed.
Sotomayor’s responses to questions in the case sound very familiar to those who listened to the evasive answers of Kagan before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sotomayor signed an opinion in the McDonald case that “the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.” Is there any reason to believe that Kagan would not pull a “Sotomayor” and vote to remove the 2nd Amendment from mandatory incorporation for the states?
Senators have a duty under the constitution to “consent” to nominees or not to “consent” to nominees. Elena Kagan is too radical for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Senators would be committing a high act of confirmation treason if they allow this nominee to go on the court without attempting to filibuster her nomination.
Americans have now learned about the extreme views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
Kagan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee contained much clear evidence of her expansive view of federal power and her lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment. Kagan’s views on the Commerce Clause and Americans’ right to “keep and bear arms” make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Senators should filibuster her nomination to stop her sitting on the highest court in the land.
Much has been made of Kagan’s banning military recruiting from the campus of the Harvard Law School when she was dean there and her extreme views on abortion. there is also her career of political activism, which should serve as a disqualifier for Kagan to serve as a judge on any court.
Those issues are very important and are reasons enough to vote no on her nomination, but just to reach the now-accepted Senate standard of “extraordinary circumstances” for a filibuster, senators need to look no further than Kagan’s record on the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right of all Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves.
Senators are reluctant to use the “f-word”–filibuster–yet it is a perfectly appropriate procedural tool to use to block an extremist nominee who will vote on the Supreme Court to take away crucial individual rights.
The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have power .... to regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) asked Kagan during the committee proceedings last week, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, Americans you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day, and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land … does that violate the Commerce Clause?” Kagan did not answer directly, instead called it a dumb law then said, “Courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they are senseless.” This is a classic dodge of the question.
Coburn was not finished. Kagan was asked a follow-up question by Coburn and she replied that “deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters affecting interstate commerce.” Coburn concluded by saying that “you missed my whole point.
We're here because the courts didn't do their job in limiting our ability to go outside of original intent on what the Commerce Clause was supposed to be.”
Clearly, Kagan would uphold the individual mandate contained in Obamacare and would rubber-stamp President Obama’s expansive view of the proper role of the federal government.
Kagan is also clearly hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Kagan, while she was clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote a memorandum in 1987 that she had “no sympathy” for an individual challenging the constitutionality of a gun ban. Kagan, as counsel for former President Bill Clinton, was a central player in the Clinton efforts to restrict gun ownership nationwide. The Los Angeles Times said in an article a few months ago that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration.”
As President Obama’s Solicitor General, Kagan failed to file a brief in the McDonald v. Chicago case that found the states must obey the 2nd Amendment. So, in her capacity as a clerk to a Supreme Court justice, as a counselor to a President and as the solicitor general of the United States, Kagan has a long life of anti-2nd Amendment activism.
In the hearing last week, Kagan further evidenced hostility to gun rights. She dodged questions from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) about her view on the right to “keep and bear arms.”
Kagan said that “I know that the scholarship in this area has suggested that there’s a very strong view that there is an individual right under the 2nd Amendment.” This is a mere statement of fact. Kagan refused to voice her support for a natural right of self-defense and did not explain in detail her views on why she thought it constitutional for her to fight against Americans’ constitutionally recognized right.
Justice Sotomayor argued last week in the McDonald decision that the landmark Heller decision holding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right should be reversed.
Sotomayor’s responses to questions in the case sound very familiar to those who listened to the evasive answers of Kagan before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sotomayor signed an opinion in the McDonald case that “the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.” Is there any reason to believe that Kagan would not pull a “Sotomayor” and vote to remove the 2nd Amendment from mandatory incorporation for the states?
Senators have a duty under the constitution to “consent” to nominees or not to “consent” to nominees. Elena Kagan is too radical for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Senators would be committing a high act of confirmation treason if they allow this nominee to go on the court without attempting to filibuster her nomination.
Soros-funded group wants feds to probe talk radio
MEDIA MATTERS
Says cable-news networks engaged in 'hate speech'
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House has urged the Federal Communications Commission to investigate talk radio and cable news for "hate speech."
The organization, calling itself Free Press, claims media companies are engaging in "hate speech" because a disproportionate number of radio and cable-news networks are owned by non-minorities.
WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!
Free Press was one of 33 organizations that drafted a 25-page petition asking the FCC to "initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."
"Hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable-television programs masquerading as 'News,'" claims the petition.
The petition contends "traditional media" have "largely failed" to "provide the accurate information needed for an informed democracy."
"These failures often damage communities of color at disproportionate rates," the petition states.
The paper singles out talk radio as "particularly problematic."
"Hate has seemingly emerged as a profit-model for many radio programs syndicated throughout the country, because only a few companies own the majority of the radio stations nationally."
The paper claims a disproportionate number of media companies are owned by non-minorities, causing "hate speech" to fester.
"The media has a history of unequal representation of and discrimination against people of color, and rapid media consolidation has exacerbated the situation. In this climate of inaccurate and apathetic reporting and underrepresentation of people of color in traditional media, hate has festered and grown."
Avowed Marxist, close ties to White House
The petition states it is not asking the FCC to impose any sort of content regulations pertaining to so-called hate speech in the media.
"Rather [we] respectfully request that the Commission initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."
However, WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.
The founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.
McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.
In February 2009, McChesney recommended capitalism be dismantled.
"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,'" wrote McChesney in a column.
In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.
The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar" Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.
Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C., revealed the book "The Manchurian President".
Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George-Soros-funded public-interest group.
A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott.
:
Says cable-news networks engaged in 'hate speech'
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House has urged the Federal Communications Commission to investigate talk radio and cable news for "hate speech."
The organization, calling itself Free Press, claims media companies are engaging in "hate speech" because a disproportionate number of radio and cable-news networks are owned by non-minorities.
WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!
Free Press was one of 33 organizations that drafted a 25-page petition asking the FCC to "initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."
"Hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable-television programs masquerading as 'News,'" claims the petition.
The petition contends "traditional media" have "largely failed" to "provide the accurate information needed for an informed democracy."
"These failures often damage communities of color at disproportionate rates," the petition states.
The paper singles out talk radio as "particularly problematic."
"Hate has seemingly emerged as a profit-model for many radio programs syndicated throughout the country, because only a few companies own the majority of the radio stations nationally."
The paper claims a disproportionate number of media companies are owned by non-minorities, causing "hate speech" to fester.
"The media has a history of unequal representation of and discrimination against people of color, and rapid media consolidation has exacerbated the situation. In this climate of inaccurate and apathetic reporting and underrepresentation of people of color in traditional media, hate has festered and grown."
Avowed Marxist, close ties to White House
The petition states it is not asking the FCC to impose any sort of content regulations pertaining to so-called hate speech in the media.
"Rather [we] respectfully request that the Commission initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."
However, WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.
The founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.
McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.
In February 2009, McChesney recommended capitalism be dismantled.
"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,'" wrote McChesney in a column.
In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.
The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar" Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.
Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C., revealed the book "The Manchurian President".
Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George-Soros-funded public-interest group.
A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott.
:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)