From the category archives:

Freedom

Populist Constitutionalism and the Tea Party

Written By: Larrey Anderson

The Tea Party is a unique populist movement and moment in American history. There is no charismatic leader of the party. The Tea Party has more grassroots movers, shakers, and members than any other populist movement ever seen in our country. So what makes it so different from previous populist political factions?

“Populism” is a vague political concept. There have been populist (and wannabe populist) political movements on the left, on the right, and even in the middle (wherever that is) in the history of American politics. None of the movements were particularly successful — and many of them were outright scams.
….
So what makes the Tea Party different? I have attended several local Tea Party gatherings (and addressed a couple of them). There is one document that is ubiquitous at these events: the Constitution for the United States of America[iii]. People hand out copies of the Constitution like hors d’oeuvres that are served at…a de rigueur tea party.

At one Tea Party, I helped a women lug a couple of cardboard boxes filled with pocket-sized copies of the Constitution into the hotel conference room. We sat the boxes on a folding table next to the dais for the speakers. “I only bought a thousand copies. You think that will be enough?” she asked me.

I smiled. “Enough for today…” I started to reply.

“Excuse me,” a man interrupted us. He carried another box full of copies of the Constitution and set his box on the table next to her two boxes. He opened his box and began handing out the Constitution to the people who were filing into the meeting room. “Plenty,” I told the woman, and we laughed.

“Populist constitutionalism” — that’s what the Tea Party is all about. Love and respect for the Constitution is driving the movement. Sharing the document, and then discussing its meaning, purpose, and ideas — that is the process that is taking place as a result of this love and respect.

This discussion is what America needs right now. The Constitution (and a real federal government) contains the set of principles that can unite all Americans (with the possible exception of the most radical of those on the left, who want to see some kind of socialist central state).
Please Read More Here…

Anti-Tea Party Web Site Part of Scheme to Funnel Funds

Written By: Joseph Abrams

A new Web site targeting the tea parties is a part of a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country’s biggest labor unions and trickling slowly into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

A seemingly grassroots organization that’s mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds — including sizable labor union contributions — through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer.

A Web site popped up in January dedicated to preventing the tea party’s “radical” and “dangerous” ideas from “gaining legislative traction,” targeting GOP candidates in Illinois for the firing squad.

“This movement is a fad,” proclaims TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, which was established by the American Public Policy Center (APPC), a D.C.-based campaign shop that few people have ever heard of.

But a close look reveals the APPC’s place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country’s biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

Here’s how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men — Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).

Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money — tens of millions of dollars — gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean — for the most part.

The system helps hide the true sources of funding, giving the appearance of locally bred opposition in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey, or in the case of the Tea Party Web site, in Illinois.

And this whitewash is entirely legal, say election law experts, who told FoxNews.com that this arrangement more or less the norm in Washington.

“It’s not illegal but it is, I think, dishonest on the part of the organizations,” said Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “And there’s a reason they do it: they know voters don’t like outsiders coming in to sway the vote.”

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

It’s open season on gun carriers.

A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a “high crime area.” At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney’s pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car “in a dynamic and explosive manner” with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney’s face.

Officer Stern “executed a pat-frisk,” and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern “partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney’s pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the “facially valid” license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern’s behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern “was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety.”

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a “facially valid” license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern “sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.”

Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license. Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi’s face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.

Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.

This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Welcome to the new “right” to bear arms.

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

S.1317: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

S.2820: PROTECT Act of 2009

Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Lou Dobbs explains why he left CNN and what’s next for him.

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 1 comment }

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Rev. Bill Shuler, pastor at Capitol Life Church in Arlington, Virginia, wrote the following editorial on Fox News.

Moral outrage is the intersection of morality and deep seated convictions. As Americans our decision to speak out or remain silent, act with conviction or step back, will create the world our children will inherit.

Were it not for moral outrage America would be under British rule and the Emancipation Proclamation would never have been penned. Moral outrage, by its very definition, is the intersection of morality and deep seated convictions. The following are 10 reasons for moral outrage:

1. Our forefathers acknowledged our creator God in the Declaration of Independence, but we are forbidden to acknowledge him in our public schools.
2.Our entertainment industry glamorizes sexuality yet is held unaccountable despite the rising rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies.
3. Moral relativism continues to reign in our public schools even though a nation reaps the results of such relativism with unprecedented greed on Wall Street.
4. 39.8 million people live below the poverty line in America — over 14.1 million of them are children — yet close to 100 billion pounds of food is wasted each year.
5. There have been over 50 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land with the vast majority being for no other reason than simple birth control.
6. Darwinism is taught as fact while Creationism is excluded from the American classroom.
7. More Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the entire history of Christianity.
8. A cross erected in 1934, at a WWI memorial site in the Mojave Desert, is currently at the center of a debate over whether or not its presence violates the Constitution.
9. The Ten Commandments have been taken from our court houses.
10. The community of faith is, in large measure, quiet and complacent.

It has been said that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Ultimately we will be judged not by our titles or bank accounts but by something far more sacred. Future generations hang in the balance. Whether we speak out or remain silent, act or step back will create the inheritance we bequeath.

Please read the original article here:
10 Reasons for Moral Outrage

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Here is a follow up to a story we did last week called Senate Passes Matthew Shepard Act. The Matthew Shepard Act extends extant U.S. federal hate-crime law by extending its scope towards bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current provisions of bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin.

The following is a story from the The Daily Mail about a Grandmother in the U.K. who has been accused of a hate crime after she objected to a gay march.

After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.

But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.

Two officers later turned up at the frightened grandmother’s home and lectured her about her choice of words before telling her she would not be prosecuted.

Mrs Howe, 67, whose husband Peter is understood to be a Baptist minister, yesterday spoke of her shock at the visit and accused police of ‘ wasting resources’ on her case rather than fighting crime.

‘I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,’ she said.

‘Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience.

‘The officers told me that my letter was thought to be an intention of hate but I was expressing views as a Christian.’

Mrs Howe’s case has been taken up by the Christian Institute, which is looking into potential breaches of freedom of speech and religious rights under the Human Rights Act, either by Norwich City Council or Norfolk Police.

And homosexual equality pressure group Stonewall has branded the authorities’ response ‘ disproportionate’.

Mrs Howe claims she was ‘verbally abused’ while distributing ‘Christian leaflets’ at the march in the centre of Norwich in July. She said someone ‘whispered something in my ear and disappeared’. She fired off a letter to the council describing the march as a ‘public display of indecency’ that was ‘offensive to God’.

She wrote: ‘It is shameful that this small but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals.’

The letter went on to describe homosexuals as ’sodomites’, said homosexuality had ‘contributed to the downfall of every empire’ and added that ‘gay sex was a major cause of sexually transmitted infections’.

Please read the entire article here:
Grandmother who objected to gay march is accused of hate crime

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Thomas Sowell, one of the clearest thinkers of our time, has written an enlightening column on jewishworldreview.com about the dismantling of our country.

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “G0d damn America!” Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.

Please read the original article and other great editorial opinion columns here:
Dismantling America

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }