Holy moly

Another artillery round fired by the Catholic Church at Obama.  Good.  Since Obama seems hell-bent on trashing the freedom of religion in this country, the faithful need to punch back twice as hard.

The Assault on Christianity Continues

Also titled "Fucking Hypocrites in San Juan Capistrano protect Islam and try to crush Christianity in that community."

Compare and Contrast if you will.....

An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.
Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

Now, compare that with how San Juan Capistrano deals with the possibility of an insult to Islam:

Reeve reportedly first divulged his dogs’ names, “Muhammad” and “America,” during a September 6 vote on plans for a local dog park.
That’s when some, including fellow councilman Larry Kramer, were rubbed the wrong way, prompting a discussion on proper “decorum” for council meetings to ensue.
“I’m asking for decorum on the dais. Yet if we can’t do that, all is lost,” Kramer said.
Patch adds:
“We are in a position of authority. It’s important we choose our words wisely,” Kramer said. “I hope the council will say this kind of speech is not OK.”…

Seems to me that the San Juan Capistrano city council needs to be read the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  And then be beaten into a fucking pulp with a clue-by-four.

"First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine"

I absolutely love this....

President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

He goes on to say that this is within the spirit of the 1st Amendment. This document would also require purely commercial stations(probably only ones that disagree with the current governments agenda) to subsudize public or less profitable commercial stations that provide "higher quality programming".

Quite honestly I don't know where to begin with this, other than suggesting you read the entire article. I do however believe I know exactly how this will shake out...
I see anyone who does not agree with the current communist regime, being forced down our throats, being punished finacially and forced to air opinions that they have no desire to pay for. So guess who gets the bounty from this? I think it will be the communist supporters that are trying to get on the Obama gravy train.

Concentration camps may be next

"The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence," the posting states.

Police remove upside down flag for 4th then return it the next day

There is a huge debate as to if the reason this flag was being flown upside down was appropriate or not. I do not wish to enter that debate, though some of you may.

Flying or displaying the flag upside down is an acceptable method of displying the flag as a signal of dire distress and in instances of extreme danger to life or property. This is accoring to Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10, § 176.

DSIPLAYING THE FLAG UPSIDE DOWN

My issue is that the town police, on the judgement of the District Attorney removed the flag for the 4th of July parade because "It is illegal to cause a disruption," he said. "There were a lot of vets at that parade." The person flying the flag is an Iraq War Vet who had spent over $200,000 remodeling a restaurant before the town of Critvitz decided not to issue him a liqueur licence for an Italian Restaurant. He started flying the flag in mid-june.

My question is do the police have the right to sieze this flag that is being flow as a protest? Is this supported by the 1st amendment or not? After all people are allowed to burn the flag? How many people flew an upside down flag to protest President Bush?

"It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else," Congine said, "and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."

30% Muslim city blocks Christians freedom of speach to "maintain order"

a police statement that the Christians would be classified among "political parties and protesters,"

the Internet we can't make you shut up so we will force you to listen to our opinions doctrine

I do not think I can properly express just how wrong the mere suggestion of this all is. As usual the left has found a way to stomp all over the 1st Amendment.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

<snip>

Muslims in the White House for Muslims sake???

I think this is a clear violation of the separation between Church and State, being the 1st amendment. The Raging Dave thinks it is hypocrisy at its finest, but not a violation of the 1st. Either way it is not what should be happening.

Please chime in.