What Democrats Want, Day 98, Countdown to Oblivion? Ending Free Speech

As of today, there are 98 days until the most consequential election in American history. This is what they say about many past elections, but this is really it. For if the Democrats seize power – control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency – and doing it by hook or by crook (the justifies the means, you know) America as we know it will be forever changed. America envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers will disappear into the shadows of history.

The ungodly secular-humanists/Marxists slow march through America’s institutions over the last 100 years or so will have reached a crescendo – fulfilling Mr. Obama’s fundamental transformation of America. Never again will the demonic Democratic Party relinquish its grip on political power and control of the masses.

Envision with me what a Socialist Democratic Party, takeover, a bloodless coup, a regime change, would look like. This is the first of a series of daily articles leading up to the 2020 General Election scheduled for November 3, 2020.

No More Free Speech

What modicum of free expression remains in America will be even further curtailed under a Congress and Presidency controlled by radical Marxist Democrats, when they wrest absolute power from the people. The only “free speech” that will be acceptable will that which is approved by the ruling elite. 

Much of the infrastructure is already in place to silence free or independent thought.  That infrastructure includes the news media, social media, which has already begun to censor conservative and Christian voices and positions or those contrary to the Marxist and globalist agendas.

Free Speech and the Court

When enough Leftist Supreme Court Justices are in place, then decisions would be made to overrule God-given free speech rights. Gradually everything on the Leftist agenda would be ruled on favorably by a Leftist Court, even more than it already does. SCOTUS would merely be a rubber stamp for the New Democratic-Communist politburo.  Congressional leaders and the president would essentially be the politburo responsible to only themselves. They would be dictators. You can see how the country would be led by what you see today in Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, or Chicago, IL or almost any Democrat controlled large city.

Hate Speech on Steroids

Embedded Marxist and Islamist influence throughout the government (the Deep State), academia, entertainment and other institutions will help identify and root out “haters.” Hate speech will be further defined as anything going against the wishes of the elites.  No one dare speak out against or question abortion, non-traditional family structures, same-sex “marriage,” biological men using women’s restrooms, railing against any government policy or edict for that matter.

Free Speech on Campus

Even now many American universities restrict conservative and/or Christian expression on university campuses.  Harassment, shaming and banishment will accelerate under a tyrannical Communist Democratic regime.

Pastor and Church Protection Act HB 36

From the Ohio Christian Alliance :

Call to Action!
Pastor and Church Protection Act HB 36

Call and leave your message to your State Senator, urging them to vote for the Ohio Pastor and Church Protection Act, H.B. 36. Pastor came from around the state to testify in support of H.B. 36, the Ohio Pastor and Church Protection Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 28th. H.B. 36 was scheduled for a vote this past Wednesday, December 5th, but was pulled from the schedule. YOUR CALLS ARE NEEDED TODAY TO MOVE THE BILL. Leave a message on their Senate office voicemail. Use the list below to make your calls TODAY.

ACTION:

Leave a message for these Republican State Senators to pass the Pastor Protection Act.


Sen. Dist. 1 - Rob McColley - (614)-466-8150
Sen. Dist. 2 - Randy Gardner - (614)-466-8060
Sen. Dist. 3 - Kevin Bacon - (614)-466-8064
Sen. Dist. 4 - Bill Coley - (614)-466-8072
Sen. Dist. 5 - Bill Beagle - (614)-466-6247
Sen. Dist. 6 - Peggy Lehner - (614)-466- 4538
Sen. Dist. 7 - Steve Wilson - (614)-466-9737
Sen. Dist. 8 - Lou Terhar - (614)-466-8068
Sen. Dist. 10 - Bob Hackett - (614)-466-3780
Sen. Dist. 12 - Matt Huffman - (614)-466-7584
Sen. Dist. 13 - Gayle Manning - (614)-644-7613
Sen. Dist. 14 - Joe Uecker - (614)-466-8082
Sen. Dist. 16 - Stephanie Kunze - (614)-466-5981
Sen. Dist. 17 - Bob Peterson - (614)-466-8156
Sen. Dist. 18 - John Eklund - (614)-644-7718
Sen. Dist. 19 - Kris Jordan - (614)-466-8086
Sen. Dist. 22 - Sen. Pres. Larry Obhof - (614)-466-7505
Sen. Dist. 24 - Matt Dolan - (614)-466-8056
Sen. Dist. 26 - Dave Burke - (614)-466-8049
Sen. Dist. 27 - Frank LaRose - (614)-466-4823
Sen. Dist. 29 - Scott Oelslager - (614)-466-0626
Sen. Dist. 30 - Frank Hoagland - (614)-466-6508
Sen. Dist. 31 - Jay Hottinger - (614)-466-5838

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 for Susan B. Anthony List

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 for Susan B. Anthony List in Case Arising from Ohio 'False' Speech Law

by Damon Root Jun. 16, 2014 11:00 am

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-9-0-for-susan-b-anth

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today in favor of the conservative anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, allowing the group to proceed with a First Amendment challenge against an Ohio law criminalizing "false" political speech.
The case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus arose during the 2010 congressional elections when the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) announced its intention to oppose the reelection campaign of Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) by purchasing billboard and radio ads describing Driehaus' vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as tantamount to supporting "tax-payer funded abortion."
In response, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging SBA List with seeking to spread political lies about him. Driehaus' lawyer also sent a letter to the billboard company, threatening a similar complaint. The company promptly refused to run the SBA List ads.
In the meantime, SBA List was hauled before the Ohio Elections Commission, which ruled against it on a party-line vote. By this point, with the congressional election impending, SBA List's political speech had been effectively suppressed by the state of Ohio.
So SBA List filed suit in federal court, charging the Ohio speech law with violating its First Amendment rights. In a surprise twist, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of the state, holding that SBA List did not have standing to file suit because it could not demonstrate "an imminent threat of future prosecution."
Today, by a vote of 9-0, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that decision and held that Susan B. Anthony List must be allowed its day in federal court. "The threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial," declared the unanimous majority opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas. What's more, Thomas wrote, "the specter of enforcement is so substantial that the owner of the billboard refused to display SBA's message after receiving a letter threatening Commission proceedings. On these facts, the prospect of future enforcement is far from 'imaginary or speculative.'"
The decision in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus is available here.

Read my earlier post about the SBA List ad here.

Free Speech Alert!

I got this from Ohio 2.0:

In Cincinnati - Federal Lawsuit for 1st Amendment Freedoms           

A Young Americans for Liberty Chapter at the University of Cincinnati has been prevented from circulating Workplace Freedom Amendment petitions on the University of Cincinnati campus. 

Because of this infringement to the 1st amendment, Young Americans for Liberty is suing the university to put an end to designated "free speech zones" on campus, with the goal of making the entire university one big free speech zone once again!

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in cooperation with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) will be handling this lawsuit for Young Americans for Liberty.

See their story below, and if possible - please send them a few dollars to help with their legal defense. Donate to 1851 Center HERE or Young Americans for Liberty HERE. 

A student group filed suit yesterday against the University of Cincinnati in federal district court, alleging that the university's tiny "free speech zone" violates the First Amendment. The University of Cincinnati chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and its president, student Christopher Morbitzer, sought permission to gather signatures and talk to students across campus in support of a statewide "right to work" ballot initiative, but the request was denied. Morbitzer was told that if any YAL members were seen "walk[ing] around campus" gathering signatures, campus security would be alerted.

Morbitzer and YAL seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the University of Cincinnati (UC) from quarantining the group's advocacy to the university's free speech zone. The suit was filed by Ohio's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in cooperation with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Ohio attorney Curt C. Hartman joins the 1851 Center's Ryan Walters as co-counsel.

"The University of Cincinnati is a public, taxpayer-supported institution that brazenly refuses to respect the First Amendment rights of its students," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Herding students who wish to engage in core expressive activity into a tiny 'free speech zone' may make life easier for campus bureaucrats, but it betrays the idea of the university as a true marketplace of ideas. FIRE has warned UC in the past, and now the university must answer for its disregard for free speech in federal court."

UC requires all "demonstrations, pickets, and rallies" to be held in a "Free Speech Area" that comprises just 0.1% of the university's 137-acre West Campus. University policy further requires that all expressive activity in the free speech zone be registered with the university a full ten working days in advance, threatening that "[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing." The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, challenges the constitutionality of both requirements.

Morbitzer and YAL ask the court to ensure that they be allowed to advocate throughout campus for the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment, a recently announced ballot initiative. To qualify for inclusion on the ballot in November, supporters of the amendment must gather at least 385,000 valid signatures by July 9, 2012. On February 9, Morbitzer and YAL requested permission to immediately begin collecting signatures and discussing the merits of the amendment with their fellow students across campus, citing the need to get started right away.

UC denied that request, instead assigning the group to the "Free Speech Area" and imposing a waiting period. UC even told Morbitzer that he and his group were "not permitted to walk around," and stated that "if we are informed that you are, Public Safety will be contacted."

Working in conjunction with the 1851 Center, FIRE aided Morbitzer in finding counsel and filing suit.

UC has been on notice that its policy is unconstitutional for more than four years. FIRE named UC's policy its "Speech Code of the Month" in December 2007, calling it "truly shameful" that a public university "threatens students with criminal prosecution merely for exercising their constitutionally protected rights outside of the paltry area it has designated for free speech." FIRE also wrote to UC in December 2008, explaining that UC's free speech zone represented a serious threat to liberty on campus.

FIRE's efforts have defeated similar free speech zones on campuses across the nation, including the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, West Virginia University, the University of Nevada at Reno, Citrus College in California, Valdosta State University in Georgia, and Texas Tech University.

"UC's illiberal decision to restrict this kind of political speech to one tenth of one percent of its campus is shocking enough, but making students register to use that space ten working days in advance is even worse," said FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Will Creeley. "UC cannot deny its students their First Amendment rights. FIRE is confident that UC's free speech zone will be the latest in a long line to fall in federal court." 

Again - Please send them a few dollars to help with their legal defense. Donate to 1851 Center HERE or Young Americans for Liberty HERE.  

Help Ohio move forward to Ohio 2.0. It's Our Time. It's Our Ohio.

  

Grow with us on Facebook and Twitter.

Chris Littleton
Managing Partner, Ohio 2.0 

Steve Driehaus Voted for Taxpayer Funded Abortion

 http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/10/aclu-joins-free-speech-challenge-in-ohio-%E2%80%93-in-support-of-pro-life-group/

Liberal Steve Driehaus still claims to be pro-life despite voting for Obama’s healthcare bill.  Susan B. Anthony’s List, the pro-life action group known for its controversial interpretation of some of Susan B. Anthony’s statements regarding abortion, ordinarily only gets involved in congressional races involving women.  But this year they have decided to expand their list to include endorsements of opponents of candidates who claim to be pro-life, but who voted for Obama’s healthcare bill.  Thus, they are fighting for their right to display the above negative billboard against Driehaus, who is running against Steve Chabot. 

But who has come to the rescue of SBA List?  Was it the National Right to Life? No.  Was it the Alliance Defense Fund? No.  Was it the American Center for Law and Justice?  No.  It was the American Civil Liberties Union.  Yes, that’s right, the ACLU.  Why is the ACLU doing this?  Aren’t they pro-abortion?  Yes, of course they are.  But the ACLU seems to be against every law there is.  So it actually makes perfect sense.  You see Driehaus is claiming that the SBA List is violating a certain Ohio election law.  The ACLU wants this law to be judicially abolished.  That’s what they like to do.  They like to see laws struck down at the bench.  (You can read quotes from their spokeswoman by clicking the link below the billboard picture.)  In this case they may be right (though the Ohio Constitution makes libel an exception to free speech), but I can imagine that some well-meaning conservatives might not like what this decision means in terms of their candidates not being protected from vicious attack ads.  Well, the case is far from over, the SBA List may win or the members of its front office may be put in jail. 

Of course, SBA List has totally missed the boat here.  Regardless of whether or not abortions will funded by taxpayers through Obamacare, which is a matter of debate, there is another bill which Steve Driehaus voted for which clearly appropriates funds which are explicitly allowed to be used for the funding of abortions in cases of rape and incest as well as substantial indirect abortion funding.  Driehaus also voted against an amendment to this bill which would have at least prevented Planned Parenthood (but not other abortion providers) from getting any of the money.  I am talking about a Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill.   But SBA List is only defending itself on the basis that Steve Driehaus’ vote on Obamacare was a vote for taxpayer funded abortions.  Why?  The simple answer is that they are endorsing Driehaus’ opponent, Steve Chabot, who also has voted for Planned Parenthood funding through DHHS appropriations bills.  (That doesn’t make anyone want to donate to your organization if you point out that two major party candidates running against each other are both hypocrites.)  In fact, almost all congressmen have voted for this garbage.  The only candidates they could endorse would be Ron Paul (even he abstained from the voting last time rather than voting “no”), some freshmen Republicans, those who have never held a congressional seat and maybe one or two others.  If you only endorse a handful of candidates, that just does not generate much interest, even though it’s the right thing to do.  SBA List also only endorses “viable” candidates.

But since the billboard is so obviously true, Driehaus has no case (even if Ohio election law is constitutional) and should shut up and bow out of the race so that we can have a debate between Chabot and Libertarian candidate Jim Berns.  Though I will not cast a vote for him either because he also is not pro-life (but at least HE doesn’t lie about it), at least people might learn something from such a debate.

Reverend Mahoney Being Arrested for Praying on a Public Sidewalk

The Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration was drafted by three prominent evangelical leaders including Chuck Colson. It is a document that is a pledge against supporting abortion (and other forms of murder), immoral sexual relationships, and giving in to limits on freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Over 62,000 have signed this pledge. To add your name, click here. But be careful, if you sign, that you agree to everything it says and that you are really willing to live up to the pledge. I wrote the following letter to contact at the Manhattan Declaration.

To whom it may concern,

While I agree with the spirit and intent of the Manhattan Declaration, I can't sign it as written because I don't agree with everything in it.

The most glaring error is the phrase "which made modern democracy possible". The Founding Fathers utterly denounced democracy as a dangerous form of government where guaranteed rights are subject to the whims of the majority and demagoguery. We are (or at least we are supposed to be) most decidedly and exclusively a republic.

While I agree that no fault divorce should not be tolerated in the church, Jesus clearly taught that this should not (and will not) be prohibited by civil authorities. Note his clarification of the Pharisees' question: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." Matt 19:11 (KJV).

The document refers to the necessity of "forsaking all others" and warns against allowing polygamy. While I agree that God's original plan for marriage was one man and one woman, and that homosexual relations and multiple partners for women are most decidedly an abomination to the Lord, I challenge anyone to definitively prove from Scripture that what Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon did should prohibited by civil law or even that it should not be allowed in the church. At what point in time did the acceptability of polygamy end? Show me the scripture if you know it. (I agree that the bishops and deacons of the church must be married to "but one wife", but not all men in the church hold this office.)

In the beginning it says, “…which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations”, but in the end the pledge concerns “our institutions”. I am not the executive of any organization. You should add a phrase to indicate that this pledge is not just for institutions, but private individuals can also participate.

I completely agree in principle with the last paragraph of the Declaration and would be inclined to sign it, but one should be warned that one must do so carefully and be prepared to live up to this promise. A promise not kept will weaken the cause. “…we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate…” implies a refusal to pay taxes if any portion of it is used for the listed activities. If this is really the intent of the Declaration, then I applaud you for your unusual courage and pray for the defeat of our persecutors. Since such use of taxpayers' money at the federal level has already ensued, I would highly recommend that any signers get educated as to the law and follow the lead of successful tax avoidance strategies. I highly recommend reading a forthcoming document called the "Articles of Freedom". This document, which will contain such strategies, was adopted by the 2009 Continental Congress, a group which has other grievances against the federal government. The document will be available in its entirety at http://www.cc2009.us/aof. (See especially Title 13.) If further modifications of the Articles of Freedom are allowed to take place or if a future Continental Congress convenes (I am not a member of the current congress) and drafts a new document, may I have your permission to propose the addition of the last paragraph (modified to include any individual) of the Manhattan Declaration into such document?

Sincerely,

Matthew Miller

Bulldozing America

Demise of America


“(The alleged) President (Soetoro, alias) Obama is considering a plan to bulldoze many declining American cities.

“And soon after, we expect him to bulldoze what is left of

· capitalism,
· healthcare, and
· free speech.”

- - NewsBusted, Episode 6/20/09


COMMENT

(Soetoro’s, alias) Obama’s plan to bulldoze parts of decaying urban areas or cities is symbolic of what he and his administration are doing to America as a whole. He is trying to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a universal set of governing principles that are markedly Marxist in their essence.


NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

S 909 protects pedophiles and must be stopped

The Pedophile Protection Act a/k/a the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act has strong same-sex activist support. Many senators fear this powerful moneyed minority who desperately want to advance their perverse agenda at all costs.

.

I have emailed and called my two U.S. Senators this afternoon. Neither spokesperson, who answered the phone, would reveal how they would vote on this immoral and unnecessary bill. When I asked why this bill is needed, when in many cases the elderly and innocent children have no similar protection, the best response is that "there is a need to protect the community." The 'community' the spokeswomen was referring to was that of homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered, pedophiles, the incestuous, etc. of society. It was not the community as a whole. That answer was not satisfactory. The laws of the United States protect all citizens, men, women, children, elderly, black, white, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike and we do not need to provide special rights based on sexual behavior or choice.

.

S 909 must be defeated. Please encourage you Senators to reject this bill that would undermine the liberty and freedom to tell the truth about the sinful and abominable and unhealthy choice of behavior!

.

Here is the email I sent to both of my senators here in Ohio:

Dear Senator ______________:

I am writing to urge you to do all you can to defeat S 909, which is titled, “"The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." However, it is more accurate to call it the “Pedophile Protection Act” or the “Suppression of Free Speech Bill.”

All manner of sexual perversions would be protected by this unnecessary and dangerous bill.

We do not need special protection for any group of Americans based on how they behave sexually. Sexual preference is not an immutable characteristic like race, gender, disability or age. There is no need to provide increased protection for this groups ahead of such truly vulnerable as infants, children or the very elderly.

Why should the crime against a homosexual coming out of a homosexual bar be afforded MORE protection or be a worse offense than a crime committed against a vulnerable elderly grandmother coming out of grocery store? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Please join any filibuster against this immoral and un-American bill when it comes up for vote today or in the near future.

How will you vote on this bill?

It is not a civil rights issue, it is the effort of the homosexual lobby to legitimatize a behavior that is altogether unhealthy, abnormal, immoral and unnatural. I urge you to resist supporting this bill in any way.

‘Separation of Church and State’ is a Lie

Bill Wilson had an excellent commentary last Friday (May 8, 2009) in his Daily Jot on the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ concept or interpretation. The following is an excerpt from article, “Constitutional Freedom and This Present Darkness.”

“. . . The Founding Fathers of America were very precise in their writing of the Constitution. Their words were direct in that they did not want to be misinterpreted, but like those who misinterpret the Bible, there have been gross misinterpretations of the Constitution. One such misinterpretation is separation of church and state.

“The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.” This specifically means that government is “hands off” on anything that restricts religion, freedom of speech, the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for grievances. It means that religion and free speech have free reign—it can be practiced anywhere, anytime, especially on public property, because Congress cannot restrict it and if the other branches try they are violating the Constitution . . .

· Laws that restrict speech, such as hate crimes;
· laws that restrict establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof such as
. . . hate crimes,
. . . prayer in public places, at government functions, at public school athletic events;
· those that prohibit displays of Christianity in public places
are unconstitutional by the very definition of the Constitution. They were not changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, as Washington suggests is the only way to change the Constitution. It is time for Christian Americans to stand up and say no to this overreaching government of might makes right . . .”

Tolerance, a one-way street, left turn only!

Hear Their Cry

A University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point student taped disrupting a University approved demonstration.

OneNewsNow.com reported that the free-speech rights of a University of Wisconsin Stevens Point pro-life club, Pointers for Life, were violated recently. The incident has been posted on YouTube video - see for yourself.

Pointers for Life recently obtained permission from the school to place 4,000 white crosses on campus grounds. The display depicted the 4,000 unborn babies who are aborted daily in the United States.

The OneNewsNow.com report said, “. . . (T)he display was vandalized on May 1 by Roderick King, a university sophomore and student senator. While King was knocking over the white crosses, he stated that the pro-life group had no right to challenge abortion because it was made legal in 1973 following the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and the display, he said, was unfair to students who had obtained abortions . . .

One person interviewed by OneNewsNow.com said, "This is the kind of thing that happens on college campuses on a regular basis where conservatives face this kind of oppression -- mostly from students [but] especially from student government associations who are ... thoroughly dominated by a leftist agenda."

Remarkably, or maybe not, no disciplinary action has yet been taken against the student.