Kirsten Powers & Peggy Noonan School Mainstream Media`s Perception of Contraception Debate (Updated: George Will & Liz Cheney)

Via NewsBusters & MRCTV



video platform
video management
video solutions
video player

Penn Jillette Talking About the 1st Amendment Without Historical Reference

Separation of Church and State

Banning Books?

From Rebel Pundit:

The authors of the books we offered to ban were Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, Ayn Rand, Michael Savage, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama. While there were in fact less than two handfuls of individuals who did tell us they don’t think any books should be banned, unfortunately there were a shocking amount of guests at this book fair who were quite open to the idea, and in fact lined up quite excited for the opportunity to voice their opinion.

Participants overwhelming chose Sarah Palin who received 53 votes putting her at 36% overall, Glenn Beck at 23% and Ann Coulter at 22%. All of the other choices received a very minimal amount of votes, with the next most popular to ban being Adolf Hitler at 0.5%. Ironically, Michael Savage, who has been banned from entering Britain over things he often says, did not receive one vote to have his words banned in Chicago.

Mike Adams Vindicated-Free Speech Wins Out

Mike Adams can now write on this win in his counter liberal articles:

Attorneys for a Christian professor in North Carolina are celebrating a decision handed down by an appellate court, calling it a victory for academic freedom.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys argued that criminology professor Mike Adams was unconstitutionally denied a promotion at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington because school officials were hostile to the political views he delivered in his columns and speeches.

A lower court had ruled against Dr. Adams, saying his comments on matters of public concern constituted “official” speech as part of his job duties as a criminology professor at UNC-Wilmington — and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. But now the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Adams’ writings and speeches are protected by the First Amendment, and that if Adams winds up winning his case against the university, school officials could be held personally liable for damages.

“No individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment,” wrote the court. “Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern.”

ADF senior counsel David French argued before the court on Adams’ behalf. “Christian professors should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs,” French states, “and this decision thoroughly upholds that principle.”

French calls the circuit court’s decision “a ringing vindication” of the academic freedom of public university professors.  “Disagreeing with an accomplished professor’s religious and political views is no grounds for refusing him promotion,” he adds.

“It vindicates academic freedom not only for Dr. Adams but for all professors — and re-establishes the principle that the university is a marketplace of ideas. It’s a tremendous outcome, but it’s just one additional step in a long road towards justice for Dr. Adams.” The case now goes back to district court.

…(read more)…

Separation of Church and State (SE Cupp and Mark Levin Deal out some pain)

Via NewsBusters:

Howard Kurtz should apologize to conservative author S. E. Cupp for how he and his fellow panelists treated her on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources.”

As Cupp via a satellite feed tried to explain the point Delaware Republican senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell was making about the First Amendment during last week’s debate with Chris Coons, those in the studio could be heard in the background laughing…

NewsBusters Continues:

Okay, well why don’t take Page’s advice and read the First Amendment:

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.

See anything in there about the separation of church and state?

I have compiled some info on this, but before I post it, lets hear Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin take talk about this on his radio show:

(Part 1)

(Part 2)

(Takes a caller… starts at the 1:20 mark)


Here is my input/compilation on the matter:

Separation of Church and State

US SUPREME COURT May Limit Speech (rightly so)

Despite free-speech concerns, Supreme Court justices sounded sympathetic Wednesday to a lawsuit filed by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by protesters with signs like, “Thank God for IEDs.”

The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The 1st Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it shields speakers from private lawsuits….

…(read more)…

How long before this is applies to peaceful protesters at abortion clinics? What I mean is that if the “health of the mother” can be interpreted as her not wanting a child who has a clef-palate and can get an abortion at the 8-and-a-hald month mark… then why  can’t a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks be applied to a woman walking into a clinic. As much as I agree that there should be a limit placed on these whackos, what will the progressive left do with this ruling (if it comes)?