OMG, I Actually Agree With Holder’s Justice Department On Something

It is the only real protection a citizen has from abuse by police officers. Further, they work for us and should be accountable to us. I applaud the Justice Department for taking the stand they have.

As police departments around the country are increasingly caught up in tussles with members of the public who record their activities, the U.S. Justice Department has come out with a strong statement supporting the First Amendment right of individuals to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties.

via Justice Dept. Defends Public’s Constitutional ‘Right to Record’ Cops | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Advertisements

Manny Pacquiao: The Latest Target Of The Faggots

Well that will teach him not to support gay marriage ….

In a parking lot near the Grove mall Wednesday, shoppers and workers said they were surprised that boxer Manny Pacquiao was barred from taping a TV interview at the shopping center after making negative comments about gay marriage.

Although it turned out Pacquiao was partially misquoted, he did say he is against gay marriage, and the ban was still in place as of Wednesday afternoon. He had been scheduled to tape an interview there Wednesday with the “Extra” TV show.

via Manny Pacquiao: Shoppers surprised by boxer’s ban from the Grove – latimes.com.

Nike is also in the cross-hairs and of course the faggots are mis-quoting him (lying) as usual.

Engaging a radical shift as manifested by his insights shared during Bible studies which lasted more than one hour, around 10:00 p.m., with a song and his substantive prayer, Pacquiao counsels people to “just believe” what the Scripture says.

Pacquiao’s directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin, inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Pacquiao, bearing a conservative stance on the Reproductive Bill which is still pending in the Philippine Congress for approval even after contemptuous debates, believes the sweeping campaign of Obama favoring the gays and lesbians to legally marry is nothing more than a direct attack on the moral society and against the creative power and will of God. – Examiner

The claim is that Pacquiao said that faggots should be put to death. Pacquaio did not say that, the Bible did.

You will note that I use the descriptive “faggot” now when referring to the gay Nazis. Any respect I had for gays as a class of citizens has now evaporated. If the term faggot offends you, then you may kiss my …

11th Circuit Says Teacher Fired For Pre-Marital Sex Has A Case

Let me start by saying that I disagree with the school’s decision to fire the teacher. Yeah, pre-martial sex is un-Biblical, however when the woman found out she was preganant, she legally married the father (its called repentance)

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” – Jesus Christ, Matthew 9:12-14

With that said, it is a religious school operated on religious principles as laid out by their governing body. It is their right (ministerial exception) to apply those principles to their employment practices as long as they are uniformly applied.

Overturning a lower court ruling in the school’s favor, the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Jarretta Hamilton was entitled to a trial on her claims of pregnancy discrimination by the Southland Christian School Inc in St. Cloud, Florida

Hamilton, a fourth-grade teacher at the religious school, informed administrators in April 2009 that she was pregnant and needed to take maternity leave. During the conversation, she admitted that she had conceived the child three weeks before her February wedding.

One week later, the school fired her. Administrator John Ennis explained that “there are consequences for disobeying the word of God,” according to the court opinion.

via Teacher fired over pregnancy can sue religious school.

The 11th Circuit even acknowledged that the ministerial exception might apply, but since the school did not invoke it during the appeal defense, it was not applied.

Southland’s brief mentions the ministerial exception only once, and that is when describing the district court’s rulings: “The Court determined that the ministerial exception did not apply in this case.” Appellee Br. 7. Southland abandoned that exception as a defense by failing to list or otherwise state it as an issue on appeal. – Opinion

So really this is a matter of stupid lawyers who did not invoke the school’s rights. I guess the lesson is, unless you claim your rights, they don’t exist.

The Crusade Against The First Amendment

If any of these woefully inadequate candidates gets the Republican nomination and defeats Barack Obama, the only certainty for the subsequent four years will be more jihad, aided and abetted by shortsighted U.S. policies. – Spencer

Okay, lets examine that for a moment. Although President George Bush responded vigorously against radical Islam, he maintained a good relationship with the Muslim Community here in America. President Obama has continued the policies of President Bush and is alleged by many to be more pro-Islam than other Presidents. Yet there has been no great jihad slaughter here in the US, no loss of liberty except by the government itself in its “war on terror”.

The exact number of American casualties is difficult to calculate because of incomplete news reports regarding numbers and nationalities of those injured. The toll from the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center is also uncertain, but current figures place the number of dead above 3,000. The number of dead at the Pentagon and on the hijacked airliners numbered approximately 385. Since Yasser Arafat “renounced” violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 53 Americans have been murdered and at least another 83 Americans have been injured by Palestinian terrorism. Excluding the September 11 attacks, approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. – Source

So around 4,000 Americans have been killed (not including war casualties) in Middle East terror-related incidents over the past 40 years. Compare that with ~325 homicide deaths in the US per DAY and any reasoned judgment would conclude that the odds of someone being killed by Islamic terrorism is very slight. When you do the math, the rate comes out to be 0.001 deaths per 100,000 per year. That compares to a rate of 6.1 deaths per 100,000 per year for homicide in the US (source CDC). The rate for car accidents, 14.6.  Darn, an American has a greater chance of dying from malnutrition (0.9) than at the hands of an Islamic terrorist!

Islam is the second largest religion in the world representing 22% of the worlds population. Christianity is the largest, representing 33%. In the US, the numbers are significantly different, with Christians accounting for 76% of the population and Muslims only 0.6%. Muslims are outnumbered 100 to 1! So why all the fear?

It most likely has to do with the fact that radical Islamic types tend to hide in the shadows and attempt to blend in. There is also an effort by many to blur the distinction between Islam and its radical cousin’s, Salafism and Wahhabism. The Al Qaeda terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Al Qaeda terrorists.

The fact is, every group and religion have had individuals who seek to exploit their subscribers beliefs in the pursuit of political power. Our founders understood that quite well and established a constitution which included a provision to protect future generations from such abuse. We call it the First Amendment. With it, there is no need for vilification of Shariah law or Islam. Our founding documents already protect us from the introduction of religious-based legal systems. One law applied equally among all citizens as adopted by representation of those same citizens.

So GOP candidates have no need to declare “opposition to Sharia”. They need to declare their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, in particular 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.

On this count, all of the candidates appear to be solid with perhaps one exception.

Herman Cain said he sides with those opposing the construction of a mosque in Tennessee because he fears the Muslims building the mosque have bad intentions and want to implement Sharia law.

Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain, a contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.”

Herman Cain is dead wrong. The Catholic Church “combines church and state”, so should we ban Catholic Churches in America? Judaism “combines church and state”, so should we ban synagogues in America? Our constitution DOES NOT guarantee separation of church and state. It does however restrict government in “prohibiting the free exercise thereof“.

People like Herman Cain and Robert Spencer scare me more than any Al Qaeda terrorist. Why? Because my liberty as a Christian is only as secure as my neighbors liberty as a Muslim. Be careful what you wish for.

Bloggers Beware

I’ve been operating the Blue Collar Republican website since 2006 and during that time the other authors and I have offended many people who simply did not like what we had to say. However, we have always striven to be fair and honest with our reporting, making corrections to posts when when we found them to be factually inaccurate or in the realm of a personal assault on anyone. I had one local state representative who actually retained a lawyer and after several phone consultations with him I eagerly awaited a day in court. The individual himself then called me and in tears explained how the post had the potential of affecting his main job (school teacher) and as a result I pulled the post. It is not our goal to personally injure anyone, so I took the heat and snide remarks from other bloggers because I pulled it without explanation.

In February of this year, there was an incident in Philadelphia on my news feeds which I did a commentary on, entitled “Why I Don’t Fly”. The original post (if it still is online) can be found at the original BCR site and is archived as a page here. The post quoted in accordance with fair use a news item from Philly.com which has since been removed. The only reference which can be found on their site now is one with these comments.

One other case has particular relevance – that of Nadine Pellegrino, a Florida businesswoman jailed for 17 hours after she objected to a screening by TSA workers who say she assaulted them.

Once Municipal Judge Thomas F. Gehret heard that the TSA had erased the tape of Pellegrino, he threw out the charges against her because she’d been denied the best evidence. Her record has been expunged.

In that case, airport security manager Renee Tufts testified that the electronic memory required to keep all tapes was not within the city’s budget.

Several weeks ago, Ms. Pellegrino contacted me via email with this accusation in regards to my post.

In performing a google search I found false and slanderous info about me in the description of a link to your website that can be referenced at bluecollorrepublican.com/blog/?cat+22 – Cached. The Google search starts with “ Just Because Iit Pisses Me Off <<Blue Collar Republican …..she was arrested on felony counts of assault because her bags touched TSA workers and had called them bitches.

I wrote back to Ms. Pellegrino explaining that the post was a commentary on a news article and the subject of the rant was the TSA and the judges opinion, not her. She responded back demanding I take the post down. I explained that I do not take down posts, but would be happy to post any clarification that she felt needed to be added. If the Philly.com news item was in error, then shame on them and that in itself is a story worth pursuing further. I also explained that only her last name was used in the quote, not her full name.

Ultimately, the woman has been bugging me for weeks with threats and demanding I take the post down. When I refused she contacted our hosting service, ipowerweb and they sent me a nice little note.

We have been advised by a visitor to your web site (bluecollarrepublican.com) that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Well, first of all the key word is alleged. It is based on a news story and the facts are open to debate (something of a ‘he said, she said’), but I think the balance of the dispute is in the post (both sides of the story). Second of all,

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.

Okay, we are a political blog, so just about everything on our site is going to be “offensive” or “controversial” to someone. So I informed ipowerweb that their service did not meet our requirements. After 4 years with ipowerweb, the service of the host has degraded to the point where people have a hard time getting on the site. We have gone from a peak of 10,000 visitors a day down to less than a 100 over the past few years because of hosting problems. I’ve just put off moving because I did not want to lose our archives, but now I have some additional motivation.

Back to the subject at hand. Free Republic has more on the original story and Ms. Pellegrino’s lawsuit against the TSA (in the comment section). Contrary to Ms. Pellegrino’s claim, she was not found ‘not guilty’. The charges were dismissed because the TSA could not produce the video from the airport of the incident. She was non-the-less arrested and charged, so nothing in the post is false, just differing versions of what was said between her and the TSA workers.

So, I’m moving us to a new home (long overdue) in preparation for a nice little legal fight. This is my opinion, and strictly my opinion only (still America and I can have one). Based on the email exchanges I’ve had with Ms. Pellegrino, the woman is unbalanced. I have no desire for a fight, but I won’t run away from one either. Again, if there is anything factually wrong in our reporting, I will be happy to add a correction to the original post.