A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Other Ways
Got News? Get the Newsletter.
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
- #NCED Updates – Equity, Unions, Ed Bills and that K-3 Assessment drama
- Former School Administrator arrested on sex charges involving student
- WCPSS Equity Affairs: We will “Leverage student voices” to advance “Equity Framework”
- New Hanover Deputy Supt. resigns, SBI called in over student abuse complaint
- Former Lincoln County Principal charged with 11 sex crimes involving students
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Tag Archives: constitution
Prayers on a bus. No, it’s not the sequel to Snakes on a Plane. It’s literally something that happened on a school bus in Minnesota. A pastor named George Nathaniel was fired from the school district where he was a bus driver for prayers on his bus. Star Tribune:
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech.
George Nathaniel, 49, of Richfield, who is also a pastor for a pair of Minneapolis churches, was in his second year as a school bus driver for a company under contract to the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage district. Continue reading
Dick Durbin isn’t sure Bloggers are covered by the First Amendment:[youtube=http://youtu.be/eSiTJj6cBzo]
You gotta be kidding me. How repugnant.
Durbin is backing a ‘media shield law’ alongside Lindsay ‘I need to be primaried’ Graham that seemingly wants to go beyond the various state shield laws protecting reporters from divulging their sources. Key quote from Durbin Via Daily Caller:
“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
Dear Dick Durbin: It’s called the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to free speech. Yes, that includes bloggers. Here’s a reminder:
“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.”
Is Durbin suggesting we need to create a media class? Our “media” is already running amok and can barely bring themselves to do their jobs. To designate a special class, protected in what they write, lends itself to even further abuse. Suggesting that there needs to be some kind of journalist class pushes the idea that there then needs to be registration of some kind. Who would do that registration and credential giving? The obvious answer is the government and voila, welcome to State Run Media.
Nick Gillespie makes the similar points to mine:
It’s easy to understand why he would be bothered by unwanted leaks in his administration. But his problem is the press’s gain. By definition, any media-shield law is predicated upon the government defining just who counts as a “journalist” and is thus worthy of protection—and who doesn’t count and is thus subject to prosecution. Thanks, President Obama, but we don’t need no stinking press badges, especially in an age where all sorts of decentralized reporting and unconventional news gathering come online faster than the next second-term scandal. The First Amendment is all the shield law any American needs, especially when it’s supplemented by the protections offered by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. What we really need is a president who lives by the Constitution more than he nods to it.
EXACTLY. Read the whole thing.
As a blogger, I see things locally and nationally that others might not see. I report on those things to those who subscribe to me or wish to listen. I am one of millions out there and that is a very good thing. We need more voices, not fewer. Giving different perspectives, opinions and information is essential for a free society. It is the need to speak out and offer a different opinion that started me blogging in the first place. I don’t get paid for this. I do this because I believe in what I write and I have every right to be heard. I do this so my kids will have the same ability to speak out that I have. Right now, with Durbin’s statement and the mounting scandals in this administration, that fight is more real than I truly ever wanted to imagine.
No one select group of people should have an official stamp on news and information or have a soapbox all their own. That is how freedom and liberty die and dictatorships are formed. Continue reading
A three-part series by Liberty Speaks….
Part One: Violence and Blame
Over the last ten years I have seen my share of violent mass shootings take place in our country. Newtown, Aurora, Tuscon, Ft Hood, Virginia Tech and Columbine are the six shootings that most people can name off-hand at any given moment. There are also a couple of shootings (which I will discuss in part two), that personally touched my family, specifically my husband. Many people in our nation have asked for an open dialogue about gun violence. I felt it was time that I would start one. Maybe, what we need to do is wait and breathe before automatically deciding it is the weapon to blame instead of the individual who commits that act. After all, there is no such thing as a deranged weapon.
Back in January of 2011, I felt compelled to write a note and place it on my Facebook page, Liberty Speaks, for all to see. I was disturbed at the quick condemnation of the First Amendment and the accusations that speech was to blame for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the deaths of six others. Below is that note, with a few updates which will be highlighted. Continue reading
potted a story this morning that talked about John Cusack developing a biopic about Rush Limbaugh. Via Washington Times 24/7:
John Cusack — actor, vocal liberal activist and occasional Huffington Post blogger — is developing a movie about conservative radio show all-star Rush Limbaugh.
Cusack’s production company, New Crime Productions, told the Associated Press that the working title of the new film is “Rush.”
The unabashedly liberal star of movies like “Say Anything,” “Grosse Point Blank” and the anti-gun adaptation of the John Grisham novel “The Runaway Jury” will reportedly play the talk star in the film, set to begin filming next year.
I wonder who he will get to play Rush? I do hope this won’t be another pile of dog mess like Sorkin’s “Game Change”. Cusack blogs for HuffPo on occasion and is a self professed liberal, but perhaps I’m being too hasty in dismissing his ability to show some objectivity about the other side. I say that based on this gem that was passed to me: John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution
The original posting was on August 20th, here. It didn’t appear on HuffPo until September 2nd.
While the piece gets some side topics wrong (death panels in Obamacare and the Auto Bailout), the bulk of it regarding Holder, Obama, killing Americans without due process and the NDAA lands right on target. Of interest is the side conversation going on about liberal media bias. Both Turley and Cusack note how no one on the Left journalistically is pursuing the clear Constitutional violations by this administration; mainly because Obama and Holder are ‘good guys’ in the eyes of the progressive media. In other words, it’s o.k. when we do it.
The one passage that raised my eyebrows is this one:
CUSACK: So would you say this assassination issue, or the speech and the clause in the NDAA and this signing statement that was attached, was equivalent to John Yoo’s torture document?
TURLEY: Oh, I think it’s amazing. It is astonishing the dishonesty that preceded and followed its passage. Before passage, the administration told the public that the president was upset about the lack of an exception for citizens and that he was ready to veto the bill if there was a lack of such an exception. Then, in an unguarded moment, Senator Levin was speaking to another Democratic senator who was objecting to the fact that citizens could be assassinated under this provision, and Levin said, “I don’t know if my colleague is aware that the exception language was removed at the request of the White House.” Many of us just fell out of our chairs. It was a relatively rare moment on the Senate floor, unguarded and unscripted.
CUSACK: And finally simple.
TURLEY: Yes. So we were basically lied to. I think that the administration was really caught unprepared by that rare moment of honesty, and that led ultimately to his pledge not to use the power to assassinate against citizens. But that pledge is meaningless. Having a president say, “I won’t use a power given to me” is the most dangerous of assurances, because a promise is not worth anything.
CUSACK: Yeah, I would say it’s the coldest comfort there is.
It’s well worth the time to read the whole thing. Killing American citizens at will is the bigger fish to fry, but I find it interesting they don’t discuss Obamacare, which affects ALL American citizens and the Constitutional issues it raises.
Also, here is the speech by Eric Holder at Northwestern. Continue reading