Tag Archives: First Amendment Rights

Jerry Buell suspended from Mount Dora High School, Facebook comments about gay marriage, Mount Dora, Florida, First Amendment rights

Jerry Buell suspended from Mount Dora High School, Facebook comments about gay marriage, Mount Dora, Florida, First Amendment rights

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

The US Constitution has been trampled on again. Jerry Buell, a teacher at Mount Dora High School in Florida, was suspended for exercising his First Amendment Rights on his personal time.

From an email from American Family Association August 22, 2011.

“A Florida teacher has been suspended and removed from the classroom in Mount Dora, Florida, for comments made on his Facebook page against homosexual “marriage.” Liberty Counsel will be representing the teacher in court.

In response to New York’s passage of a same-sex marriage bill, Jerry Buell criticized the new law in a pair of Facebook posts. He wrote, “If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

Just minutes later, he added, “I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

This reference to Scripture and man-woman marriage has now been labeled as a “code ethics violation” by school officials.

Mr. Buell is currently subject to an Inquisition-type investigation. The school will not let him back into the classroom, says a school official, “until we do all the interviews and do a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings.”

Says Mr. Buell, “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights.”

It’s worth noting that Florida’s constitution prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, the exact view Mr. Buell supports. In essence, he is now being accused of hate speech for expressing a view enshrined in the state constitution.”

From One News Now August 22, 2011.

“Harry Mihet, the Liberty Counsel attorney representing Buell, notes that the 22-year-plus veteran of teaching is a very popular and successful teacher.
 
“In fact, he was elected as teacher of the year last year precisely because he has an outstanding reputation — not only for being an excellent teacher, but also for loving each and every student who comes across in his classroom regardless of the student’s status or lifestyle or orientation,” the attorney shares.
 
Mihet says it is worth noting that the person who filed the complaint has never been a student in Buell’s classroom. The school is concerned that homosexual students might feel uncomfortable or somehow threatened in his classes. Mihet comes to his client’s defense.
 
“It is an outrageous insinuation that somehow being against homosexual marriage disqualifies you from being a public servant,” he responds. “[That's] an idea that is so repugnant to the Constitution and to the First Amendment freedom of speech, one of our most cherished freedoms that is supposed to enable us to speak out on matters of public importance.”
 
Mihet believes the school district’s response to Buell’s comments is unconstitutional. Liberty Counsel is demanding that he be immediately reinstated with an apology from the school district.”

Read more:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1413842

It appears that not only do members of Congress need to read the US Constitution but also “educators.” The Constitution should be read in every school across the nation at the beginning of each school year.

Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al, Standing v US Constitution, First amendment rights, Legalese cited to perpetuate legalese

Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al, Standing v US Constitution, First amendment rights, Legalese cited to perpetuate legalese

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“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.”…First Amendment US Constitution

From  Birther Report January 17, 2011.

“Government files their motion to dismiss in Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al.. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Nicholas Purpura and Donald Laster of the Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots and the New Jersey Tea Party Coalition. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Colts Neck Tea Party, Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots, Jackson Tea Party Patriots, Bayshore Tea Party Group and Ocean County Citizens for Freedom. The lawsuit alleges the healthcare bill is unconstitutional on 15 separate counts including Obama’s ineligibility. Full brief embedded below. More background on the case can be found here. The lead plaintiffs discuss their lawsuit here, the video is also embedded at bottom of this post.

The government argues the plaintiffs lack standing and the court does not have jurisdiction…”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/government-files-motion-to-dismiss-in.html

Notice from the Table of Authorities:

“Kerchner v. Obama,
612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010)”
“Lightfoot v. United States,
564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009)”

They are attempting to use legalese, “standing”, applied in earlier cases to substantiate further legalese and thus attempt to trump the First Amendment and effectively block attempts to redress government for grievances by petition.

DISCLOSE ACT, HR 5175, Friday vote, June 18, 2010, First Amendment Rights, Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act

I received the following in an email a few minutes ago with a request to “PLEASE email, fax, call and otherwise reach out to your House member to vote NO on this legislation.”

 “DISCLOSE ACT (HR 5175) is set for vote FRIDAY AM!!!”

The DISCLOSE Act
June 16, 2010
 
On the Citizens United decision: “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.  Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”
 
- Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association, January 21, 2010
 
“The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.”
 
- Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005
 
 
On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act.  The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year.  Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United. 
 
The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups.  This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.
 
Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress.  The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections.  It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee.  The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.
 
Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill.  The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill.  This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else’s problem.”  The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.
 
Favors unions over corporations.  Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership.  However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members.  As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.”  Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600.  This would preclude unions from having to report.  The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million.  (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.)  This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.
 
Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance.  The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute.  Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.
 
Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement.  The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times.  Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title,  and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time). 
 
 
Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications.  The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it.  This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year. 
 
RSC Staff Contact: Natalie Farr, natalie.farr@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0718

Harry Reid, Nevada, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Senator Reid disregard for Constitution, First Amendment rights, Deceptive Senate Health Care Bill, Taxation Is Voluntary, Presidential eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Birth certificate, Freedom of press

Instead of writing one big article on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, I will be writing a series of articles on Reid. Harry Reid is involved in so much dirty party politics and has negatively impacted this country in so many ways that one article does not do this subject justice.

Since Harry Reid was instrumental in ramroding through an illegal candidate for president, Barack Obama, and in supporting the usurper in office, it is fitting that we look at the core issue of why Harry Reid behaves as he does.

Harry Reid, as is true of many in Congress, has an ignorance of and disregard for the US Constitution. The Citizen Wells blog highlighted this fact by inducting Reid into the Hall of Shame in 2008.

The Citizen Wells blog and it’s well informed viewers and commenters are not the only ones to believe that Harry Reid has a disregard for the US Constitution.

From the Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2009.

“Harry Reid v. the Constitution”

“An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.”

“Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they’re hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can’t inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law.”

“While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that “in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.” Nowhere in the Constitution is there a “qualification” saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.

Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we’d suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut’s Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.”

“Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can’t legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we’re in for an ugly couple of years.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094461932550595.html

From American Thinker, October 9, 2009.

“Watching the Constitution Disappear”

“The President says the Constitution is defective, and now Senator Harry Reid is preparing the coup de grace.”

“Once Reid and Obama emerge from their transparent closed-door consultations on how to blend the two competing Senate Health Care bills, Senator Reid has a nifty parlor trick up his sleeve.  The normal course of legislative events would be to debate and vote on the bill on the Senate floor, and then send the result to a House-Senate conference committee.  The committee would then blend the final House and Senate bills into a product acceptable to both houses.”

“The rub here, and the reason Senator Reid has conjured up his little parlor trick, is the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
Technically the amended bill will have originated in the House, in the same manner that a blank piece of House letterhead stationary originates in the House.  This trick has apparently been used for expediency on past occasions, but the far-reaching and perhaps irreversible effects in this case, combined with the obvious intent to pull a fast one on America, lead one to question the respect for the American people exhibited by our so-called representatives, aka our elected royalty.  Congress plans to employ a technicality to pay lip service to the Constitution, using the shell of a House bill to in effect make a hollow shell of the Constitution.”
 
Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/watching_the_constitution_disa.html

 

Harry Reid has no regard for First Amendment Rights and freedom of the press.

From News Busters, August 30, 2009.

“Harry Reid Threatens Las Vegas Newspaper”
“Harry Reid, perhaps emulating the bullying tactics of an out-of-control Obama administration, has openly wished for the Las Vegas Review-Journal to ‘go out of business’ – a newspaper which has held opposing political viewpoints with the Senator. 

But then, is this really shocking coming from a veiled supporter of the Fairness Doctrine?

The comment came when Bob Brown, the Journal’s Director of Advertising, met with Reid at a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon.  During the simple process of handshaking, an exchange in which most people with an ounce of class can pull off without issue, Reid said to Brown:  “I hope you go out of business.””

“Frederick’s column ends with this thought:   “…we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.”  The question remains, will Nevadans also serve notice come the election in 2010?”

Read more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/08/30/harry-reid-threatens-las-vegas-newspaper

Harry Reid not only does not understand the law, he is out of touch with reality.

U.S. Senator Harry Reid – “Taxation Is Voluntary”

 

From Letters sent to Harry Reid regarding eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama. This was part of the US Constitution Hall of Shame effort on this blog.

Letter 1

“I received the following letter and wrote a response to Harry Reid after an e-mail I sent him in November imploring him and all leaders to uphold the Constitution. He of course is one of the biggest idiots in the whole Washington elite THUGS!!! I will also post the letter and response my husband sent him in a seperate post. My initial e-mail to all elected officials in the state of Nevada…………………………….=============================

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a citizen of the United States of America and specifically the state of Nevada. Many of our citizens are getting caught up in what they are coining a “historic election” in electing the first black man to the highest office in our land. However, as a concerned citizen and patriot I am demanding that all of you state officials who represent my voice……. demand that we know who the people of this country elected to be POTUS in the name of Barack Obama.

He has not been forth coming with a lot of his background and history. We have not seen his official birth certificate that contains a state seal. My husband was born in 1961 also and his official birth certificate looks nothing like the one Mr. Obama is trying to pass off as authentic. No one has seen any detailed medical documents. A one page note from a doctor stating he is okay is not sufficient. My daughter needs more than that to be admitted back into school after a 3 day absence!!!

It is a requirement per our Constitution that anyone wishing to be POTUS must be a “natural born citizen”. To date no one has seen Mr. Obama’s birth certificate except for two people in Hawaii who say it exists. Now Obama has ordered this information to be sealed. As an American citizen and registered voter I have a vested interest in learning the truth here and we need you to act and act NOW!!!!!!!!!

I can’t and won’t support this president-elect until he comes clean with who he is and if he meets all of the qualifications to hold the most powerful job in the world!!

AS OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO US TO SEE THIS THROUGH BEFORE OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN PROSTITUTED BY AN ANTI-AMERICAN FRAUD!!!!!

Sincerely,

Jacqlyn xxxxxxx
Henderson, Nevada

P.S. If you happen to be an official of the Electoral College then I am requesting you vote on December 15, 2008 against Barack Obama and for the real patriot in John McCain…… unless Mr. Obama proves to the American people before then that he meets all the requirements to become “our” leader and entrust “our” lives and the lives of “our” children to him!!!!”

Letter 1 response

“December 5, 2008

Mrs. Jacqlyn xxxxxxx
Henderson, Nevada 89052

Dear Mrs. xxxxxxx

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

According to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, any person serving in the United States House of Representatives must have reached the age of twenty-five and must have been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and any person serving in the United States Senate must have reached the age of thirty and must have been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years. In addition, Article II, Section 1 mandates that a person must have reached the age of thirty-five and be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President of the United States.

As you mentioned, some reports have surfaced that my former colleague, President-Elect Barack Obama, is not a natural-born American citizen. These reports are false. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawai’i. His birth certificate is a matter of public record of the State of Hawai’i and is available online through various news sources, as well as on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org. I hope you find this information useful.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
?
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada”

Response to Harry Reid’s response:

 

“HR:=========================My e-mail responding to his Dec. 5th e-mail!!!! Quite pathetic…..I haven’t heard from him since!!!

Mr. Reid—-Please look at the above e-mail I received from you!!! Is this a joke??? Do you really believe you can fool all the people all of the time? What you have written here is a lie and what Mr. Obama is trying to pull over on the American people is a CRIME!!! How stupid do you think we are??? Now ….as an elected official for the state of Nevada, I demand that you uphold the Constitution or you too will be committing a crime of TREASON!!! Now don’t send me this type of e-mail again until you show me the authentic, original vault copy of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate!!!! What you are telling me to check is not a copy of his original birth. The place you are sending me to has already been checked and everyone knows it is a FRAUD and not what is appropriate evidence to show one is eligible to be President. If you think it is then you have no right representing me in Washington. I would term you to be as stupid as stupid could be!!!! As my state’s Senator I will be waiting for your reply and it better not be the nonsense you just sent OUT!!!! THIS IS

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! DO YOUR JOB THAT WE TAX PAYERS PAY GOOD MONEY FOR!!!!!!

Your constituent and your BOSS,
Jacqlyn xxxxxxx
Henderson, NV 89052

P.S. I can’t believe you expect me to accept this e-mail as true. I will be saving your e-mail as proof that you too are trying to fool the American people by sending out false information!!! You really are an arrogant SOB!!!!

 

Jacqlyn xxxxxxx
Submitted on 2008/12/30 at 5:20pm”

 

And now the response my husband got from Mr. Reid and what my husband told him…..My husband is much nicer than ME!!!!!

 

“From: correspondence_reply@reid.senate.gov [mailto:correspondence_reply@reid.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:36 PM
To: xxxxxxx
Subject: Correspondence from Senator Reid

December 5, 2008

Mr. Patrick xxxxxxx
Henderson, Nevada 89052

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

According to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, any person serving in the United States House of Representatives must have reached the age of twenty-five and must have been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and any person serving in the United States Senate must have reached the age of thirty and must have been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years. In addition, Article II, Section 1 mandates that a person must have reached the age of thirty-five and be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President of the United States.

As you mentioned, some reports have surfaced that my former colleague, President-Elect Barack Obama, is not a natural-born American citizen. These reports are false. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawai’i. His birth certificate is a matter of public record of the State of Hawai’i and is available online through various news sources, as well as on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org. I hope you find this information useful.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
?
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada”

Husband’s reply to Reid

“Dear Senator Reid,
Though the question of the authenticity of Senator Obama’s birth certificate is still in question – Sen. Obama has ties to the “non-partisan” factcheck.org” cited in your correspondence – even had he been born in Hawai’i, the federal law at the time would have caused him to have assumed the citizenship of his father. His father was born in Nigeria, a British colony at the time; therefore, Barry was born a British citizen as the USA did not allow dual citizenship in 1961.

One would think that you, with all of your resources and experience, would be aware of this. Perhaps if you were a bit more enlightened and more desirous of the truth rather than political gain, you might try and represent your constituents and put this issue to rest before a grave injustice is done and Barry is sworn in as POTUS.

Once again, I am disappointed in the “Democratic” process that you and your ilk feign to carry out.

Thank you for the form letter response and feel free to re-adjust your blinders.

Best regards,
Patrick xxxxxxx”

December 30, 2008 – Harry Reid enters US Constitution Hall of Shame

Las Vegas Tea Party, August 31, 2009, Tea Party Express, First Amendment Rights, US Constitution, Citizen journalism, Video

I have never gotten so much satisfaction assembling an article as I did producing this one. This article is the culmination of efforts of concerned Americans across this country and certainly those that participate on this blog. A special thanks goes to commenter JoyceAZ, who cared enough about this country to travel to the Las Vegas Tea Party, take photos and write a report. Thank God that she did. The story was barely touched by the local media in Las Vegas and the Main Stream media nationwide.

“CW,  We arrived at the park 8:45am.  This area was large.  The parking lot filled up by 10:30.  People were coming and going for 2-3 hrs.  People were very warm and friendly.  WE WERE UNITED. The people were from Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho…… (licenses plates that we noticed).
All day long people gave each other the thumbs up.  We The People are UNITED IN OUR MARCH TO WAKE UP THE GOVERNMENT.
We just want to be heard.  Our Freedoms are being tread on.  OUR FLAGS SAY: Don’t Tread On Me.  We will not be UNHEARD.
 
We did not see any riots.  No screaming, yelling or fighting.  We did not see any opposition,….. ACORN, SEIU, or other pro-Obama voices.
Several cars stopped and ask us what was happening,…. as they had not heard of this project on the local tv channels.  I told them that it was 98% created thru the internet and twitter and such.  The NEWS MEDIA is DEAD!  Even those would stop and go sign up for information on OUR PROJECT. 
The Las Vegas Review-Journal quoted that the count was 800-900.  I truly feel is was much larger than that.  The parking lot was filled at all times….. people would be waiting for a parking spot.  People arriving faster than leaving.
I don’t think I would be exaggerating to say it was closer to 1500+.  I am sending a few articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  They have some interesting articles about dirty harry. He is not very popular at this time. 
 
JoyceAZ”

I hope that the actions of JoyceAZ were as inspiring to you as they are to me and will inspire more people to take action. We cannot depend on the modern day media to do so.

I sang the song that plays in the video when I was young.

It moved me deeply then and even more now.

Tea bags, Washington DC, White House, 1 million tea bags, Lafayette Park, First Amendment rights, National Park Services officials, not proper permit

From GOPUSA:

TEA BAG UPDATE: More than 1 million tea bags delivered to Washington, D.C. near White House.

Dear Concerned American Citizen,http://www.discountbookdistributors.com/teabag.aspxFox News televised the partial unloading of more than 1 million of our tea bags at Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. near the White House this morning (note background of photo)! Unfortunately, representatives of The Patriot Depot and Reagan.org were told by National Park Services officials to reload the truck. Why? Even though the original protest permit was approved, our tea bag team was conveniently told that it was not the “proper” permit. This is an absolute outrage and a denial of our First Amendment rights, which read:

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.

But our tea bags are not leaving the Capitol City any time soon! We’ve just set up a towering display of more than 1 million tea bags at a new location in Washington, D.C.—the headquarters of a free market think tank, The Competitive Enterprise Institute. Your tea bags are sending a loud and clear message: Enough is Enough.

 

Here is the text:

“Fox News televised the partial unloading of more than 1 million of our tea bags at Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. near the White House this morning (note background of photo)! Unfortunately, representatives of The Patriot Depot and Reagan.org were told by National Park Services officials to reload the truck. Why? Even though the original protest permit was approved, our tea bag team was conveniently told that it was not the “proper” permit. This is an absolute outrage and a denial of our First Amendment rights, which read:

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.

But our tea bags are not leaving the Capitol City any time soon! We’ve just set up a towering display of more than 1 million tea bags at a new location in Washington, D.C.—the headquarters of a free market think tank, The Competitive Enterprise Institute. Your tea bags are sending a loud and clear message: Enough is Enough.”

April 11, 2007, Barack Obama, First Amendment rights, constitutional lawyer, toxic information, feeding our kids, useful diversion, Don Imus, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan

The main stream media appears to be giving Barack Obama a free ride. After Obama has apparently lied about not knowing about the hate sermons of pastor Jeremiah Wright and after his 20 year association with pastor Wright in the same church attended by Louis Farrakhan, Barack Obama had the audacity to make the following statement about Don Imus on April 11, 2007:
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

Think of what his children and others were subjected to in his church and community. To read the rest of the hypocritical comments from Barack Obama, read my earlier post on the subject.

Barack Obama, First Amendment Rights, free speech, ABC News, April 11 2007, toxic information, feeding our kids, Jeremiah Wright

This quote by Barack Obama is worth highlighting. Obama made this statement in response to Don Imus making the remark, “nappy headed hos.” Obama’s response to Don Imus was reported by ABC News on April 11, 2007. Read Obama’s statement carefully. Compare what Don Imus said one time to the hate filled, anti semitic statements made by Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan over many years.
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

Read the rest of the April 11 2007 ABC News report here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3031317&page=1