In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC the SCOTUS Justices rendered a blunt 9-0 ruling that the Obama Regime does not have the right or privilege to tell a religious institution who may or may not be in their clergy nor under what terms they onboard or offboard such ministers and/or priests, overruling and reversing the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ early decision.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

– Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Writing for the Court

So, for now, the shades of the Founding Fathers are smiling. The Supreme Court unanimously slapped down the Obama Regime’s attempt to violate the 1st Amendment and Americans’ freedom of religion.

This is a useful and cunning course of action for the would-be demagogue or tyrant.

It is also part and parcel of the iconic image of the Magic Negro, a meme that was largely responsible for Obama’s election to the Presidency and, therefore, not to be considered unexpected behavior by Obama.

This has, however, become a severe problem since he was installed in office because Obama has extended this behavior to his actions as POTUS by denying the press normal access while forming his own State Media Machine so that it is, once again his voice alone is providing the narrative.

Even ABC, who went far out of their way and farther beyond the pale of journalistic ethics to ensure America had it’s First Black President, have begun to cry foul:

The White House Press Office now not only produces a website, blog, YouTube channel, Flickr photo stream, and Facebook and Twitter profiles, but also a mix of daily video programming, including live coverage of the president’s appearances and news-like shows that highlight his accomplishments.

~*~

Over the past few months, as White House cameras have been granted free reign behind the scenes, officials have blocked broadcast news outlets from events traditionally open to coverage and limited opportunities to publicly question the president himself.

Obama’s recent signing of the historic New START treaty with Russia and his post-State of the Union cabinet meeting, for example, were both closed to reporters in a break with tradition. And during a recent question and answer session with the president and visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the White House imposed an unusual limit of just one question each from the U.S. and Canadian press corps.

“The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has covered seven administrations. “Access here has shriveled.”

Members of the press have always had quibbles with White House media strategies, calling cut-backs in access an affront to transparency, even as administration officials insist they’re simply taking advantage of new technologies.

But some say the current dynamic is different, and dangerous.

“They’re opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn’t have any criticism allowed,” said University of Minnesota journalism professor and political communication analyst Heather LaMarre.

In point of fact, I have little sympathy for ABC or any of the “lamestream” media. They’ve been largely silent about the Obama’s Regime’s incessant attacks upon Fox News. I sort of feel that if you stay silent when they come for Fox you shouldn’t feel entitled to have anyone speak up when they come for you. Also, they had every reason to see this coming.

But the fact that I have little or no sympathy for ABC’s plight doesn’t mean that they’re not right or that this isn’t something that endangers more than just the media’s feelings and ratings.

This strikes like a shiv at the beating heart of American liberty and must not be tolerated by we, the People.

A reasonably free press is a needed to ensure that the government, rarely the true friend of the people, doesn’t go too far astray. Without the press having access to our elected politicians the descent into tyranny and despotism is assured.

Of course Obama, who tells us that he studied Constitutional Law, should know this. He just willfully chooses to violate this fundamental American precept in order to shield himself from criticism.

Does this mean that Obama is a tyrant? Not necessarily, though it is precursor behavior for one. But precursor behaviors do not always lead to full-blown end-states in behavior patterns.

But it doesn’t matter whether Obama is a would-be despot or merely a narcissistic man who believes himself to above scrutiny, criticism, and/or reproach; this method of “controlling the message” must be eradicated by firm and uncertain means.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.

Not being one of the Godless, I have no hatred for most religious expression and strongly favor prayer being allowed in America’s schools. The Religious Right, however, might just choke on some of the effects of successfully demanding it though.

The Three-fold Law & The Law of Unintended Consequences

Yeah, that might just stick in the craws of some people. That being the case and America being a tolerance-based religious plurality, though one de facto founded upon Judeo-Christian values, the phrase, “Be careful what you wish for,” should be kept firmly in mind.

NOTE: Notice how the Pagan schoolgirl’s 1st Amendment right to freely practice her religion has been violated for the sake of the school’s no weaponry policies? She’s been forced to perform her ritual without her athame!

General Petraeus’ concerns seem to be over the probable additional risks to our troops stationed in the Muslim World the burning of the Qur’ans by the Gainesville, FL church would cause.

It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.

Firstly, let me say the General Petraeus is quite accurate in his claims that Muslims will respond violently to the burning of Qur’an and that such a violent response would explicitly increase the dangers faced by our soldiery stationed within the Muslim World, especially those serving and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stimulus: Burning A Qur’an

Response: Muslims Riot And Go On Violent Rampage

It’s simply a proven fact that a great number of Muslims respond to being  offended by either targeted or mass acts of violence.  Their responses to insulting cartoons of their Prophet proved that point to the world. Therefor it’s hard to blame Gen. Petraeus for being against such a public burning of Qur’an. It will, without a doubt, make his job and the jobs of the troops he commands that much harder and that much more dangerous. Simple.

But this whole situation is more complex than that and, along with risks, it also calls to my mind SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas’ opinion upon the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949).

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago is quite applicable to this situation. Father Arthur Terminiello, a suspended Catholic priest, racist, and anti-Semite, sparked a violence in Chicago when his vitriolic speech at a rally resulted in a riot by 1000+ people outside the auditorium.

I’m also reminded of the oath that then-Cadet Petraeus swore in 1974 when he as a graduate of West Point accepted a commission in United States Army.

I, David Howell Petraeus, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of 2nd Lieutenant do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

I can and do certainly sympathize with Gen. Petraeus’ feelings and I appreciate the horrible situation that he is currently in and how Jones’ planned burning of 200 Qur’ans would just make it worse. I’m not, however, completely sanguine about a 4-Star General publicly speaking in an official capacity – therefor under at least the appearance of the Color of Authority – against a small group of American civilians exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights of speech, expression, association, and religion.

How is that supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States as he once swore an oath to his God to do without reservation?

Frankly, I see little or no use for Dove World Church’s book burning whatsoever but I’m more worried about Gen. Petraeus’ and the Obama Regime’s responses to it than those of the Muslims. That’s because I’m worried about our government and military saying that we should censor ourselves because we might offend someone, Muslims in this case, and I’m even more worried about them wishing to censor Americans because they fear the likely violent response of those offended Muslims.

There were, however, things that they should have said. Some variation of the following would have been the American response to the situation:

The idea of building a high profile mosque named Cordoba House that close to Ground Zero is wrong, insensitive, insulting, and counterproductive to open dialog between Muslims and Americans. Just because they have the right to build it doesn’t mean that they are right to do so.

It is, however, their right, as guaranteed by America’s constitution, to build such a mosque wherever they so choose and no force of law should be brought to bear against any legal endeavor to do so.

Mr. Gamal and Imam Feisal have the right to expect tolerance from the American people but should not conflate tolerance with blind acceptance. Acceptance must be earned and something as divisive and inflammatory as the Ground Zero Mosque is not a step in that direction.

Such a statement seems perennially beyond the ability of any Liberal politician to issue. Perhaps they are afraid, with some reason, of their diminishing constituency’s response to it. Perhaps they just don’t – perhaps can’t – conceive of such a sentiment much less speak it.

These politicians of the likes of Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama should have said something like the above. They chose instead to overtly or tacitly once again insult and deride the American people as bigoted, racist, Islamaphobic, and intolerant.

That sort of censorship was true then in 1972, and it remained largely true throughout the intervening years, but it looks like it has now changed, possibly dramatically.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 a federal appellate court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech. This is a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio. For now, the court’s ruling will likely end the commission’s campaign to keep the airwaves clean of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of punitively large fines.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A federal appeals court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech Tuesday, in a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio.

A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are “unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.”

The decision doesn’t mean broadcast TV and radio shows will now be littered with profanity, because advertisers and viewers would likely complain. But the ruling will likely end, for now, the commission’s campaign to cleanse the airwaves of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of hefty fines.

“I think the notion that broadcasters are going to be dropping f-bombs in prime time is ludicrous,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. “If we wanted to do that we could do that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.,” when FCC indecency standards don’t apply.

Ashby Jones and Joe White discuss the ruling by a federal appeals court that struck down the FCC’s indecency policy. The court said the agency’s efforts to punish broadcasters for allowing “fleeting” expletives was “unconstitutionally vague.”

The judges found that the agency’s decision to sanction broadcasters’ airing of one-time or “fleeting” expletives is unconstitutional, and suggested the FCC’s broader indecency enforcement efforts are unconstitutional as well.

Fox along with other broadcasters sued the FCC in 2006 after the agency said the networks had violated indecency rules when airing “un-bleeped” profanities of celebrities during live televised events and levied heavy fines and penalties against them. Since the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed the broadcasters’ lawsuit President Obama’s FCC will have to take this the US Supreme Court if they wish to continue continue to police the language used in broadcast media as they have been doing.

It will be very interesting to see if the Obama regime will decide to push this issue to the SCOTUS or allow the appellate court’s ruling to stand unchallenged. The FCC’s policy and belief in its authority over the matter of obscenity and vulgarity on broadcast media is quite longstanding and reached its peak during the “Bush Era,” yet Fox, whom Obama hates and fears, is leading the suit against the FCC. It’s anyone’s guess at this point which way Obama will jump and command his FCC to act.

Plausibly but somewhat oddly to my mind, President Obama’s decision on how to have his FCC respond to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York’s ruling may hinge upon Janet Jackson’s nipple-bearing wardrobe malfunction in 2004 during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show.

Janet Jackson’s Nip-Slip During 2004′s Super Bowl XXXVIII

In 2004 the FCC under President Bush fine CBS $550,000 for “Nipplegate,” which provided the viewing public a half-second look at Janet Jackson nipple, nicely adorned with a sunburst nipple shield. On July 21, 2008, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in favor of CBS and overturned the FCC’s fine.

The similarity between the cases is irrefutable and the decisions by the two appellate courts was the same. That, as much as politics and personal feelings, may determine whether or not President Obama orders his FCC to take their chances with an appeal to the SCOTUS.

They are especially rabid for the FCC to crack down on the internet.

Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.

– Jessica J. González, Esq.
National Hispanic Media Coalition

I’m sure that President Obama and his chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein heartily approve of their efforts since they both desire to quell and silence the speech of Americans.

This pernicious attempt by some minorities – mostly Hispanics – and their sympathizers to steal the basic rights of Americans through corruption of the law is, however, not surprising; it’s a growing trend among certain sorts of America’s and Civilized World’s enemies.

What caused these groups to petition Obama’s FCC to infringe upon Americans’ rights at this time? That’s simple. It was Arizona passing immigration laws that mimicked the federal laws already on the books but that might actually be properly enforced.

As NHMC has awaited Commission action, hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise, and even more so in the past week as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history, SB 1070.

Since the vast majority of the MSM’s reporting on Arizona’s SB 1070 has been little more than race-baiting, hatemongering attacks against the law, the state of Arizona, and the hardworking American people who love their country and wish its borders secured, it’s obvious that the “hate, extremism and misinformation” their ranting about is the few outlets that have actually reported on the true content of the law and that it largely mirrors the federal laws that are not enforced.

Come here legally, learn our language, fully join our culture, and forsake all other loyalties and neither I nor any other American will have issue with you. Do otherwise at your own peril.

I would strongly suggest that these groups rethink their strategies and core philosophies. This is America, not La Provincia del Norte, and the best way for Hispanics to deal with the supposed increase in “hate crimes” against them is to stop behaving in manners that are rightfully hated by Americans at large – such as attempting to curtail free speech and a free press, both integral to American society.

Obama’s Mini-me being his nominee makes more and more sense and it seems she bodes as ill for our nation as Obama so far has.

From CNS News:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

Yes, that’s right; Kagan believes that, while the deleterious effects of laws restricting American’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression can be taken into account by the Supreme Court, the government’s motives and intent should be the most important factor in their ruling. Ergo, Kagan believes that the government can limit we, the People’s constitutional rights if it’s in a good cause.

Kagan is, like Obama himself, Harvard educated so their shared belief that the ends justify the means is not in the least shocking, given their shared backgrounds.

It was a graduate and later professor at Harvard, Michael Wigglesworth who is attributed with first adding this sentiment to the body of American writings.

From the university’s founding consequentialism and subjectivism have been entrenched in Harvard’s curriculum and all or most of its graduates have been indoctrinated into these philosophies.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that a President such as Obama, who wants to “fundamentally change” America and has some serious issues with dissent would nominate Kagan, who believes that it’s OK to limit freedom of speech in a cause she or the Court approves of, to the SCOTUS.  However, this “the ends justify the means when the ends are just” mentality of Kagan’s is nothing but the misborn bastard hybrid of ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad misericordiam, neither of which has any place in logical argument much less the highest court in America.

It does not matter whether it can be proven that the government had “the best of intentions” when enacting laws that impinge upon Americans’ unalienable rights, nor is their “noble” motives a cause to change or lessen the verdict against them. All that matters is whether or not the law or action in question violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

Elena Kagan has never had the chance to directly inflict the evils and stupidity of her views of the law upon Americans because she has never been a judge. It would be best for America if her lack of experience as a judge continued for the rest of her life.

It was quite common among wealthy Muslims during the Middle Ages to have illustrated copies of the Qur’an and hadith that had within their pages pictures of Muhammad. It was especially common during the early 14th century Ilkhanid dynasty in Persia but continued to be commonplace during Persia’s Timurid dynasty of the 14th – 18th centuries, and the Ottoman Empire had many artistic depictions throughout the 14th – 16th centuries.

Between the Timurids’ Gurkani Alam and the Ottomans’ Devlet-i Aliye-yi Osmaniyye the two empires ruled essentially the whole of the Muslim World until the mid-18th century when Western powers entered and conquered Asia Minor. That perforce means that depictions of Muhammad were not always forbidden (haram) under Shari’a.

Muslim Art Depicting Muhammad

Such illustrated Qur’ans and Hadith could happen in those Muslim empires because there is no direct prohibition against representational artwork, whether it be of Muhammad or not to be found in the Qur’an. The closest that can be found is a strong prohibition against polytheism and idolatry.

God does not forgive the joining of partners with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin.

– Qur’an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa)

So their God has not forbidden representational or figurative art – even depictions of Muhammad – but does condemn those would worship such images or the subjects thereof. The problem would only arise if the disturbingly intense reverence for Muhammad  crossed over into worship, apparently something that imams have feared since the 8th century.

If, however, one reads, studies, and lends credence to the accuracy of the Muslims’ hadith, it quickly becomes clear that their prophet, Muhammad, had serious issues with representational art in any form and for any purpose at all.

Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures.

– Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833

~*~

Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.

– Sahih Muslim,
Chapter 19, Book 24, Number 5268

~*~

Narrated [Muhammad's wife] ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.

– Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 646

~*~

This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu’awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): ‘Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures.

– Sahih Muslim,
Chapter 19, Book 24, Number 5271

~*~

Allah, Most High said: “And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of My creation? Let them create an atom, or let them create a wheat grain, or let them create a barley grain

– Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 648

~*~

Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.

– Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 130

~*~

Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain.

– Sunan Abu Dawud,
Volume 3, Book 21, Number 3746

So, while there is no Qur’anic prohibition against depictions of Muhammad, there has been concern that such images by or in the hands of Muslims could lead to them committing the sin of shirk – placing something or someone as an equal or partner to Allah. Such a prohibition, of course would make no sense if applied to nonbelievers or if the images of Muhammad were “unflattering” in nature.

Yet seems that Muhammad himself was very deeply offended by representational or figurative art in general and would likely have been utterly and maddeningly outraged by representations of himself. Muhammad’s hatred of such forms of art may have a great deal to do with the Muslims’ being offended by such artwork, even on those occasions when it is not purposefully designed to be offensive.

Many Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad, often to extremity. Since they believe, based upon the Hadith, that he reviled such art, it’s hardly surprising that they choose to as well. It is much the same as their dislike of dogs and fondness, or at least tolerance for, pre-teen “brides;” Muhammad thought  that way so it must be the right way to think.

It’s odd though – or seems so to me – that the Qur’an has strict prohibitions against placing anything or anyone on par with their God, Allah, yet the Muslims’ “issues” with pictures of Muhammad is largely based on his idiosyncrasies instead of their God’s revealed will. Maybe those old imams were right to fear their flocks growing to worship Muhammad.

Limbaughs and Coulters and Becks! Oh My!

Obama – I See Rush Everywhere

It’s a sad thing for America when the POTUS is so shallow and small that he cannot rise above his baser nature and brush off the more vitriolic statements by his opponents. President Clinton largely managed to do it when faced with Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric. President Bush Jr. successfully did so in the face an the bulk of the MSM’s constant attacks and insults – and the repeated diatribes and screeds of Obama during the 2008 elections.

It’s a crying shame that Obama doesn’t have the poise, self-confidence, and stature as a man, much less a man Americans are forced to trust with the reins of power, of his predecessors.

And, of course, the Leftist MSM – the degenerate and corrupted remains of the bulk of American journalism – is ever eager to trade softcore interviews and feeder questions to President Obama in exchange for continued access to the White House.

This just feeds President Obama’s narcissism and delusions of both worth and persecution – and aids him in his attempt to vilify dissent and marginalize those few journalists and commentators who are still willing and able to question “The One” and his agenda for fundamentally changing America and turning it into something recognizable as only a mockery of its past self.

~*~

Of course it’s axiomatic that just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you. It is also axiomatic that you will be forced to reap what you have sown, and it is a sad truth that President Obama and his coterie have sown the wind.