Marsha Blackburn introduces bill to protect free speech on campus.

Press release, June 5, 2019 - Today, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke on the Senate floor about her newly introduced resolution to encourage free speech and inclusive debate on college campuses.

“On the eve of National Higher Education day, I am introducing the Campus Free Speech Resolution of 2019. It’s a first step in restoring sanity to free speech for American college students,” said Senator Blackburn. “It recognizes that universities should protect the free and open exchange of ideas and that freedom of speech is worth protecting in a world increasingly hostile to democracy.”
The Campus Free Speech Resolution of 2019 is cosponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

“Learning is nothing if not a pursuit of truth,” said Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education. “As students pursue their education, they should never face limits on what, when, where, or how they learn. They should be empowered to pursue truth through the free exchange of all ideas, especially ideas with which they may not agree. Free inquiry is an essential feature of our democracy, and this administration will continue to vigilantly protect the First Amendment.”

“We applaud the Senate's resolution,” said Nicki Neily, President of Speech First. “College campuses are the place where ideas should be vigorously debated, but sadly, the window of acceptable political discourse on campus is so narrow that students who express views outside that orthodoxy can be punished and dragged through burdensome administrative proceedings. Across the country, far too many public universities have failed to uphold their obligations under the First Amendment. The Senate's resolution is a timely reminder of those obligations and the fundamental values they protect.”

"Misleadingly titled free speech zones don't promote free speech, rather they quarantine student expression to designated areas that are often tiny and far out of sight," said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn. "FIRE is thankful to Senator Blackburn for using this resolution to apply additional pressure on institutions to open all common outdoor areas for student speech."

Rep. Phil Roe (TN-01) introduced a companion resolution in the House of Representatives in March.

#

In this video, Sen. Blackburn gives the history of the fight for the First Amendment rights of students on college campuses and gives examples of how colleges have been silencing conservative viewpoints.

Top Stories

This isn't about transparency, it's about intimidation.

By TRACIE SHARP and DARCY OLSEN

When voters in Missouri, South Dakota, Washington and Oregon go to the polls in November, they will vote on ballot measures that are cleverly marketed as legislation aimed at reducing “big money” and “outside influence” in local elections. If passed, what these measures would really do is limit the ability of nonprofits like ours to weigh in on policy matters we care about. This is an infringement of our First Amendment rights.

The South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act is a good example. Also known as Measure 22, it would force nonprofit organizations to report the names and addresses of their donors to the state government, subjecting them to possible investigation by an unelected ethics board that is given the power to subpoena private documents and overrule decisions made by the state attorney general if the board disagrees.

Nonprofit organizations—like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, National Rifle Association, churches, Boys and Girls Clubs and art museums—are legally allowed under federal law to take positions on legislative matters that impact their missions, as long as they do not financially or otherwise support candidates for office. Because they are not engaging in candidate campaigns, they are allowed to protect the privacy of their financial supporters. The South Dakota measure and others like it would overrule these protections.

The South Dakota legislation is part of a growing national trend. Since 2013, 17 states have considered, and five have passed, state laws to require donors to charitable groups and nonprofits working on issues—not campaigns—to report the names and addresses of their donors to the government.

Once collected, this information is posted on a public website for anyone to access. This might not sound like a big deal in today’s era of living our lives online, but some historical context is in order.

In the 1950s the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to turn over its membership list, with the result that segregationists could show up on the front lawns of those who supported the civil-rights movement. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the Supreme Court recognized the physical dangers this invited, and the threat to the First Amendment, which guarantees our right as Americans to express ourselves not only with words, but with actions and dollars as well.

Things have certainly changed since then, but we know from personal experience that violence directed at people who support controversial issues is still a real threat.

In 2011 the Goldwater Institute was engaged in a high-profile public dispute with local officials and the National Hockey League over the legality of a multimillion-dollar subsidy to Arizona’s hockey team. During that fight, hockey fans used property tax records to find the home address of the institute’s president, Ms. Olsen, and post it online. The next day a gutted rabbit was found on her porch and the animal’s blood smeared over her house.

In 2012 the Arlington, Va., office of Ms. Sharp’s nonprofit organization, the State Policy Network, was broken into and trashed. In 2013 the homes of our colleagues at the Wisconsin Club for Growth were raided in predawn, paramilitary-style assaults by the police who were looking for evidence that the group was illegally coordinating with the campaign opposing the recall of Gov. Scott Walker. But the group had not run one ad in support of Mr. Walker, sent one piece of mail, or made any phone calls; it simply spoke out in support of his union reforms. Staff at the Freedom Foundation in Washington state had their car tires slashed; an attorney at the Mackinac Center in Michigan was spat upon, the CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute’s home was vandalized, and so on.

Non-conservatives are also targeted. Last Thanksgiving a man went on a shooting rampage in a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic, tragically killing three and wounding nine others. What if the state had forced Planned Parenthood to post a list of its donors online? How much worse and widespread could that tragedy have been?

Do we want America to be a country where government keeps public lists of law-abiding citizens because they dare to support causes they believe in? Every American has the right to support a cause or a group without fear of harassment or intimidation. Protecting donor privacy is essential to safeguarding that right.

Ms. Sharp is president of the State Policy Network. Ms. Olsen is president of the Goldwater Institute.

Top Stories

Paycheck Protection bill promoted

Press release, (NASHVILLE, TN) –Tennesseans for Conservative Action announces the start of a web and radio campaign urging Tennessee conservatives in support of Rep. Spivey’s efforts to end the automatic dues deductions for political government unions.

Julie West, a founding member of the group said its time to stand against the National Education Association. "It takes 5 minutes of research to understand how the NEA uses taxpayers to help fund their dues-collection, and uses those dues for a SuperPAC to attack conservatives and promote their left-wing agenda.”

The issue of payroll deductions came to light last year after a Memphis teachers association disaffiliated from the NEA, leaving the school district confused as to where to send teachers dues. The result was a lawsuit against Shelby CountySchools Schools by the former-NEA teachers.

Many teachers across Tennessee have complained that the process for dis-enrolling from payroll deduction is opaque and limited to small window of time each year. They also cite the TEA’s refusal to permit teachers to opt-out of supporting the NEA, an organization that supports ObamaCare, abortion, and left-wing organizations like ACORN and the Progressive States Network.

“Read the FEC filings. You’ll see that the NEA is buying billboards for Hillary Clinton, and they’re using member dues to do it. What conservative teacher wants to give up a piece of their paycheck for that? We need to make the process fair for teachers and taxpayers alike and get government out of the dues-collection business."

Watch or listen to TCA's ad here.

Top Stories

25 Surprising Facts About Religious Rights in Public Schools

From time to time we hear anecdotal stories of the public school systems prohibiting students from expressing their Christian faith. Certainly it does happen, but if challenged, the public schools system often backs down. Also, schools systems often try to purge schools of any recognition of the dominant Christian culture in which we live by doing such things as changing "Christmas break" to "winter break."  Because of a separation of  church and state, school boards do not have to pretend that the school break that happens at the end of the year is not a "Christmas" break.

One reason secularist and politically correct bullies often win is because Christians are so damn meek and mild. Christians do have rights. If you don't stand up for your rights however, you will lose them.

The following list of "25 Surprising Facts about Religious Rights in Public Schools" is copied from an email I received from Tennessee Eagle Forum. Eagle Forum got if from Liberty Institute. To view the 33-page book that contains this list and other information about religious liberty in public schools see the  Religious Liberty Protections Kit for Students and Teachers.

1. Students and educators do have First Amendment religious rights inside public schools.

2. Students can speak about their faith even when teachers must be neutral.

3. Schools cannot treat religious activity differently than other activity.

4. Students can pray during lunch, recess, or other designated free time.

5. Students can pray silently during a school's moment of silence.

6. Students can read the Bible or other religious materials at school.

7. Students can share their faith with fellow students.

8. Schools can acknowledge religion.

9. Students can pray, either individually or as a group, at school athletic competitions, student assemblies, or other extracurricular activities when school officials are not involved.

10. In many cases, a school district can allow student- led prayer before an athletic competition (such as a football game), a student assembly, or other extracurricular event as part of the school program.

11. Students can pray at graduation ceremonies or include religious content in their speeches.

12. A public school can refer to "Christmas" and have a "Christmas party" if the intent is not to advance Christianity.

13. A public school can display Christmas decorations if the intent is to teach and not part of a religious exercise.

14. A public school can include religious Christmas music, art, or drama in a school play or performance if it is used to teach history or cultural heritage and not advance a particular religion.

15. Students can give out Christmas gifts with religious messages at school parties.

16. Students can incorporate their faith or religion in classroom and homework assignments under normal and appropriate circumstances.

17. A public school district cannot be hostile toward religious beliefs.

18. Teachers and other public school employees can discuss religion with students under many conditions.

19. Teachers and other public school employees can discuss religion with other teachers or other school employees.

 20. A public school or a teacher cannot limit religious speech by students unless they limit other speech.

21. Students can have a religious club at their school.

22. Religious student groups can meet on campus whenever other non-curricular clubs can meet.

23. Religious clubs can use the same school resources available to non-religious clubs (e.g., school facilities, bulletin boards, public address system) to promote or facilitate club events.

24. In most states, teachers or other public school employees may attend a religious student group's meetings in a supervisory role.

25. Members of religious student clubs can distribute flyers about meetings and events just like non-religious clubs.

Top Stories

Alexander: Democrats and Obama Propose to Restrict Free Speech for Everyone But the Really Rich

This proposal would give members of Congress the power to silence the groups or organizations that threaten their re-election. …Congress could tell Tennessee Right to Life that it can’t advertise to protect the rights of the unborn. Congress could decide that such speech should be restricted or prohibited because incumbents fear it is really an endorsement of a candidate for office.” – Lamar Alexander 

 

Press Release, WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said today that a proposal supported by 48 Senate Democrats and the president would give Congress the power to decide “which Americans can speak in elections, what they can say, when they can say it, and how they say it.”

“Ordinary Tennesseans would lose their ability to broadcast their views, but billionaires could buy a TV station or a newspaper and say whatever they think, and millionaire candidates can fund their own campaigns,” Alexander said. “Billionaires and millionaires would be the only ones exempt from the gag rule proposed by the Democrats.”

S.J. Res. 19 is a Senate resolution supported by 48 Senate Democrats and President Obama to change the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress and states to limit the raising and spending of money to influence elections.

Alexander detailed how the Democrats could limit the free speech of Tennesseans under the proposal. Excerpts from his speech follow:

“Congress could tell a gun owner in Johnson City, Tennessee, that he or she can't spend money to advocate in defense of Second Amendment rights if that speech falls too close it an election and threatens to influence the campaign of incumbents. Or, similarly, Congress might tell Tennessee Right to Life--you can't advertise to protect the rights of the unborn. Congress could decide that such a speech could be restricted or prohibited because incumbents feel it is endorsement of a candidate for political offices.

“Also they can seek to stop new political movements like the Tea Party by placing unachievable conditions on their ability to raise and spend funds on behalf of candidates they support. They could do this under the guise of protecting donors by saying you can't receive donations unless you've been successful in a previous election. Or, you have a real chance of being successful in a future election. The decision of whether a new political movement was viable would of course be made by their political competitor.

“The majority leader has prevented Tennesseans, for example, from having their say through their senators for years now, using the gag rule in this body to keep amendments from being considered and voted on. Senators have listened to their constituents and proposed amendments on Obamacare, taxes, the National Labor Relations Board, Iran, Iraq, etc., and they are told by the Democratic leadership that they won’t get votes. I've said on this floor many times, it is like being invited to join the Grand Ole Opry and not being allowed to sing. But the consequences are much more serious than that.

“It is not just my amendment or my colleague Senator Corker's amendment. It is not just Tennesseans' amendments. It is the voters of every state who have sent us here to have a say on their behalf. The senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, has counted that since July of 2013 only 14 Republican amendments and nine Democratic amendments have received votes. That's an astounding number. There are 100 senators here representing more than 300 million Americans. This is said to be the world's greatest deliberative body.

“It’s shocking we're standing here to debate such a proposal. Every American ought to be concerned about this proposal to amend the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause in the First Amendment. They should be deeply concerned that the senate majority leader and his gag rule have effectively silenced their elected representatives here in the senate. And now he wants to silence them.”

Top Stories

How Alexander and Corker voted on the resolution to amend the Constitution to partially repeal the 1st Amendment.

Yesterday I reported on a bill that advanced in the Senate that would partially repeal the First Amendment protection of Free Speech.  The bill would essentially say that only individuals had freedom of speech, not corporations.  This would make it permissible for the government to order a publisher to stop publishing a book or a distributor of a movie to stop showing a movie or Amazon or Barnes and Noble to stop selling a book.  It would essentially gut the First Amendment.

The bill had advanced in the Senate by a vote of  79-18 on Tuesday. That was a vote on cloture on the Motion to Proceed. Both Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted "Aye," or voted for Cloture. “Cloture”means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken. A vote in favor is a vote to end debate and move to a vote on the issue itself, while a vote against is a vote to prolong debate or to filibuster. I have already had a couple people point out that Alexander and Corker voted "Aye."

Alexander and Corker did vote "Aye" as did other Republicans such as Jeff Sessions and Marco Rubio. For those of you who might not know, no one would call Jeff Session and Marco Rubio liberal Republicans. Twenty-five Republicans voted "Aye" and only 18 voted "nay."

That vote was a procedural vote on the "motion to proceed."  Today another closure vote was taken on the resolution itself. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted "nay." That was a vote against cutting off debate. That was a vote for a filibuster. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted the same way as  40 other Republicans. The vote on today's closure motion was 52 Democrats voting "yea," (for ending debate) and one Democrat not voting, and 42 Republicans voting "nay," (voting against cutting off debate) and three Republicans not voting. The two independents in the Senate voted with the Democrats. The motion to cut off debate failed.

Why only 18 Senators voted for a filibuster at the very first opportunity, I don't know, but the very next vote on the  resolution was a also a vote to filibuster and Alexander and Corker voted to filibuster. Maybe they thought a filibuster on the resolution itself was strategically wiser than a filibuster on a motion to proceed. I don't know enough about the rules of the Senate to know why most Republicans voted "Aye" on the motion to proceed.  Often there are numerous procedural votes on a bill before voting on the bill itself.  If anyone uses that first vote to claim Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Jeff Session, and Marco Rubio and 14 other republicans voted to repeal the First Amendment, they are being disingenuous.

Top Stories

Congress moves to repeal the First Amendment's free speech protection.

This is not a joke or some rumor spread on Facebook or a distortion.  Congress really has taken a big step to repeal part of the first amendment. You may have not heard of this because the mainstream media is completely ignoring it.  Today the Senate voted 79-18 to advance the bill. It was a vote on “cloture”, which means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken.  Here is the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.    

Section 2.Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.          

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press. 

What is behind this is an attempt by Democrats to over turn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. In Citizens United the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations. That ruling also extents the  freedom to labor unions and other associations.

In 2002 Congress had passed the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporation, including non-profit corporations, from making independent expenditures on "electioneering communications" which was defined as communications which mentions a candidate by name within 90 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. In 2008 Citizens United, a 501(c)4 conservative group, wanted to air a documentary, Hillary, that was critical of  Hillary Clinton and they wanted to advertise the film during television broadcasts within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. They were prohibited from doing so by the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United took the case to court and lost and appealed the lower court decision against them to the Supreme Court and won.

Most liberals think this was a terrible ruling and corporations should be prohibited from engaging in political speech. To critique the Supreme Court's decision they frame the issue as the court having said corporation are people and have the same rights as people.

One of the arguments made by attorneys for Citizens United is that a Michael Moore documentary showing at the time, Fahrenheit 9/11, also was political speech.  Fahrenheit 9/11 wove various conspiracy theories involving George W. Bush and alleged he had ties to the Taliban and advanced the theory that 9-11 was an inside job. The documentary also expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush. The Federal Election Commission had found some distinction that permitted the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 but not Hillary. Justices seemed to be persuaded that if one could be banned, so could the other. Justices pondered if under McCain-Feingold the FEC had the power to ban books if they advocated defeat of a candidate and were distributed by a corporation or a Union. Most books are published by corporations. If you get a downloaded book on Kindle then that is being distributed by a corporation.  If people have First Amendment rights but the government can ban speech by corporations, then the First Amendment is a pretty empty right.

The Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech by limiting of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions, and that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications. The ruling did not permit corporation to contribute to political campaigns or do a lot of other things people have claimed the ruling did.

For those who don't know what it says, here is 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.

The proposed amendment would repeal the freedom of speech protections guaranteed in the First Amendment. Section two of the proposed amendment would allow the government to abridge freedom of speech if that speech was distributed by corporation.  Section 3 is meaningless because if only individuals and not corporations have Freedom of the Press, then the government could shut down newspapers if they were corporate owned, as most are.

The proposed amendment probably will not go far.  It would have to pass both houses of Congress and would have to go before the people and be approved by 3/4 of the states. I don't think there is any way the House of Representatives will pass this bill as long as Republicans hold the majority. Still, it is frightening. Many politicians will want to say they voted for campaign finance reform and they voted to "take the money out of politics." Many people will be persuaded by the argument that "corporations are not people" and they will see it as a way to defeat the Koch brothers. For a public of low-information voters who get their news from the Colbert Report and SNL and have not been grounded in an understanding of the founding principles of our County, this may have appeal. I don't have the faith in the wisdom of the American people that I once had.
 
We can expect the Democrat Party and various progressive groups to push hard to get this bill passed. I will not be surprised if a memorializing resolution is not passed by our own Metro Council urging passage of the bill.  MoveOn is already mobilizing their forces to promote the amendment and using it to raise money. In an email received today MoveOn says:

Wow—this is huge. Last night, the Senate voted 79-18 to advance a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The next step is a vote Thursday.

We're getting ready to launch a huge accountability campaign, going after senators who vote the wrong way. wrong way. And we won't stop until Citizens United is repealed.

This is momentous. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity. 

It's nothing short of amazing that Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans didn't block this entirely—as they've done with nearly every other priority issue of most Americans, like the minimum wage and student debt. 

We've built enough grassroots pressure that they couldn't squash this. McConnell is trying to make lemonade out of this—he claims that he welcomes the debate. But 80 percent of American oppose Citizens United.

It seems as if America is going down the tubes right before our eyes.  Many people see rights as simply impediments to the popular will. This is a bold move to substantially remake America.  May God help us preserve our Republic.

 

Check back for a report on how our Senators and Representatives voted.

Top Stories

Why I will no longer call myself a member of the tea party.

Recently the Gallup poll reported that support for the tea party was down from 32% in November 2010 to 22% today.  Quite frankly, I am not surprised and expect further decline unless the tea party can become less dogmatic and extreme.

When the tea party first came on the scene, I was all on board. I opposed Obamacare and run away deficits and wanted Republicans to stand strong, vigorously oppose Obamacare and not raise taxes. I felt I was part of a movement. I saw the tea party as a movement of newly energized people who for too long had been silent. On April 15th, 2009 I attended a tea party event and wrote enthusiastically about the experience. I was exited when Tea Party Express rolled into town and reported on it.

April 18, 2009

From the very first however, I was put off by some of the fringe that I saw attaching itself to the movement. At an early tea party event on Memorial Plaza (also called Legislative Plaza), either the event referenced above or another early event, there was a John  Birch Society booth. I was surprised. I thought the JBS had disappeared long ago. I had not heard anything from them in years.

 The John Birch Society emerged sometime in the 50's as a conservative, anti-communist organization.  There were chapters all across America.  Many respectable people joined the organization. On specific policies I almost always found myself in agreement with the JBS.

However, the problem with the John Birch Society is not the position they take on most issues but that they are nuts. When they talk about "the insiders" they do not simply mean people with influence the way you and I might use the term. When the JBS talks about "insiders" they are talking about people who belong to a secret society that has been pulling the strings since about 1776 with the formation of The Illuminati. According to JBS, The Illuminati has front groups and subsidiaries like The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderburg Group and others.  The JBS believes almost nothings just happens or is the result of clashing interest or ideologies but is planned and controlled by a handful of elites they call "the insiders."  Not everyone in the JBS even knows what the organization believes and they join  not knowing. If they are only causal members they may be clueless about what it is they have joined.

By the mid 1960's, the JBS had gained so such power in the conservative movement and in the Republican Party, that William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater issued a joint denunciation of the organization and urged conservatives to disassociate from it. After that the organization twiddled.

With the advent of the tea party, the John Birch Society found fertile ground for resurgence and growth.  One of the projects they took on was something called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was a 1992 UN sponsored study suggesting a course of action for sustainable development. It was not a treaty.  Some countries voluntarily implemented some of the Agenda 21 recommendations.  The JBS developed training kits where one could become an expert on Agenda 21 and present slide shows and produce brochures and teach about it.  These classes were taught all over the country, including here in Nashville. According to the JBS, Agenda 21 is a plot to take away all property rights, force people to live in tiny apartments and kill 97% of the worlds population by poisoning them with aspartame and fluoride. Crazy I know, but that is the theory. Everything from wide sidewalks, to roundabouts, to traffic calming, to mass transit, to art in public places, to bike share programs, to water conservation, to reintroduction of wolves in the wild became suspect as part of the grand conspiracy of Agenda 21.

The reemergence of the JBS caused me concern but I viewed them as nutty opportunist attaching themselves to the tea party and that did not make me less enthusiastic about the tea party. There were also others associated with the movement that made me a little uncomfortable, but I dismissed them as the extreme fringe or people simply carried away with enthusiasm and exhibiting over-the-top exuberance. In the early days it seemed that the speakers and leaders never engaged in excessively militant rhetoric and discouraged any thing that would bring discredit on the movement. Contrary to what some in the mainstream press said, I never saw even the slightest hint of racism associated with the movement.

In September, 2009 I attended a "liberty rally" at municipal auditorium that made me a little uneasy. The primary spokesman at the event was  Dr. Bob Basso, who portrays Thomas Paine in numerous YouTube videos and personal appearances across the country. There was a big crowd and lots of enthusiasm and waving of flags and cheering at the event. I joined in the  enthusiasm of the moment. However, Basso pandered to the birthers at this event. He said something to this effect: “I have been called a community organizer and to a certain extend I guess I am but,” and here he paused and reached into his pocket and pulled out a piece of paper and held it up and said, “I am a community organizer with a birth certificate.” The audience went wild and cheered.  I did not. I think the birther movement is a discredit to the conservative movement and I want no part of it. As his speech went on, I also cheered  and applauded. I also want to throw the bums out. I want to reduce the size of government, etc. etc. I want to “take my country back.” As his talk went on however, he nearly advocated secession and resistance to paying taxes. I am not ready to take up arms and man the barricades. I knew this brand of tea partyism was something I did not want to be part of and I said at the time, "I feel that if the extremism is not curtailed the movement will be discredited."

While there were various other events that I attended and enthusiastically endorsed, such as the Gibson Guitar event and the Education Reform event, more and more I found myself parting ways with factions of the tea party. One group identified as "tea party" is the Glen Beck associated 9-12 group. In July of 2012, our own local 9-12 chapter took out a full-page, $5000 advertisement called, "an open letter to Governor Haslam and the people of Tennessee." It said the actions of Governor Haslam would make us subject to Sharia law and attacked Governor Haslam for his administration's hiring of a highly qualified Tennessee attorney who happened to be a Muslim. I find that just nuts and a waste of time and money, and bigoted and wrong. 

Nashville Tax Day Tea Party rally April 15, 2009

People identified as "tea party" were also heavily involved in efforts to stop the building of a Mosque in Murfressboro. While I recognize the threat of radical Islam, you do not combat that threat by denying Freedom of Religion. Opponents of the Mosque took the unbelievable position that Islam is not really a religion but rather an ideology and therefore should not have the protections of freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution. It seems a lot of tea partiers have a much different interpretation of the First Amendment than I do.  Maybe if they can deny First Amendment protection to Muslims, then next it will be the Church of Scientology, then Jehovah Witness, and maybe Mormons. After all, Mormonism is not really a religion but a cult, I can hear them argue. And Buddhism? Why, that is not a religion; it is a foreign philosophy.  Buddhist don't even claim a deity. Surely the First Amendment does not apply to Buddhist. Don't allow them to build temples! Where would it end?

While I disagree with the way some in the tea party movement interpret the First Amendment, I also
disagree with them on the Second Amendment. While they want to shrink the First Amendment to mean much less, they want to expand the Second Amendment to mean much more. Some who claim to be supporting the Second Amendment want to interpret the Second Amendment to mean they can trample my private property rights and can carry a gun into my home or my place of business even if I have a "no guns" policy.  Clearly the second amendment is a restriction on government, not on the right of someone to prohibit guns on their private property. Elements of the tea party defeated Debra Maggart, a good leader of the Tennessee Republican Party in the State legislature, over this issue.

Ben Cunningham at Gibson Guitar Rally Oct. 2011

Another issue that causes me concern is the many tea party people who disregard the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and support the   discredited  theory of nullification. Nullification says each state can decide whether or not a federal law shall have effect in their state. Even George Wallace when he stood in a school house door to stop integration of the University of Alabama did not do so on the basis of nullification. When the National Guard was federalized, he stepped aside. Tea party members of the State legislature have introduced laws that would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents enforcing federal law. I am not ready to join an armed rebellion and engage in insurrection.

The tea party also has a history of supporting real losers for public office. Nationally there have been

May 21, 2013 IRS protest

some "tea party" candidates elected who I admire and support such as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Curz, Tom Coburn, and Mike Lee. However, the tea party has also supported some embarrassing losers like  Christine O'Donnell in Delaware of "I am not a witch" fame, and Sharron Angle who won the primary to run against Senate majority leader Harry Reid and then lost the election when a more establishment Republican could have probably beat Reid. Candidates backed by the tea party effectively cost the GOP five winnable Senate elections in 2010 and 2012 in Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Indiana and Missouri. Todd Akin lost in Missouri, Richard Mourdock lost in Indiana, and Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut.

Here in Tennessee, the tea party has lined up behind Joe Carr. Carr supports nullification, does not

The Tea Party supports Joe Carr for "Sentate"

think Muslims have the right to First Amendment protection and thinks the Second Amendment allows an individuals to carry a gun on to private property where the owner does not want one to carry a gun. In addition Carr has ran a bumbling campaign. Should, by some miracle he win the Republican nomination, Democrat Terry Adams would most likely be the next Senator from Tennessee.

The tea party is not a political party, but rather a movement. It is a conservative-libertarian-populist movement and I have considered myself part of it. Even when disagreeing with some of the factions in the movement and some of the leaders of the movement, I still though myself as part of it.  No one person can speak for the tea party. I have occasionally been asked if I am part of the tea party and in the past I have proudly said I was. If to be a member in good standing of the tea party however means one has to support Joe Carr, believe in nullification, believe the First Amendment does not apply to Muslims and believe the Second Amendment trumps property rights, then I no longer want to be part of it.

Top Stories

War on First Amendment Escalates

By Rick Manning

The First Amendment is a pesky thing to politicians.  It allows, nay encourages, the exact kind of diverse political speech that those in power loathe.  Born out of the legacy of the Revolutionary War pamphleteers and their radical thoughts of freedom, today these liberty lovers take the form of citizen journalists utilizing the Internet to push ideas, advocate, report and uncover stories that aren’t being told, afflicting the powerful and holding them accountable.  This has been at the heart of press freedom, not the corporate media empires that are often little more than government propaganda machines.

Now, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), not content to just continue her long running attempt to put a dagger into the right to keep and bear arms, is leading the charge to create a federal government sanctioned journalist licensing system that threatens the First Amendment as well.

Her Orwellian titled “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”, which is also known as the “media shield bill” has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is expected to gain the votes necessary to get out of the Senate.  Proponents of the bill, are advocating that journalists be licensed by the federal government so that they can be protected from potential prosecution from a government insisting that their confidential sources be revealed.

In a scorching legal rebuke to Feinstein, Senators Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and John Cornyn argue vehemently against the law in a Minority View report writing,

“The freedom of the press does not discriminate amongst groups or individuals—it applies to all Americans. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, it was not intended to be limited to an organized industry or professional journalistic elite. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972) (the ‘‘liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right[.]’’); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (‘‘The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.  . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’’).

The Founders recognized that selectively extending the freedom of the press would require the government to decide who was a journalist worthy of protection and who was not, a form of licensure that was no freedom at all. As Justice White observed in Branzburg, administering a privilege for reporters necessitates defining ‘‘those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege.’’ 408 U.S. at 704 That inevitably does violence to ‘‘the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.’’ Id.

The First Amendment was adopted to prevent—not further—the federal government licensing of media. See Lovell, 303 U.S. at 451 (striking an ordinance ‘‘that . . . strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship.  The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor.’’).

But federal government licensing is exactly what the Free Flow of Information Act would create. The bill identifies favored forms of media—‘‘legitimate’’ press—by granting them a special privilege.  That selective grant of privilege is inimical to the First Amendment, which promises all citizens the ‘‘freedom of the press.’’ See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 704 (‘‘Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right[.]’’) (emphasis added). It also threatens the viability of any other form of press. The specially privileged press will gain easier access to news. That will tip the scales against its competitors and make it beholden to the government for that competitive advantage. A law enacted to protect the press from the state will, in fact, make that press dependent upon the federal government— anything but free.”

Feinstein’s proposed licensing law might seem innocuous if not for the fresh stench of federal government targeting of conservative groups through the IRS, the Federal Communications Commission’s recent attempts to monitor news rooms, the spying on Associated Press reporters by Obama’s Department of Justice to gain access to their sources and most recently, the announced giveaway of First Amendment protections for those who use the Internet by the U.S. Commerce Department all of which serve as recent examples where this Administration has proven their enmity to dissent.

Feinstein’s bill, when coupled with the U.S. government’s attempt to turn the Internet over to international control, represents a turning point in the relationship between the federal government and the free flow of information in the modern world.

Under the Obama Administration’s proposal to give control of the Internet to unspecified international sources, citizen journalists will necessarily lose their First Amendment shield of protection from censorship.  A censorship that is likely to first find its form in blocking ideas inimical to the unelected, unaccountable, unknown new Internet governing body’s group think.  Ideas that are deemed “dangerous”, “hateful” or “offensive” to some arbiter of worldwide political correctness will disappear from the Internet as Internet Protocol addresses of “offending” parties simply vanish.
Unlicensed political dissent, a critical component to the Web’s democratization of information that scares the elite who cling to power, is equally threatened by Feinstein’s attempt to create a non-protected class of journalists.  The local blogger who has a buddy who reveals corruption at City Hall deserves the same right to be able to protect sources as the Washington Post reporter who dutifully regurgitates the latest Obama Administration planned Friday afternoon leak.

The same whistle blower’s identity should be protected whether he or she talks to NetRightDaily.com, TalkingPointsMemo, or the Los Angeles Times.

Failure to convey the same First Amendment protections to all people, whether they are paid or not for their activities, strikes at the heart of the basis of our nation’s most precious freedoms, and Congress should reject the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.

Rick Manning @rmanning957) is the vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government. Reprinted with permission.

Top Stories

FCC backs off newsroom survey plan

There will be no newsroom police for now. 

Top Stories

The 2014 World Press Freedom Index drops U. S. 13 places to number 46 of 180

Reporters Without Boarders issued their annual World Press Freedom Index and the U.S. had dropped 13 places, coming in below Western democracies like Great Britain, France and Spain and former Soviet dominated eastern bloc countries like Estonia, Romania, Czech Republic and Poland, and countries that have experienced wars and conflicts like Cyprus and El Salvador, and third world countries like Ghana, Botswana, and Papua New Guinea. We rank one place ahead of Haiti. 

This is what RWB had to say about the U.S.:

Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example, far from it. Freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.

This has been the case in the United States (46th), which fell 13 places, one of the most significant declines, amid increased efforts to track down whistleblowers and the sources of leaks. The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.

US journalists were stunned by the Department of Justice’s seizure of Associated Press phone records without warning in order to identify the source of a CIA leak. It served as a reminder of the urgent need for a “shield law” to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources at the federal level. The revival of the legislative process is little consolation for James Risen of The New York Times, who is subject to a court order to testify against a former CIA employee accused of leaking classified information. And less still for Barrett Brown, a young freelance journalist facing 105 years in prison in connection with the posting of information that hackers obtained from Statfor, a private intelligence company with close ties to the federal government. 

To read the report and learn more, follow this link. 

If this is chilling, it may get much worse. Recent revelations reveal that the Federal Communication Commission has plans to put "monitors" in newsrooms of local TV and radio stations and newspaper newsrooms. They also plan to research media bias and news access and study what determines what kind of stories get covered. There is absolutely no authority for this. It is a abuse of any authority the FCC has but the FCC does have a role to play in licensing TV and radio outlets, but absolutely no role in any way concerning print media.  The thought of  Federal monitors in newsrooms, should send a  shiver down the spine anyone who values  free press.  This must be stopped!  

Our First Amendment rights are under serious attack along with our other rights and the rule of law, and the mainstream media and pop culture sit by complacently and watch the constitution be trampled and our freedoms disappear and seldom do they raise an objection. Next year we may be much further down that list ranking press freedom. We may be down there with the Republic of the Congo, Kuwait, and Kenya.

Top Stories

Tennessee citizens are taking an active roll in the selection of textbooks.

The process of approving text books for use in Tennessee's public schools has in the past been a pretty lame and superficial process. For one thing, the number of people appointed to the commission could not possibly read all of the text books they are charged with approving in the allotted time and there has not been a citizen watchdog group that exerted influence on the commission. Usually no one showed up at the public hearings on textbooks.

Since most textbooks in use are the same book from one state to another, we can be thankful for the activism of Texas parents who have kept the worst of text books from being approved. For about 50 years or more, Texas has been the filter that kept the worst in liberal indoctrination from making it into the text books of the nation. Since Texas has such a huge share of the market, if Texas rejected a textbook the publisher would go back and revise it in order to get it approved. Texas however could not keep all bad textbooks off the market. Some books are not even considered for use in Texas, so those were never reviewed by the Texas textbook commission. And, Texas could not catch everything.

For the first time that I know of, Tennessee is taking seriously the process of reviewing text books.This year dozens of parents across the state devoted their summer to actually reading the Social Studies textbooks that were up for adoption and they expressed their concern to the text book commission.

Below is a report from Thomas Bunetta posted on the Tennessee Eagle Forum Facebook page:

The Tennessee Department of Education’s Textbook Commission is meeting to consider approval of recommended social studies textbooks for the state’s public schools. Normally, nobody from the public shows up at these meetings. But this time, ACT! for America chapter leaders and members are out in force. They’ve done their homework, using our “Education or Indoctrination: The Treatment of Islam in 6th through 12th grade American Textbooks” report. They’ve done the legwork, educating public officials and the members of this textbook commission, showing them the many flawed and biased ways Islam is presented in the textbooks they are considering.

And then the time comes for the commissioners to vote on whether or not to approve the textbooks. And not one of them makes a motion to do so. So a second call was made for a motion. And not one of them offers the motion. The state’s Director of Curriculum stands up and sternly warns the commissioners there’s a deadline looming and they need to approve these books. And the commissioners hold fast and refuse to approve the textbooks.

Wow.

To our knowledge this is the first time a state textbook selection committee has refused to approve textbooks due to concerns about how Islam is presented! Yes, folks, you can fight city hall. It’s not easy, but it can be done. You have to be informed, organized and strategic. Which is what we do at ACT! for America and what our Tennessee chapter leaders and members did. They did it smart. They did it right. And they’re just the latest example of what ACT! for America is accomplishing and how our strategic and grassroots approach WORKS!

The final chapter still has to be written. There’s another commission meeting on October 23rd. We need the commissioners to stand their ground and refuse to approve these social studies textbooks. If you live in Tennessee, you can help push this across the finish line by contacting the Rutherford County chapter of ACT! for America at rutherfordcountyact@gmail.com.

Thank you, ACT! for America chapter leaders and members in Tennessee for your awesome work on our behalf. Keep fighting the good fight!

This fight over text books used in public schools started in Williamson County over a textbook that activist claimed was biased against Israel and equated Israeli self defense with Palestinian terrorism. The textbook in question was A Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography, used in a human geography class, an elective in an Advanced Placement course. The specific complaint was a passage that asked students this question: “If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?” 

My feeling at the time was that smart high school seniors who next year will be in college did not need to be protected from that kind of thought-provoking question. Also, the protest opposing this textbook was led by Laurie Cardoza-Moore, who heads a Christian Zionist group called Proclaiming Justice to the Nations. She is best know for leading the opposition to the building of a Mosque in Murfreesboro. I certainly would not have joined her in that fight. I believe the First Amendment also applies to Muslim and that they have as much right to build a mosque as do Mormons or Jews to build a temple, or as do Hindus or Buddhist or any Christian sect to build a house of worship. 
Because of her anti First Amendment position on that issue, I was not likely to support her fight over textbook selection. Also, I am leery of  ACT! I have attended some of their meetings and saw a film they produced, but have  tended to think they painted all Muslims with the same brush and their position was on occasion more based on bigotry than logic. 

Not being a fan of ACT or Laurie Cardoza-Moore I am, nevertheless, pleased with the developments taking place in the Tennessee Textbook Commission. I am glad that citizens are taking an active roll in the selection of textbooks. In countering the bias in textbooks as it relates to the presentation of Islam and history concerning Muslims, ACT has done their homework. They have meticulously examined numerous textbooks and countered claims that white washed or distorted Islam history or doctrine or contemporary Islamic culture. They have footnoted and documented with other superior sources those claims and generalizations that presented Islam is a favorable light or misrepresented historical fact. To view their report go to this link: Education or Indoctrination, The treatment of Islam in 6th thought 12th grade American textbooks. 

While ACT is concerned with the presentation of Islam, I am much more concerned with a liberal bias presented in books on American and World history and economic matters. I wish someone was taking the same meticulous approach to how history books portray the cold war, Communism, the arms race, the settlement of America and the conflict between Europeans and Native Americans, the sixties, environmentalism, social movements, and government economic intervention and the roll of free markets. 

What is taught is our schools is too important to be left to academics who have a liberal bias. It is an undeniable fact that liberalism is the dominant point of view in academia. While academics may claim they adhere to the highest academic standards of objectivity, it is unavoidable that their own prejudice finds its way into the textbooks they write. All textbooks should be examined carefully and we should have confidence that controversial topics are presented with balance, that sensitive matters are age-appropriate, and that text books are accurate and that they educate rather than indoctrinate. 

 

Top Stories

Alexander Joins With Town Seeking To Continue Public Prayers At meetings.

Alexander Joins With Town Seeking To Continue Public Prayers At meetings.

The Chattanoogan,  Monday, August 05, 2013 - Senator Lamar Alexander has joined an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a case involving prayer prior to a town meeting.  The case is the Town of Greece v. Galloway case, in which the right of a town to start its board meetings with prayer is at issue.(link)

Top Stories

Video of Muslim sponsored event in Manchestor with commentary

This happened in Manchester and it ain't Bonnoroo

Below is a video of the the AMAC sponsored event in Manchester Tuesday night.



This video was produced by Bill Hobbs. I appreciate him recording it and making it available on Youtube.  Not being able to attend myself, this is the next best thing to being there. To read Bill Hobbs thoughts on event, follow this link.


There are a lot of rude people in the audience, yelling out comments as the speakers speak. Bill Hobbs says maybe only 5 to 10% of the people were jerks and I will take his word for it.  It doesn't take many people to dominate a crowd and create a bad impression. Starting at about at 40 in the video when U. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, William C. Killian is speaking the crowd gets real rowdy and shouts him down. It is real bad at about 54 in the video.

At 20:20 - 34:35 in the video, a portion of the documentary “Welcome to
Shelbyville” is show, about the Muslim experience in Shelbyville Tn and the impact on the community and the community response.

Below are media reports on the event:

Forum on civil rights sparks protest rally for free speech - WKRN TV: http://www.wkrn.com/story/22503524/fo...


Protesters pack Muslim-sponsored meeting on social media 'hate speech' crackdown - Twitchy.com: http://www.twitchy.com/2013/06/04/pro...


Muslim group's TN forum with feds disrupted by heckling - Tennessean:  http://www.tennessean.com/article/201...

Top Stories

American Thinker: The Not-So-Veiled Threat to Non-Muslims in Tennessee

From the Blog American Thinker:

The Not-So-Veiled Threat to Non-Muslims in Tennessee

by Janet Levy, June 7, 2013 - The attempted snow job by the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) of Tennessee which sponsored the joint Department of Justice/FBI event, "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society," Tuesday night in Manchester, Tennessee, did not work with the 2,000 attendees. Claims that American Muslims are loyal citizens, partners in counterterrorism investigations, part of radicalization prevention efforts, and an integral part of American society for centuries fell flat, especially coming from the host organization that was formed only two years ago in response to anti-shariah legislation in the Volunteer State. 

A well-informed crowd responded with calls of "taqiyyah"....(read more)

Top Stories

The Manchester Free Speach resistance to Federal intimidation rally

I was not at the rally in Manchester but support the cause of Free Speech and would have attended if I had been able. My motivation would have been to support the First Amendment. While I recognize that we are in a war with radical Islam, I do not support the bigotry that says Muslims should not have the right to build a Mosque or the bigotry that says Governor Haslam should not be permitted to hire a person who happens to be a Muslim. I would have been standing side by side with some people I have previously criticized. I believe the First Amendment applies equally to Muslims and to critics of Islam. Below are reports of the rally from other sources.

From The Tennessean:

Diversity event draws raucous crowd in Coffee County

by Nicole Young -Hundreds of people turned out at the Manchester Convention Center Tuesday evening for an event billed as a discussion of public discourse in a diverse society, with a particular focus on the Muslim religion.

People were turned away at the door because the facility was too full. Some grew angry and started hurling  terms like “Communist,” “Socialist” and “Muslim” at law enforcement officials.
.....
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, a non-profit educational iniative with offices on Vanderbilt Campus and in Washington D.C., said the First Amendment does not restrict the right of a public official to express opinions.

“Are public officials held to a higher standard than you or I? I think yes, but it's not a limitation,” he said. “There's nothing in the First Amendment banning anyone to say things that people find repellant, distasteful, repugnant, or even bigoted. The antidote that our founders provided for speech is more speech, not less.”(link)

From the blob Jihad Watch:

The Tennessean defames patriots who stood for free speech 
I met Nicole Young of The Tennessean last night and asked her if she was as bad as her colleague Bob Smietana, who is one of the most truth-challenged, agenda-driven, pro-Muslim Brotherhood reporters in the country. Her report is probably not as bad as Smietana's would have been, but she still places front and center the preposterous claim that someone in the crowd was "afraid" of the other audience members, as if these patriots who came out to defend the freedom of speech were some gang of thugs -- but of course, that's how the mainstream media always portrays those who oppose jihad and Islamic supremacism, and the facts be damned.(link)
Nearly 2,000 at AFDI rally for freedom of speech in Tennessee
Robert Spencer and I blew into Tennessee after numerous flight delays, draconian TSA patdowns and security checks, and crippling rush hour traffic, and imagine how thrilled we were when we rounded the corner and saw throngs of patriots and freedom lovers, all happy warriors who had converged in Manchester, Tennessee to oppose the latest Obama Administration salvo against the freedom of speech -- a seminar led by an Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney on how civil rights laws could and should be used to shut down speech deemed "inflammatory" against Muslims (a label that has been used before to shut down truthful speech about jihad and Islamic supremacism). SION Board member James Lafferty, Tennessee freedom activists Lou Ann Zelenick, Joan French, Bill Warner and Rebecca Bynum, ex-Saturday Night Live cast member Victoria Jackson, and numerous other freedom fighters made their opposition known to this outrageous anti-free speech initiative, and their determination to resist it.(link)

From the blog Atlas Shurgs:

Free Speech Showdown In Small-Town America 

All eyes are on Tennessee tonight, as the fight for the very soul of America comes to a very small town: Manchester, Tennessee, a town no bigger than 60,000 people. (Almost 2,000 people were there -- that's three percent of the local population.) This was the perhaps unlikely venue for a seminar led by a U.S. attorney and an FBI special agent on how "inflammatory" speech against Muslims violated civil rights laws. Nowhere was it ever explained how there could be honest examination of Islam's teachings of jihad that wouldn't be "inflammatory" -- and that was just the point.

There were close to 800 people filling the small room to way beyond capacity. The lines were three deep along the wall, with folks spilling out into the hallways -- plus many hundreds more outside. Those outside weren't missing much -- unless they were in the mood to be admonished and hectored as xenophobes, bigots and racists by an Islamic supremacist spokesman and two Obama officials who steadfastly refused to address the elephant in the room: the reality of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, no matter how many times the boisterous crowd called them on their nonsense.(link)

Rep. Joe Carr

Victoria Jackson, formerly of SNL

Rep. Rick Womack

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shurgs

Top Stories

Manchester Free Speech rally grows- National figures attending.

It looks like the free speech rally in Manchester is turning into a big event, bigger than the Federal Government intimidation "civil rights" seminar. This is from an on-line source from a resident of Coffee County.

Subject: ACT! for Coffee County - 3 June update 
- Free Speech Rally before 4 June meeting ACT!

For Coffee County Patriots,
If you have listened to talk radio today, you know that the meeting tomorrow night is taking on a life of its own. Here are some of the details and issues we are planning for (from extremely reliable source) …

- 5:30 pm Free Speech Rally. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and other national leaders are flying in for this event. We will set up a soap box and hand each qualified speaker the bull horn. The Rally will be immediately adjacent to the conference center. - There will be many police directing traffic.

- The actual AMAC supported event with the US Attorney and FBI Special Agent starts at 6:30 pm

- Get there early to get a seat.

- There will be a lot of security, especially if you try to bring in any kind of bag. - Filming and cameras are permitted anywhere – bring one if you can.

- If the conference center parking fills up, Frances Arthur and her family are offering a taxi service for those who park at the Walmart across the street. Thanks Frances. Service begins ~4:00 pm and you will get return service after the event.

 - O’Charlie’s in Manchester has a room reserved before the rally for any interested in a meal with likeminded folks. Ask for the “Green Room” or ask for Michelle Russell’s room. Thanks Michelle.

Top Stories

Free Speech Rally in Manchester June 4th

Atlas Shrugged, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, Tennessee Freedom Coalition, local 9-12ers and others are calling for a massive rally in favor of free speech on June 4th at 5:30pm at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee.

At that time a U.S. attorney in Tennessee along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, are set to speak to a special meeting with the local Muslim community, informing them about their rights under federal law.  They have vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam. The Free Speech rally will occur outside the building where inside the federal government officials will be conducting their seminar.

I sided with the Muslim when they wanted to build a mosque in Murfressboro, because I support the First Amendment and believe in freedom of religion.  In this controversy, I am siding with the people I previously opposed because I still support the First Amendment and I believe is freedom of speech.

I can't take off from work to attend this rally. I have had to take too much time off from work to care for my ailing wife. If you can go, please attend and stand up against a growing tyrannical government trying to silence dissident voices.

Top Stories

A Fed attorney in Tennessee suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished

Politico, By BYRON TAU, 5/31/13 - A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.
Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws. (link)

Top Stories

The Government attack on the First Amendment

From:

THE TENNESSEE FREEDOM COALITION
*** Update from the TFC ***

Rod -

ACT! for America and many other groups are paying attention to a serious issue here in Tennessee: civil liberties and free speech. Read below for a message from the national ACT! for America group.

---

On June 4th, an event titled "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society" will be held from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee. The special speakers for the event are a U.S. Attorney and an FBI special agent.

The instigation for this event was a Facebook posting by a Coffee County Commissioner, a Democrat. The posting showed a picture of a man pointing a shotgun at the camera with the phrase, "How to wink at a Muslim."

ACT! for America believes this posting was ill-advised, offensive and provocative - but it appears to us to be the kind of political satire that is protected by the First Amendment. And it's certainly less incendiary than some of the comments jihadists have been known to publicly make.

In an article in The Tullahoma News, the U.S. Attorney is quoted as saying:

"If a Muslim had posted 'How to Wink at a Christian,' could you imagine what would have happened?" he said. "We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we're here, they're going to be protected."

We know the answer to his question - nothing would have happened.
There would have been no meeting like this one to warn Muslims about how they might be violating the civil rights of non-Muslims.

The attorney further went on to state in the article that violations of civil rights will be prosecuted. ACT! for America is not in the business of violating anyone's civil rights. We are, however, in the business of protecting our constitutional right of free speech. And we find the tone of the U.S. Attorney's remarks, and the very existence of this meeting, disconcerting at best and a preemptive assault on the First Amendment at worst.

On March 11th we conducted a national webcast announcing the creation of "Americans United to Defend Free Speech." We explained how our own State Department was complicit in efforts by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose what amounts to "hate speech" laws in countries around the world.

This State Department effort is unprecedented, which is why we're encouraging people to sign our Open Letter to Congress and the state legislatures to oppose the effort.

Here's your opportunity to stand up against the intimidation of free speech in your state. You can join the many others we know who are planning on attending the meeting in Manchester.

Our message-your message-at this event is simple: The First Amendment right of free speech is one that we cherish and that we will defend - even provocative, offensive speech must not be used as a pretense to muzzle it.

Should you choose to attend, we encourage you to be respectful with any questions and responses to the speakers, and stay focused on the issue of free speech.

---

The Board of Directors
Tennessee Freedom Coalition

My Comment: Even "hate speech" should be protected and the government should not be engaged in indoctrination campaigns. 

I am more concerned about the growing trend of our government to indoctrinate people and to force people to conform to political correctness than I am those who may exercise bad taste and offend someone. I am more concerned about a coercive government that tells you what to think and forces you to display proper attitudes than I am the odd bigot who lumps all Muslims together and lets it be known he doesn't care for them. 

A good example of this trend to coerce proper attitudes is the incident in which the Department of Justice issued a memo to employees saying that failure to actively promote LBGT pride month would be construed as disapproval. "Silence will be interpreted as disapproval,” said the memo. If a Christian who thinks the transvestite in the next cubical is living a sinful life of which he does not approve, it is not good enough just to keep his opinions to himself and ignore the co-worker. No, he must actively show his acceptance, or surfer the consequences. He must display a LBGT sticker or leave a brochure promoting tolerance on his desk or do something to actively affirm acceptance. 

 If some coalition of advocates of toleration want to have a seminar in Coffee County because of this anti-Muslim Facebook posting incident, I would say, "go for it." It is another matter, however, when the government sends in an Attorney General and FBI agents to conduct a seminar preaching the virtue of diversity. This incident and the use of IRS police powers to silence conservative organizations and the DOJ LBGT memo are all evidence of a government attempting to coerce uniformity of thought and silence dissidents. The real threat to our liberty is an out of control government that does not respect the First Amendment.

Top Stories