Well, good day to everyone and if you're in Louisville, Happy Derby Weekend. It's been an eventful week and, as always, rooting out the headlines most worthy of discussion for this week's "Gibby Files" edition was no small task. Usually, I try to limit the topics to three a week at most. But because there were at least four that I thought should be mentioned, I'll add an extra one. Hopefully that will not dissuade you from reading this week's blog.
Here we go.
Censorship 101
Scenario: You're a high school student sitting in video production class, innocently browsing the news as part of an assignment, and suddenly you feel a shadow come over you. You turn around and there stands your teacher glaring sternly down at you. This alone is enough to induce heart palpitations and you quickly find yourself scrambling to determine what it is you've done that might merit swift retribution.
"Am I chewing gum in class?" you muse. "No...check that one off." "Is my cell phone going off? Nope...another check."
Soon, it becomes clear that your offense is far more grievous than gum-chewing and excessive talking; particularly more so in an age where American public schools are becoming more like indoctrination centers than actual institutions where learning and critical thinking are emphasized.
No, my would-be high school friend. Your offense can be classified as none other than liberal high treason because you were (cue ominous music) LOOKING AT FOXNEWS.COM!!!
DA-DUN-DUN!!!
Fictional? Yes. Or maybe not so much. For it appears that an incident quite similar to my scenario above occurred earlier this week at Traverse City West High School in Traverse City, Michigan. The "perpetrator," identified only as "Mitchell" by news sources, claims that his video production teacher openly berated him in front of his classmates for referencing Foxnews.com as he worked on a project for class, and informed him in no uncertain terms that only BBC and "other news venues" were appropriate news sources.
To be fair, school and school board officials seem to be responding quickly and favorably to this incident, which is clearly the latest example of students being singled out for their beliefs by agenda-driven administrators and teachers. But let's not kid ourselves etiher; this incident does not even happen if young Mitchell is seen perusing nytimes.com or the Clinton News Network (CNN) or any other website with an unobjective and biased agenda that panders to the left in American society. Such sources presumably would have been a-ok with the teacher, but Foxnews.com was a progressive no-no.
I would be remiss in omitting the fact that this young person had the guts to speak out. According to the link, young Mitchell (or whoever he is) called Rush Limbaugh's radio show and relayed the account of what happened. I hope this is an example to any young person that may read this that, regardless of how much liberals and "hate-speech opponents" as they call themselves (more on this later) try to stifle your voice, SPEAK OUT!!! Do not let them rob you of your First Amendment rights as an American citizen.
Additionally, however, and unfortunately I think the major point of this story is that it truly is getting dangerous out there for freedom of speech. When a high school kid is scolded harshly by his teacher for looking at a particular news website for a class project, it's a sign of the times. And the times are looking pretty scary.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518636,00.html
Score One for the "Hate-Speech" Haters
"The oppressed have become the oppressors." It is a common theme throughout history.
We've come a long way since the 1960s, when society at large first began to really take notice of labels and degrading names and terms given to gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals. And for this, we should be thankful. But nowadays, instead of celebrating the fact that much progress has been made, the homosexual community still claims a grieved status and, as a result, prefers to continue to demand that we not only accept but affirm their lifestyles. Such appears to be the case with the new hate crimes legislation which will soon come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and which ostensibly provides "protection" to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.
In many ways, this is nothing new. Activist groups lobbying for the homosexual community have been pushing for legislation of this nature for decades. However, with the political landscape shifting under our feet day after day, conservatives would do well to take note especially now. By their own admission, the gay-rights groups believe that Washington is squarely in their corner and that they now have a legitimate shot. Make no mistake, they are poised to seize their moment. If this legislation passes, it could have far-reaching ramifications not only for individual First Amendment rights, but also for those of churches and other religious organizations vociferously opposed to the homosexual agenda.
Simply put, if the hate-crimes bill passes, anybody who utters a word against homosexuality, be it a pastor in a local church, a student in class, or a neighbor talking to another neighbor, this person or group could find themselves in the crosshairs of any district attorney with a sharp enough legal mind (not to mention strong enough political ambition) to bring them before a judge. And so therefore, this legislation poses perhaps as severe a threat as I've seen in a while to the First Amendment rights of private citizens.
Consider the interpretation of the proposed amendment by George Washington University law professor Frederick Lawrence and his feeble attempt to assuage fears about the threat it poses to free speech. In the story from the link below he says, "The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement."
Let's parse this statement for just a moment. "Conspiracy" is one criterion punishable by the newly proposed law, according to Lawrence. My question, however, is this: are evangelical Christians not already considered part of a vast, right-wing CONSPIRACY in many liberal circles? Could not then a hot-shot lawyer together with an activist judge interpret as conspiratorial the words of a pastor who, in the safety of his pulpit on Sunday morning, makes "hateful" comments about homosexuals?
How about "solicitation" and "direct incitement"? In some ways, this language could be even more broadly misapplied. If a pastor gives an invitation for unbelievers to come forward after morning worship to make decisions for and commitments to Christ AFTER HE'S MADE "HATEFUL" COMMENTS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS, could this not be interpreted as soliciting for direct incitement and the pastor deemed to be in violation of the law?
In the end, the only outcome of this legislation is that it flings wide open the door to all manner of judicial tyranny and persecution of those who would dare utter a word against the homosexual lifestyle in general and the radical, homosexual agenda in particular. And as such, it must be opposed at every turn.
My encouragement to those reading is that you keep a watchful eye in the news for updates on this bill and, as much as it depends on you, oppose it. Write your congressmen and senators, and generate as much awareness as you can.
Our freedoms and our futures depend on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/social-conservatives-blast-hate-crime-saying-limit-free-speech/
Obama vs. Planned Parenthood?
The old adage, "politicians will do anything to get elected," has more than a ring of truth to it. While most of us view such a phenomenon as disingenuous and, in some cases downright dishonest, the truth is that sometimes we're pleasantly surprised to hear that our elected leaders are reversing course (albeit to a small degree sometimes) on a particular issue. Of course, much of this depends on which side of the political and ideological fence you're on.
Which brings us to President Barack Obama and his recent eyebrow-raising statements during his third primetime news conference regarding abortion. Asked about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a piece of legislation that would effectively roll back much of the legal protection for the unborn enacted during the Bush administration, Obama responded with about as centrist a response as one could hope for.
"The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority," Obama said. "The most important thing we can do is to tamp down some of the anger surrounding the issue to focus on those areas we can agree on."
He then went on to detail some of the agenda items that are HIGHER on the priority list than abortion; namely, reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and other measures not centered around killing an unborn fetus.
I'm not naive. I know that this is nothing to get excited about. I know that President Obama is not suddenly having an attack of conscience and doing an about-face on the issue of abortion. I know he's not going to be delivering the commencement address at my seminary this May 15th when I graduate...let alone the commencement address at Notre Dame.
But I do have to say that it is encouraging to hear a president, especially one with as liberal a voting record as Obama's, discuss the necessity of thinking beyond abortion and stemming the number of unwanted pregnancies (and subsequent abortions) to begin with.
Again, this is nothing to throw a party over. But Americans should be encouraged that Obama is ostensibly willing to find some common ground with those who disagree with him. He is demonstrating that he is not afraid to look at new ideas that might actually go a long way toward reducing the number of abortions. Sure, time will tell if his potential plan to curtail the number of unwanted pregnancies involves measures that most conservatives would oppose (i.e. - giving out contraceptives in public schools, etc.), but I think finding common ground that could solve the problem is a viable option.
What is striking about the article found at the link below is the response by Planned Parenthood. Consider the comments from Cecile Richards, president of the organization, when asked about President Obama's remarks.
"While on the campaign trail, President Obama promised women and their families that he would not only tackle health care reform, but also end the politicization of women's health."
"It's been a tremendous 100 days for those of us committed to strengthening women's health care and ensuring that young people have the information and care they need to become healthy and productive adults."
"Thanks to President Obama's leadership, health care decisions are now being driven by sound science and not political ideology," she added.
Not a negative word about the president's "backburner policy" where FOCA is concerned. Could it be then that pro-lifers and Planned Parenthood are headed toward...dare I say it...common ground of some kind???
Again, I wouldn't get too excited about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/obama-breaks-campaign-promise-immediately-sign-abortion/
A Final Word
Thoughts and prayers go out to all those in the U.S., Mexico and all over the world that have been affected by the Swine Flu. I hope you will join me in praying for these unfortunate ones and their families. And I hope you will take caution in the coming days as well, keeping your eye on events as they unfold and taking whatever measures necessary to protect yourself.
Have a blessed week!
No comments:
Post a Comment