Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

Barry,

 

I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.

 

Take the outcome of the election – an unmistakable repudiation of the President’s policies. As columnist George Will put it, “This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama’s idea of unlimited government.”

 

He’s right.  And, voters also sent another message: they don’t want the President’s pro-abortion, government-run health care law.  It’s clear that most Americans who went to the polls oppose ObamaCare and want it repealed.  Exit polling found that 59% of those who voted on election day favor repealing the law – numbers that have been consistent since the troubling health care measure was passed in March.

Jay,

I think you would agree with me that businesses have the right to hire and fire as they see fit.
Fox News, per usual, has manufactured a controversy here, and that’s all there is to it.

But since you mentioned you believe Juan Williams’ had the “right to express a thought,” I’d like to at least say that I am a strong proponent of free speech, too.

For example, I don’t dispute that Personhood Colorado, the anti-choice group behind Colorado’s Amendment 62, had the free speech right to create a political ad that demonized President Obama as the “Angel of Death.” That was the name given to the Nazi doctor who performed medical experiments and tortured men, women and children in concentration camps during the Holocaust – hardly an accurate comparison.

Barry, it’s the ultimate in political correctness.  Losing your job for being honest – for expressing a feeling – a thought.  The problem is that in the case of former NPR journalist Juan Williams, an honest thought – expressing a feeling – about Muslims and 9-11 – cost him his job.

 

In an interview on FOX’s O’Reilly Factor, Williams merely expressed a thought that is on the minds of millions of Americans in a post-9/11 world:  

 

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.  But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

 

Moments after that sentence, he went on to say that it’s wrong to believe that all Muslims are terrorists and that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.  In addition to the complete interview, which NPR clearly ignored, Williams accurately recounts what happened in his own words.  

Barry,

 

For the past 56 years, the Internal Revenue Service has been a poorly qualified and often discriminatory watchdog of America’s houses of worship – selectively enforcing a law that censors the First Amendment free speech rights of religious institutions.

 

Let’s not forget that this IRS prohibition on endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit was not born out of some desire to bring constitutional clarity to the issue, or even to draw a bright line on church/state issues. No, this law was put in place for one simple reason:  political payback.

 

It all began in 1954, when then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson sought political retribution against an opponent who was assisted in his campaign by two non-profit organizations.  As a bill to revise the tax code was being debated on the floor of the Senate, LBJ pushed a little-noticed amendment that barred all tax-exempt groups – including churches – from participating in political activity.  The penalty:  loss of tax-exempt status.  A heavy price to pay for exercising their free speech rights.