/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing the decision to retract an invitation to Family Research Council (FRC) President and Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins to serve as a guest speaker for a prayer breakfast held in February at Andrews Air Force Base. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Air Force officials were concerned about FRC statements opposing President Obama's policies.
The following is an excerpt from a January 29, 2010, Air Force email included among the documents:
"General [REDACTED] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org. That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief is named."
"CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story."
On October 2, 2009, a Chaplain for the Air Force extended an invitation to Mr. Perkins to serve as the keynote speaker at the 2010 National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for February 25, 2010, at Andrews Air Force Base: "Sir, it would be a great honor for our community if you would accept our humble invitation and share with us some of the basic principles that have guided you along the way," the Chaplain wrote.
However, in a letter dated January 29, 2010, the Air Force rescinded the invitation. The letter cited Family Research Council website statements calling them "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief."
"It seems like this administration's enemies list just gets longer and longer. Mr. Perkins is not only a respected national leader who has held public office but he is also a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. I find it unconscionable that the Air Force would ban Mr. Perkins from speaking to a prayer luncheon on a military base due to his organization's opposition to some of President Obama's 'issues,'" stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"This new scandal is bound to outrage many Americans and it raises additional questions about the Obama administration's commitment to the First Amendment."
Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access the Air Force records obtained by Judicial Watch.
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
FRC Calls Obama Administration's Defense of the National Day of Prayer Inadequate
/PRNewswire/ -- Today Family Research Council and The Liberty Institute announced the filing of a motion for argument in a recent National Day of Prayer (NDP) case citing the Obama Administration's weak defense of the NDP as the cause. Last April, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. The district court's decision is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's Justice Department filed a brief that doesn't go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square," Perkins said.
Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC's amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins' remarks:
"In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the 'freedom to worship' but much more is at stake in this case - our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.
"FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer - a tradition as old as the country itself - is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.
"The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset," concluded Klukowski.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's Justice Department filed a brief that doesn't go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square," Perkins said.
Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC's amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins' remarks:
"In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the 'freedom to worship' but much more is at stake in this case - our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.
"FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer - a tradition as old as the country itself - is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.
"The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset," concluded Klukowski.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Democrats' Attempt to 'Buy Off' NRA Shows Bankruptcy of 'Disclose Act,' says CCRKBA
/USNewswire/ -- This week's highly-publicized effort to exempt the National Rifle Association from the effects of the "Disclose Act," H.R. 5175 shows how fundamentally bankrupt the legislation and its underlying philosophy is, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
"The attempt by Democrats to essentially buy off the NRA with a tailor-made exemption should be proof enough that the entire measure is morally, if not legally, repugnant and should be rejected by Congress," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "The exemption clause, if it were to be formally adopted as an amendment to the bill, is probably unconstitutional. We think that is reason enough for Congress to stop H.R. 5175 in its tracks."
The proposed exemption would only apply to the NRA, while essentially sacrificing the First Amendment rights of other effective grassroots gun rights organizations due to their smaller membership numbers.
"This proposed exemption is unconscionable," Gottlieb said, "but it reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill. We are today urging our 650,000 members and supporters to tell their congressional representatives to derail the Disclose Act altogether.
"Congressional anti-gunners like nothing better than to drive wedges between effective gun rights organizations," he continued, "and this week's events prove they can still accomplish that. We are astonished that anybody on Capitol Hill would imagine for a heartbeat that they could buy off one gun rights group at the expense of all the others. To think they could actually get away with such smarmy Chicago-style politics suggests that the Democrat leadership in Congress has not only lost its moral compass, they've lost their minds.
"While it is disappointing that the NRA might have accepted the exemption," Gottlieb said, "it is despicable that the offer was ever made in the first place. If pro-gun Democrats want to shield the NRA from the effects of H.R. 5175, they should simply vote against the entire bill instead of trying to carve out a special exemption. They have insulted and infuriated millions of gun owners who are represented by smaller grassroots organizations, and they need to hear that loud and clear."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
"The attempt by Democrats to essentially buy off the NRA with a tailor-made exemption should be proof enough that the entire measure is morally, if not legally, repugnant and should be rejected by Congress," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "The exemption clause, if it were to be formally adopted as an amendment to the bill, is probably unconstitutional. We think that is reason enough for Congress to stop H.R. 5175 in its tracks."
The proposed exemption would only apply to the NRA, while essentially sacrificing the First Amendment rights of other effective grassroots gun rights organizations due to their smaller membership numbers.
"This proposed exemption is unconscionable," Gottlieb said, "but it reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill. We are today urging our 650,000 members and supporters to tell their congressional representatives to derail the Disclose Act altogether.
"Congressional anti-gunners like nothing better than to drive wedges between effective gun rights organizations," he continued, "and this week's events prove they can still accomplish that. We are astonished that anybody on Capitol Hill would imagine for a heartbeat that they could buy off one gun rights group at the expense of all the others. To think they could actually get away with such smarmy Chicago-style politics suggests that the Democrat leadership in Congress has not only lost its moral compass, they've lost their minds.
"While it is disappointing that the NRA might have accepted the exemption," Gottlieb said, "it is despicable that the offer was ever made in the first place. If pro-gun Democrats want to shield the NRA from the effects of H.R. 5175, they should simply vote against the entire bill instead of trying to carve out a special exemption. They have insulted and infuriated millions of gun owners who are represented by smaller grassroots organizations, and they need to hear that loud and clear."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
U.S. Citizens Association Files Suit to Overturn Health Care Law
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Citizens Association, an Ohio-based conservative organization, with over 23,000 members, has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Akron, Ohio to repeal the Health Care Bill signed into law in March.
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)