Bmovies

The Thought Police of Minneapolis

By J. Matt Barber

If you’re a Christian working for the City of Minneapolis, watch your step – your job may already be in jeopardy. In what may be one of the most blatant acts of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination by an American government agency to date, the Minneapolis Police Department has suspended a Police Psychologist, Dr. Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates, at the behest of pro-homosexual activists.

What was Dr. Campion’s crime? It seems that until last year he was a board member with the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a Christian organization which advocates traditional family values. The Minneapolis Police Department admits that because of Dr. Campion’s Christian beliefs, and his former affiliation with IFI, he is now under suspension pending an investigation into his beliefs.

The Minneapolis incident is a sad replay of the character assassination Dr. Campion experienced at the hands of liberal activists in Springfield, Illinois last year. After a liberal rag, the Illinois Times, raised questions of Campion being on the board of IFI, an “anti-choice, anti-gay group,” the Springfield City Council dumped him as psychological screener for police and firefighter candidates.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that despite the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department admittedly gave Dr. Campion “’high marks’ on ‘general procedural goodness and specific cultural fairness’ of his testing procedures;” he was nonetheless suspended soon after liberal city activists informed Police Chief Don Harris about his IFI affiliation.

Additionally, and equally confusing, is the fact that Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the police federation, admitted that “it never had any complaints about Campion.” Notwithstanding this admission, Delmonico told the Star-Tribune “…any issues that have been raised should be looked into.”

The Star-Tribune further reported that “Council Member Scott Benson appears to have been the first to hear of Campion’s beliefs.” Benson, while referring to a conversation with the Minneapolis P.D., told the Star-Tribune, “‘I asked them if given his background, should he be conducting psychological evaluations… They definitely should conduct an investigation and determine what’s fact and what’s fiction.’”

So apparently it’s that simple. If a person has Christian beliefs, he’s disqualified from working for the city of Minneapolis. This official government act of anti-Christian discrimination by the Minneapolis Police Department should send shivers down the spine of every person of faith. It is a transparent and egregious violation of Dr. Campion’s First Amendment rights to both freedom of association and religion.

The message from Minneapolis is clear: The Constitution be damned! If you work for our city, and you happen to be a person of faith belonging to a church or public policy organization that advocates traditional family values, then you might as well clean out your desk now – because as soon as we find out…you’re done.

The Minneapolis Police Department has sworn to protect and serve, to uphold the U.S. and State constitutions, and to police its community. But now they’ve dangerously overstepped their authority. They’ve become the Minneapolis thought police… just the latest example of how the militant homosexual lobby, aided by willing liberal activists in high-level positions of government, will not rest until Judeo-Christian principles are abolished, and traditional notions of human sexuality, marriage and family are eviscerated.

Take Action Now:

Please let the city of Minneapolis know that government-sanctioned, anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination will not be tolerated. Telephone the following individuals and express your outrage. You can also send an e-mail to the address provided below:

Timothy Dolan Interim Chief of Police 350 South 5th Street Room 130 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1389 612-673-2853 Fax: 612-673-2613 E-mail: police@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Copyright © 2006 by J. Matt Barber

J. Matt Barber is the Corporate Outreach Director for Americans for Truth, and a conservative, pro-family political strategist. A former undefeated professional Boxer, Matt now fights his battles in the ring of culture and policy. He holds both a law degree and a Master of Arts in public policy from Regent University. Matt is a contributing editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a contributor to the Washington Times‘ “Insight Magazine,” AmericanThinker.com, and a number of other top online and print publications.

E-mail your comments to Matt, at jmattbarber@comcast.net

Check that out:

"The Minneapolis Police Department admits that because of Dr. Campion’s Christian beliefs, and his former affiliation with IFI, he is now under suspension pending an investigation into his beliefs".

Are you now, or ever have been, a member of the Christian faith?

The New York Times this week barred web surfers coming in through UK-based IP addresses from reading an article about the terror investigation which is currently ongoing in Britain. “Details Emerge in British Terror Case” read the Times headline, but surfers in the UK could get no further.

Prior restraint - the act of prohibiting the publication of information in the press - is unconstitutional in the United States, but the New York Times seems to be practicing a form of voluntary prior restraint with respect to its British readers. Prior restraint is not illegal in Britain, nor, for that matter, in many other countries, and press coverage of the investigation has been banned in Britain for fear that some of the information which would be published might prejudice the outcome of the case when it goes to trial.

Said a statement by the New York Times, “On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.”

The Times general counsel, George Freeman, explained that “…we’re dealing with a country that, while it doesn’t have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it’s our position that we ought to respect that country’s laws.”

This is by no means the first time that a country which utilizes prior restraint, such as Britain, has been up against a citizenry which has access to an Internet which knows no borders. More than a dozen years ago Canada, which also has legal prior restraint, issued a press ban in the infamous trial of Carla Homolka, and Canadians flocked to the Internet looking for information published in other countries.

More recently, and having learned from the Homolka fracas, a Canadian court issued a press ban in a trial not only banning coverage of the trial, but banning the Canadian press from publishing the Internet addresses of non-Canadian Internet sites which were covering the trial.

In the case of the New York Times, the British courts apparently don’t need to worry about trying to stop it, because the Times is self-censoring.

So, sorry to all you Brits out there looking for information on the terror case, but if the action of the New York TImes is any measure, you’re not going to be able to find it by crossing the Atlantic on the Internet.

Even though abolishing the tradition of prior restraint was important enough to our founding fathers that freedom of the press was guaranteed in the First Amendment.

And don’t try flying to the U.S. to read the news either, because we just may ask for your passport and proof of citizenship before we sell you a paper.

FReeper prion makes an excellent observation:

Funny how the Times shows such restraint on behalf of a foreign government, and none at all on behalf of our own government, in a matter far more serious.

I am refering to the New York Daily News.

Now, I don't want to be blowing my own horn. I've had my letters to the editor to magazines and newspapers published many times before (including in the NY Daily News). So this is not a new experience for me. But after a long time of not writing to any letters to any editors, there was one case where I couldn't help myself and wrote a response to another persons letter to the editor in the NY Daily News. People have been writing in about the terrorism problem and where to lay the blame. Conservatives blaming Clinton. Liberals writing in response, blaming Bush. The usual. There was one author of one letter (printed in the August 24 Daily News) who defended Clinton in his handling of the terrorism problem. Laying blame at the feet of the Republican congress. Claiming that he might have done more if he wasn't so preoccupied with the 60 million dollar investigation of his "sex life". (Sorry but I do not have that particular letter in front of me right now. I should have saved it.) In any case, I felt it warranted a response. So I wrote the following and sent it in:

According to voicer Andrew Clark ("A tragic distraction", August 24), The "main culprits" of terrorism during the Clinton years are the Republican House and Senate. He asks: "If angry Republicans weren't wasting his and the country's time by spending upwards of $60 million to find out if Clinton had a little fun with an intern, who knows what he would have done?"

I know exactly what he would have done. Let's look at the record of what he did when he wasn't so pre-occupied with the investigations of the Special Prosecutor. Clinton was on the phone with Congressman H.L. "Sonny" Callahan. Clinton was seeking his vote to approve funds for a peacekeeping mission into Bosnia. While Clinton was on the phone with the Congressman, he was simultaneously being serviced by Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was notoriously famous for being late to his own appointments. One time he had an appointment to meet with Yassir Arafat. Arafat showed up for this diplomatic meeting on time. But Clinton kept him waiting an hour and a half. Why? Because he was too pre-occupied being serviced again by the same Monica Lewinsky.

According to Robert Patterson in his book, "Dereliction of Duty", Saddam had violated his terms of surrender by launching a tank attack upon the Kurds. As a result, an airstrike was planned on Iraq. On the evening (the pilots needed the cover of darkness as an additional safety measure) the airstrike was planned, on the other side of the world Clinton was too engrossed in watching a golf game to give the go ahead for ther airstrike. Pilots waited anxiously in their cockpits while a series of phone calls were constantly made to the President to seek clearance for the attack but Clinton refused to come to the phone. "Tell him (Sandy Berger) that I'll get back to him later." was Clintons response. Clinton never got back to him, the cover of darkness was gone, the mission had to be scrapped. All because the President couldnt be bothered to stop watching a golf game.

And, also in Patterson's book, in Feb. 1998, the President and his staff visited a hurricane ravaged area of Florida. Patterson writes, "The President, however, was busy playing a game of Hearts with his pals." He couldn't be bothered to look out of the window occasionally. Only when it was time to align Marine One with the press helicopter for a picture, the president quickly peered out the window, feigning an interested and grief-stricken expression. And then Clinton went back to his game of hearts. Never even looking out the window again.

And when Clinton WAS pre-occupied with the investigation? Even his own lawyers openly complained that they didnt have enough time to meet with him to build a defense strategy because he was too busy playing cards and word games with his friends! So, what would President Clinton have done in regards to the terrorism problem if he wasn't so pre-occupied with the $60 million dollar investigation? More of the same obviously: Getting serviced by interns, watching golf games, and playing cards and word games with friends.

Today, they published my letter. But here is what's printed word for word:

To Voicer Andrew Clark: What would President Clinton have done about terrorism problem if he wasn't so preoccupied with the $60 million investigation? More of the same obviously: Getting serviced by interns, watching golf games, and playing cards and word games with friends.

No, I do NOT chalk it up to political bias on the editors behalf. Quite the contrary. The Daily News always crams about a dozen letters to the editor onto only one single page (and share that page with a political cartoon as well). As a result, many of these letters have to be edited down to the barest bones possible so that all of them can be fitted onto that page. I'm quite sure that many people write long, expansive letters to the editor of the NY Daily News. But after it has been edited down so much, our well thought out letters all come off sounding like a bunch of bumper sticker slogans, hot headed rhetoric, and mindless partisan propaganda in two sentences or less.

Still, as Tom Hanks' character Joe Fox complains in the movie, 'You've Got Mail': "I was eloquent! Shit!"

AUGUST 31, 2006 UPDATE: The NY Daily News got a response to my letter:

Dangerous Obsession

Brooklyn: Voicer Marc Solomon should learn his history. President Bill Clinton was not preoccupied with a $60 million investigation. The GOP was preoccupied with it. Incessantly. Because the Republicans wouldn't drop an investigation into activities of which many former Presidents were also guilty, Clinton could not accomplish anything.

Ronald L. Cohen

Er, wasnt that my point? That Clinton was not so "preoccupied" with the investigation???

Here is my response to the NY Daily News. Chances are not good that they will print it. Always let the liberals have the last word is practically the motto of the NY Daily News. I hope I'm wrong.

Voicer Ronald Cohen should learn reading comprehension. He writes: "Voicer Marc Solomon should learn his history. President Bill Clinton was not preoccupied with a $60 million investigation." Well, where did I say different? That WAS my point. That he was NOT preoccupied with it. Thanks for the confirmation. He then goes on to write: "Because the Republicans wouldn't drop an investigation into activities of which many former Presidents were also guilty, Clinton could not accomplish anything." 1) How many former Presidents were convicted of perjury? Zero. 2) If he wasnt so preoccupied by it (as we both agree), then how is it that he couldnt accomplish anything because of it? Didn't seem to stop him from writing executive orders, lobbying members of congress, signing or vetoing legislation, conducting foreign policy, raising campaign funds, etc.

freerepublic

Little Green Footballs

When Um Ali Mihdi returned to her home in the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil two days ago, she found a 1,000lb (450kg) Israeli bomb lying unexploded in her living room.

The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

The bomb came through the roof of the single-storey house and half-embedded itself into the floor, just missing the TV.

There is a hole in the roof with exactly the same profile as the shell itself, like when a cartoon character runs through a wall. The tailfin - complete with skull-and-crossbones marking - still lies on the roof next to the hole where it broke off.

This is just one of thousands of nasty surprises greeting those coming back to southern Lebanon after Israel's five-week war with the Hezbollah militant group

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk

An accidental oversight? Or someone went insane over at the BBC?

From FreeRepublic:

***********************************

These two quotes are being posted together all over the internet:


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

-- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002


I did a search of the NY Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe archives and can't find the second one. It obviously reeks of a fabrication. Anybody know the origin? This is the first I've seen it, and obviously we would have heard of it by now if he'd said it in March 2002.

_______________________________________


I found it!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael.


6 posted on 05/27/2003 11:10:32 AM PDT by dufekin

________________________________________


Just did a Nexis search, and both quotes are certainly false. The second one did have some slight resemblance to what he said in reality on March 13--note one of the above-posted press conferences--but it is exaggerated and falsified and taken totally out of context.

The first quote, on the other hand, is definitely fabricated out of whole cloth. Only two gullible journalists have written about these quotes, and then three letter-to-the-editor writers.


39 posted on 05/27/2003 12:09:53 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier

_________________________________________


*************************************


And many libs are falling for it to this day. Just an example whose blogger name is "anti-deception".

Wow. Great work there, anti-deception. Snicker.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681112/posts

Germany`s NDR presents unpublished video footage from the qana events, demasking "Green Helmet" as a cynical movie director, staging photographs with a liitle boys body.

Watch the video here. Warning: It's graphic.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/189573.php

http://minx.cc/?post=189573

http://bamapachyderm.com/