Tuesday, October 2, 2012

ActsFive29, A Group of Pro-Life Defenders, Were Arrested While Praying Outside White House

Okay.... WTH?!? These pro-lifers were outside of the White House on their knees praying in protest against the HHS mandate. According to the Constitution as citizens we have a right to peacefully assemble. I guess not under this despot of a president. Because he treats the Constitution as if it were a piece of trash. His actions have shown that he has utterly no respect for the Constitution. In fact Obama treats our Constitution with disdain and with every action he's shown he wants to undo all our Founders fought for.  So yes, I will call anyone who wants to "transform" America to undo our Founders' vision an anti-American jacktard. And that includes our Liar-in-Chief, the King of all Anti-American jacktards. He and his ilk believe government should have all autonomy over our lives. Obama and his minions are not for either the individual or for groups since you cannot be for one and not the other. They are inextricably linked. They are for having power and control over our lives. And stupid progressive ordinary Joes are handing it to them on a silver platter. They would rather be told what they can and can't do by the government instead of choosing for themselves. Progressives are against choice.

Our Founders fought against a persecutorial King in Great Britain to make sure every individual would not be tread on, recognizing that individuals are granted certain rights by our Creator. With the HHS mandate in place Obama should be known as the new persecutorial King, one who doesn't give a crap about peoples' rights or consciences especially if they disagree with him. He says to hell with your conscience. He doesn't respect differences of opinion. The Left only wants those on the Right to respect their opinions which differ with ours but disrespect us with unfounded accusations, accusing us of being racists, hating women, not caring about the poor, when in fact they fabricate a war on women, the race hustlers take advantage of minorities all for political and personal advancement. The truth is liberals are the ones who promote the abject killing of innocents, both females and males babies in the womb.  Progressives have started the war on our constitutional rights, more recently specifically have waged a war on our right to religious liberty, our right to follow our consciences at our jobs, schools, et al. They can shove their immoral crap all over the place propagandizing kids and whoever else with hurtful stuff encouraging kids to challenge their parents to go behind their parents backs to disobey their teachings on various issues, advocating the undermining of the parental duty as mothers and fathers and that's considered A-Okay. Hell NO!!!  We need to take a stand for the children.  Stop corrupting our children!!! Stop violating our constitutional rights!! No more Mr. or Mrs. Nice Guy.  We need to take a stand for the future of our country. We are called to be civilly disobedient when injustices are involved. Progressives and in particular the Obama administration have perpetrated multiple grievous injustices upon this nation and our citizens and we are called to stand up and say hell no we won't take this anymore and even go to jail for our beliefs. We need to fill the jails across the nation and let these corrupt tyrants across the U.S. know that we mean business and we aren't going to let the Obamanation of America to continue.  Well, that was my rant... here's the story on what happened.

Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.
ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”
The group claims Acts 5:29 – “But Peter and the Apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” – as their basis for protesting the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance cover birth control measures.
“Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church,” says the group. “With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out.”
On Saturday afternoon, 22 members of the group knelt on the sidewalk in prayer and were arrested by Capitol Police, with the prayer rally (and possible arrests) planned to continue through Oct. 2.
The group says that the only basis for their arrest is that the sidewalk in front of the White House is a “restricted zone” for free speech.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life told WND, “We have stood up for life and religious freedom in hundreds of cities. Today we do so at the president’s house. I am delighted to be here.”
The group says that the president is “dictating to Christians how they should live their faith” and that they are taking a stand, while risking arrest for doing so.
Bryan Kemper, director of youth outreach at Priests for Life, told WND that he was arrested on Saturday afternoon for kneeling on the sidewalk near the White House while holding a sign that said, “Stand Up for Religious Freedom.”
“I am here today as a father of seven children who is willing to lose my freedom to protect my children’s future freedom,” he told WND. “I was arrested yesterday when I knelt and prayed holding a sign for religious freedom, and I will kneel and pray again today, risking arrest again.”
He told WND that this issue is vital for all American’s to understand.
“We must take this stand now, or we will have no freedom to do so tomorrow,” he said. “I will obey God rather than man.”
He finished, “The HHS mandate violates God’s law and forces us to sin, and I will not comply.”
Brandi Swindell, National Director of Generation Life, a pro-life group dedicated to mobilizing activists, students, artists, musicians and young professionals to end abortion and spread the message of sexual integrity, told WND that she had a “divine appointment” in Washington today.
“Three of us chose to attend church at St. John’s this morning,” Swindell said, “and at the last minute found out that Kathleen Sebelius, the architect of the HHS Mandate was holding an adult forum between services.”
Swindell told WND that she got the secretary’s attention, and in front of a packed auditorium asked her, “Why are you forcing the American people to pay for abortion-inducing drugs that harm women? It’s a severe violation of religious freedom.”
The secretary ignored the question and left the stage.
Video of the exchange, and the critical reaction of other church attendees, can be seen below:
Swindell told WND that just four years ago she was arrested and deported from communist China for standing up for religious freedom there.
“I stood in Tiananmen Square holding a banner that said, ‘Jesus Christ is King’ and was arrested,” Swindell said. “I never imagined that just four years later I’d be standing in front of the White House risking the very same thing.”
She told WND that she intended to hold the same banner declaring “Jesus Christ is King” in front of the White House Sunday afternoon, and fully expected to be arrested for it.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, says of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally, being held across the street from the White House, “For the faith community, we can never be silent or indifferent when it comes to matters of justice, human rights and religious freedom.”


Bunkerville said...

Great catch. Hope you are feeling on the mend.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

But the group wasn't arrested for "kneeling and praying" and the framing would imply, they were arrested for an unlawful protest under the parameters of Section 1752, Title 18 of the US Code, which was recently amended by GOP written and sponsored HR 347.

The bill, and the code are poorly worded and open to abuse, but each successive Administration has further eroded our Constitutional liberties......stretching far prior to the proliferation of 'free speech zones' under the GW Bush Administration.

I'm not sure why somebody would vote for the GOP and expect anything different. The war on our Constitutional rights began before the current political theater of the left and the right...both parties have simply put on their costumes and continued to play the parts.

rosey said...

You can parse the law and throw aspersions at each party and your point is very well taken, but come on here -- they were arrested for "kneeling and praying" plain and simple. The fact that they were doing so while protesting another law that further erodes individual religious liberty with the forced employer contraceptive mandate is the underlying priciple here. Anyone who thinks they can simply speak out against this administration without repercussions is shortsighted. Those who do so at their own peril are standing (or in this case kneeling and praying) in the face of tyrany!!

Right Wing Theocrat said...

And I'll bet those who were arrested went quietly and were no trouble to the police, until obama's brethren the occupods.

I'm praying that you Americans toss this fellow out on his ass come november.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@Rosey - No, there is no law against 'kneeling and praying'. They were arrested under the law cited, as are many others who find themselves in a similar protest situation and similar location. You are attempting to frame motivation for the arrest, but where the cause for arrest is not unique to the religious.

Regarding the HHS mandate for contraception; the issue is a debate that should certainly be held. But the debate must include the larger issue of the ability of churches to disregard a law at will, where the tenets of general applicability can be noted.

Similar religous cases have provided precedent where religous practices have been at the core. Since the HHS mandate refers to religiously affiliated business [as opposed to churches themselves] who both serve the general multi-denominational and non demoninational public, and employ citizens of the same.....I'm not optimistic that the courts would find in your favor, under any Administration.

But the issue is one that should be debated.

The Views Of A Tea Party Member said...

If you Liberal's think that Republicans are racists, Watch this Video!

Obama is the biggest disgrace the country has ever experienced. If he's re-elected our Republic is dead. He should be tried for treason. Unfortunately, the uneducated, dependent scum that votes for him are clueless. No idea how economics work. If you continue to take my money through more taxation ill loose the desire to work. Then what? Third World country. This is what he wants.


rosey said...

CI -- you misread my intended remark. I said and meant that the true motivation behind the arrest was the exercising the expression of religion regardless of what law they utilized in doing so. Since the "framing" as you call it is just my opinion we can agree to disagree.

As regarding the "contraceptive" mandate the law again is murkey and the implementation was done at the administrative level with Sebelius. But one thing is crystal clear here and forcing a religious person (or religious company) to cede to an unjust and unconstitutional mandate/law is not and should not be followed.

I think, if the SCOTUS addresses the issue, it will be struck down under any administration as an infrigment to religious liberty.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@Rosey, I don't believe that I misread your remark. You confirmed that you believe the motivation for the arrest was religously based. You are however, assigning your perceived motivation to the event, rather than what the facts portray. That doesn't automatically make it incorrect, but requires a burden of proof to substantiate it.

With the HHS mandate, the ruling will come down in accordance with the parameters of a religious institution versus a religously affiliated institution, and to what extent these organizations can reap certain benefits [tax exemption] and be able to disregard laws of general applicability at will.

I don't believe that contraception should be covered, along with other elective pharamceuticals like Viagra. But there is a larger issue at stake where it regards preferential treatment towards a religion and the perceived impact upon religious liberty.

Kevin T. Rice said...

The group was in a speech-restricted zone. The speech they engaged in was kneeling and praying, and they were arrested. Obviously if they knelt and prayed and got arrested as a result, they were arrested for kneeling and praying. No need to consult the text of U.S. Code and look for a "kneeling and praying" clause. Common sense is a good guide here. If they had instead chose to chant while holding up signs saying, as Teresa does in her post, that that Obamam is a "persecutorial king" like George III, they would have been arrested for holding up signs and chanting, and it would have been just as absurd to say that they were not arrested for holding up signs and chanting because there there is no mention of chanting or signs in the law that was used as a pretext for that illegal arrest.

Obviously a law that is open to such abuse is unconstitutional, just as the whole idea of "free speech zones" "speech frestricted zones" was prima facie unconstitutional when they were first conceived and implemented. Everywhere the the First Amendment applies - everywhere that the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, is, or rather ought to be, a Free Speech Zone.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kevin, your explanation would only be applicable if, as Theresa tries to imply, that they were arrested due to religous persecution. As you correctly state, it matters not what action they were engaged in, they were arrested in accordance with the law.....a law which does not specify the motivation of the protest.

If the premise is going to be religious persecution and victimhood, such must be proven, or else it's merely framing the event in accordance with one's baises.

Now, if I have misread Theresa's premise, I apologize...but it seesm pretty clear.

Kevin T. Rice said...

And I, like Teresa and Rosey, think it seems pretty clear that they were arrested for doing what they were doing.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I don't want to change your opinion, I'm just trying to understand it.

Teresa said...

Thanks Bunkerville. I do feel on the mend but I think its going to be a bit of a slow process of recovery.

Teresa said...

@Constitutional Insurgent

First I think the idea of a speech-restricted zone is absurd. But, since there is one in front of the White House let's look at the facts on hand - the facts that Rosey and Kevin have tried to point out to you.

Fact number one is that the protesters in the speech-restricted zone were kneeling while praying. They were not simply walking on the sidewalk or talking, yelling this or that at the top of their lungs, these people were assembling peacefully using prayer to convey a message, that they're against the unjust HHS mandate. So since these people were arrested while they were on their knees praying in the speech-restricted zone they weren't arrested for any other reason that under the Obama administration they deem people praying on their knees in front of the WH in the restricted-speech zone to have violated the acceptable "restricted speech", or what the Obama administration has outlined as acceptable free speech in the restricted-speech area.

Teresa said...

HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.
The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3, extends the original law by adding more protected areas within Washington D.C, and removing the word “willfully,” from the paragraph stating that protesters can be prosecuted if they enter the area “willfully and knowingly.”
“ The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect its illegal.”

Yes, it is abhorrent that both Republicans and Democrats deem it acceptable to violate our First amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech.

One thing I would add is that I looked up whether George W. Bush had anyone arrested for praying outside the WH and didn't see any evidence of it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Fact number one is that the protesters in the speech-restricted zone were kneeling while praying."

This part is quite correct.

"So since these people were arrested while they were on their knees praying in the speech-restricted zone they weren't arrested for any other reason that under the Obama administration they deem people praying on their knees in front of the WH in the restricted-speech zone to have violated the acceptable "restricted speech", or what the Obama administration has outlined as acceptable free speech in the restricted-speech area."

And here's where you venture back into subjective framing. Both the current law and the premise of 'free speech zones' predate the Obama Administration. Further, the group was arrested for protesting inside one of these zones. Unless you can prove motive otherwise, it doesn't matter to the law what the actions of the protesters are, they were protesting. You and I don't have to agree with the constitutionality of these laws and zones, and we both disagree with them...it is disingenuous to lay perpetration of blame at the feet of the POTUS....any POTUS. Unless again you can prove the interference of the Administration into the affairs of the Uniformed Secret Service, and show that similar events of this nature had not occurred previously.

"One thing I would add is that I looked up whether George W. Bush had anyone arrested for praying outside the WH and didn't see any evidence of it." Nor would you if you searched using that verbiage. POTUSs do not have the time nor the mandate to interfere in these types of issues. I work in a DoD Intelligence Agency; if I make a decision or proffer analysis that turns out to be detrimental to our interests, is it Obama's fault...or mine?

This sort of hyperbole is part of what drove me from the GOP in the first place.....acting no different than Democrats.

Kevin T. Rice said...

The word "disengenuous" has been profferred in this exchange. As soon as I see the word, my mind races to a relevant example, and the first thing it comes up with is the last time I read the words: "I don't want to change your opinion, I'm just trying to understand it," before the one who wrote them went on to vigorously repeat arguments already presented ad nauseam while making two baseless claims to the default position in one sentence, along the lines of I'm-right-and-you're-wrong-unless-you-can-show-that-X-happened and-also-show-that-Y-never-happened!

So it's not the Commander-in-Chief of the Secret Service's fault if the Secret Service arrests someone unlawfully on the sidewalk just beyond the fence surrounding the Commander-in-Chief's house? Why is it so important here to exonerate Obama of this outrage? Why is it imperative to defend his motives and those of the thugs who carried out this disgrace with the trivial point that it probably was not motivated by hostility toward religion as such?

On that note, CI, you might benefit by being made aware of the impression you give. People are quite often clueless of how they come off to everyone, and the bigger the problem, the more ignorant they are, kind of like someone walking around with halitosis or B.O. The impression you give me is that if there WERE an obvious anti-religious agenda being pursued by actions like this despicable arrest you would have been even less "against" it than you already are.

rosey said...

"But one thing is crystal clear here and forcing a religious person (or religious company) to cede to an unjust and unconstitutional mandate/law is not and should not be followed."

Likewise, any law passed that is unjust or unconstitutional on it's face (such as a implementing an "unlawful protest") as you keep pointing to, should not be followed as it is unjust. As such these protesters were arrested for "kneeling and praying" in protest and now have "standing" to bring suit to address the pseudo law.

You add that it is the type of hyperbole that drove you from the GOP in the first place is not a shocker here as you, as I interpret your comments, are in favor of this law technically?

I too left the GOP, or "R" moniker to become a "constitutional conservative" ala tea party. I do not trust either party are any different. I do not care who implemented this unjust and unconstitutional law or which administration it was enacted under. Free speech and the freedom to practice religion are two cornerstones of the venerated document.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"So it's not the Commander-in-Chief of the Secret Service's fault if the Secret Service arrests someone unlawfully on the sidewalk just beyond the fence surrounding the Commander-in-Chief's house?"

No more than if it's the CinC's fault if I conduct an adverse action, as I work for the DoD. You use the word 'unlawfully', I'm curious as to your reading of the law. Are non-permitted protests lawful in the restricted space in front of the White House, or are they not? The group was protesting. They were benign in nature, but so are many other protests that are treated likewise under the law.

"Why is it so important here to exonerate Obama of this outrage? Why is it imperative to defend his motives.....?"

Because facts should never be manipulated to conform to a narrative. The actions of the uniformed Secret Service fall under the auspices of the Department of Treasury. Although there is merit to the notion that a POTUS is responsible for everything under his purview, it's taking it to an unrealistic extreme to claim that Obama [or any other POTUS] is culpable for a local law enforcement action. Why is there no outrage reserved for the GOP Congressman who sponsored the amorphous amendment to this law? Why focus on the easy, but erroneous target?

Theresa has made it clear that she subscribes to a narrative that Obama is somehow biblically hostile, including the list proffered by Barton. But like Barton's list, the narrative rests on many, many events and issues that aren't within the purview of the POTUS. None of what I've written is a defense of Obama, and honestly, it's sort of a creepy feeling when it can be confused with that, since Obama represents an anthesis of my ideology.

I'm also not anti religious in the least. I'm a fervent defender of religous liberty, along with individual liberty writ large. What I don't defend, is religious preferentialism. I do not subscribe to laws or regulation that favors religion, yet has no acompanying secular value. But I enjoy quality back and forth over issues, and strive to learn how others develop conclusions that differ from mine. So while in general, it matters little 'how I come across' if I'm meeting the above intent and am tactful while doing so.

Rosey - Those arrested may very well have standing for a civil suit, but while you and I may view a law as unconstitutional, we can't very well expect a law enforcement agency to not enforce what it is mandated to do. But to state that these protestors were arrested for kneeling and praying, carries the connotation that kneeling and praying could warrant arrest on it's own merit. Kneeling and praying is no different than a sit in, or standing in protest, under theyes of the law.

And no, I'm not in favor of this law, or free speech zones...and I agree fully with your last sentence. That's why ire should be directed against the appropriate parties: Congress who enacted and amended the law; and Congress again, who manitains oversight for Federal agencies.

rosey said...

Are non-permitted protests lawful in the restricted space in front of the White House, or are they not?

"kneeling and praying"

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Maybe it's me, but Amendment I of the First Amendment to the Constitution pretty much covers the whole "constitutional" aspect of this law that had these people exercising just about every aspect of the Constitutional language above. Need we say more.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I agree with the lack of constitutional compatibility of the current law, and the latitude of the Secret Service to interpret it.

However, in carrying out their mandated duties, when engaged in a protest in what is deemed a restricted area, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law whether or not a group is sitting, standing or kneeling and praying.The group was arrested for protesting, not kneeling and praying.

rosey said...

If that is your belief, then I obviously respect your opinion and the right to do so. But, likewise it is my opinion that the "intent", in my eyes, were not to arrest for merely protesting, but doing so religiously. The interpreptation of the law, which fell upon those who acted to uphold it, was police state mentality and that "latitude" of which you speak was as deep as a supulcher (pun intended)....

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Fair enough; part of my point was that it is [at least so far] impossible to prove motivation, or any speculation that an arrest may not have occurred in other circumstances. I haven't seen anything from the Secret Service to lead me to believe that they would act in any less than an impartial manner.

Teresa said...

@Constitutional Insurgent

Okay, if your claim that any other person(s) regardless of what they were doing in a restricted zone would have been arrested under this law were true then what about when Bin Laden was killed and there were loads of people cheering in that restricted zone. How come they weren't arrested? Or is it the prerogative of the Secret Service under the auspice of whichever administration to determine what constitutes a violation in the restricted-speech zone?

Obama is the one who signed the latest version of this into law so yes, that's why I do believe the majority of the blame needs to be laid at his footsteps, or his administration's footsteps.

The fact that you can't admit that in any other place, non-restricted free speech zone, but this place by the White House these people would not have been arrested for kneeling while praying boggles my mind. The fact is these people weren't doing any of the other things you suggested a person could be arrested for in the restricted-speech zone so by speculating that if this or that would have happened those people would have been arrested misses the point that these people were arrested for praying in a restricted-speech zone and not for doing anything else.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"The fact that you can't admit that in any other place, non-restricted free speech zone, but this place by the White House these people would not have been arrested for kneeling while praying boggles my mind."

I'm pretty sure I addressed this, but can you clarify your statement? It appears that your saying that kneeling and praying in a location outside of a restricted area would be subject to arrest.

I do look forawrd to seeing logical consistency [not just from you] from political partisans, regarding events that occur anywhere within the Federal government, if Romney is elected.

cube said...

Citizens arrested for kneeling and praying... oh, how this mighty country has fallen under the reign of BO.

Leticia said...

Wow! How did I miss this!!!!

Did you notice how quickly they silenced that poor woman? She was polite and yet, was booed and you can tell she was being escorted out.

What happened to her 1st Amendment rights?

Christians deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

A typing gremlin attacked my first comment.

Obozo thinks only the followers of the pedophile Mohammed have rights

Teresa said...


The typing Gremlin is allowed here anytime. I needed the laugh. Thanks.

Mindy said...

This may be a bit off topic, but what I want to add was the following, When Obama killed bin Laden, and "spiked the ball" and took the credit for it, at every chance and every opportunity that he was able to and bragged at the democrat convention about the killing.and thus got a helicopter full of Navy Seals killed, Well now he can add the killing of four Americans on the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazito to his list of accomplishments.