Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad Controversy

Tim Tebow

There has been a significant amount of controversy in America regarding college football player Tim Tebow's pro-life commercial, to air at this year's Super Bowl. Typical of the liberal media to believe only their point of view matters, when the constitution states everyone in entitled to free speech.

It's really hypocritical of the liberals to claim they adhere to the constitution then pull stunts like this aimed and muzzling freedom of speech. The Judiciary Report is of the belief the Tebow ad should air.

CBS Sells Last Super Bowl Spot; Focus on the Family Ad Stays in Spotlight

Ad Sale to Focus on the Family Raises Eyebrows, Questions

CBS has come under the spotlight for a decision to allow an ad that takes a stance on a controversial topic. Christian group Focus on the Family purchased an ad that will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, who has been vocal about her decision not to have an abortion when she was pregnant with her son despite doctors’ recommendations.

Focus on the Family says the ad will have a “Celebrate family, celebrate life” message, but some fear it will feature a more blatant anti-choice theme.

Until now, CBS has had a policy of refusing to air ads that advocate specific views on “controversial issues of public importance.”

“This year we are going to call it the Controversy Bowl,” Mike Sheldon, chief executive of Deutsch LA, is quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times. “It used to be a championship football game, then it became an advertising showcase, and now the Super Bowl has turned into a microphone for special interests. It has become so much bigger than a football game.” Deutsch created Super Bowl spots this year for Volkswagen and Dr Pepper Cherry.

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com

The FBI And Human Rights

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller

Under the direction of the U.S. Congress, the FBI recently opened a human rights division. The Judiciary Report is skeptical of this endeavor, as the FBI routinely violates the Constitution, U.S. Code and international legal charters at the public’s expense.

It’s one thing spying on criminals to make a case. However, the FBI also breaks laws and rules to spy on innocent people, they deem valuable sources of information. They simply slap it under the umbrella of national security and lie to themselves that their unconstitutional conduct is okay, when it is not.

Human rights are basic fundamentals we all deserve and not principles to be violated at the hands of a nosy FBI Director, illegally obtaining information in a manner that flies in the face of the Constitution.

When the FBI makes decisions that illustrate they do not value the privacy and well being of select, connected law abiding members of the public, such as journalists and political scientists, in order to snoop for political and social gain, they’ve crossed the line.

The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

Martin Luther King Jr.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, bars people from discriminating against others based on race, sex, nationality or religion. This also means, any government agency, hospital, organization, website, company or entity receiving federal funds, may not discriminate or violate the rights of others, as the penalty for such misconduct is the loss and revocation of funding and criminal charges.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to grant everyone equal access to services and opportunities white Americans enjoy, due to Jim Crow and segregation having gripped the nation. It was also brought into being to protect minorities from being abused and violated, as was the practice during the civil rights era, when the call was made for change.

Sadly, some continue to violate the rights of minorities and others in society, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to protect from harm and undue abuse.

It's amazing in this day and age that people are still violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's not something to be proud of, as it classes you with the worst of mankind. It is a terrible black mark and a disgrace to violate it in modern times, with society allegedly having progressed towards equality.

However, when one starts discriminating against minorities, citizens' of foreign birth or others based on religion, you have disgracefully spit on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a most shameful manner.

Blog Flagged As Spam

This blog was incorrectly flagged as spam three times in a little over a week. As such, I was not allowed to publish any new posts for a while, until Google verified this is not a spam blog. The blog did very well, gaining many readers quite quickly, with inclusion in Google Blog search, increasing its visibility to the masses.

Someone disgracefully didn't like that and once again attempted to silence me, violating my right to free speech and free press, via unconstitutionally reporting the blog under the "report abuse" button at the top of the page. They were trying to have the blog deleted, which is pathetic and would have constituted discrimination (see Civil Rights Act of 1964).

If this happens again, please go to my other websites for frequent updates. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but it was not my fault.

AishaMusic.com

JudiciaryReport.com

SonustarNews.com

SoundOffColumn.com

Compendius.com

CelluloidFilmReview.com

Blog Misidentified As Spam

Someone flagged my fairly new Google Blog www.aishamusic.blogspot.com as "spam" and is trying to have it deleted. It is currently under review by Google, who sent me two emails in three days on the subject.

Apparently my fairly new blog, which has been online for four months, grew too much, too fast, with too many readers and too much visibility, for someone's liking and they are seeking to destroy my Constitutional rights to free speech, by whining to Google.

Someone sent a complaint to Google, deceitfully labeling my blog "spam" when I don't send out emails from or regarding it, write all its original content to give my sites RSS capabilities for those of you that like feeds and only post lawful content. Some small minded person, is trying to silence me, whilst defying the Constitution and it's not a good look.

I have seen countless sites with content that I do not agree with, regarding politics, entertainment and current events, but I don't go complaining to the blogs' host, trying to violate someone's right to free speech, in lying to have it removed from the internet, as that is juvenile and crazy. Grow up, already.

Congress Passes Gay Rights Bill

Congress has passed a gay rights bill that, "Extends hate crime protections to gays." It also includes crimes, "Based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Republicans were concerned and rightfully so, that said bill would attempt to regulate speech regarding gays and violate people's Constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as homosexuals have attempted to use existing legislation, to unlawfully silence those that peacefully disagree with their lifestyle choices.

It was stated, "At the urging of Republicans the bill was changed to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association."

Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

WASHINGTON — Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision. All the no votes were Republicans except for Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who supported the hate crimes provision but opposes what he says is the open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan.

"The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala...

The FBI says more than half of reported hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias, at around 18 percent, and sexual orientation, at 16 percent.

At the urging of Republicans the bill was changed to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association.

"Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. "Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech."

That didn't convince Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said the bill was a "dangerous step" toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would "serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views."

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the measure was "part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality."

The defense bill is H.R. 2647.

On the Net: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

http://www.google.com