Religious Freedom and Civil Disobedience

The Obama administration has adopted a new lingo that presages limitations to be placed on religious liberty.  It makes reference to "freedom of worship" instead of freedom of religion, or religious liberty.  "Freedom of worship" is a much more narrow concept.

The folks affiliated with the Manhattan Declaration have sounded the alarm.  Listen to what Chuch Colson and Dr. Timothy George have to say about the possible future need for civil disobedience:

Comments

[Roch101]

In less than 24 hours, this blog has "informed us of 73,000 blogs were shut down by "Obama's DOJ literally flipping a 'kill switch'; a city council person making comments about this blog's author that were "way over the line"; and now, the Obama administration replacing "freedom of religion with "freedom of worship."

As with the first two, the third is an example of people going off half cocked. It really does not inspire confidence in the opinions articulated here when they are based on misunderstanding and misinformation.

George W. Bush used the term "freedom of worship" and Obama continues to use the phrase "freedom of religion." The panic is ridiculous.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-president-obama-destroying-our-freedom-religion

[Roch101]

Corrected for clarity:

In less than 24 hours, this blog has "informed" us of 73,000 blogs shut down by "Obama's DOJ literally flipping a 'kill switch'"; a city council person making comments about this blog's author that were "way over the line"; and now, the Obama administration replacing "freedom of religion with "freedom of worship."

As with the first two, the third is an example of people going off half cocked. It really does not inspire confidence in the opinions articulated here when they are based on misunderstanding and misinformation.

George W. Bush used the term "freedom of worship" and Obama continues to use the phrase "freedom of religion." The panic is ridiculous.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-president-obama-destroying-our-freedom-religion

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Chuckle. I LOVE it when Roch has to clarify things after he goes off half-cocked.

Let's check some facts. "This blog" (Joe) did NOT do the informing, Roch - in either of the instances you reference. People posted comments (mine were based on news reports and the complaints/accounts of some fairly angry bloggers). I had already seen the link you cite and thought that the FBI's correspondence to Burst.net was easy to mis-interpret (shrouding everyting in secrecy did not help matters).

And I'm wondering. Are those 73,000 blogs (most of them I daresay not belonging to terrorists) back up? If not, why not?

Hardly panicking. But I backed up my blog, Roch. Suggest you do the same.

As for the other business, I was very much aware that Ms. Vaughn was referring to your good buddy, Jeff Martin.

Maybe we will all get lucky and the SBI/FBI/DOJ will shut him down.

[Ken Hill]

And of course, Obama has stayed true to his initial statements on every other issue he has mentioned. I expect his previous practices to continue.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I think those that have expressed concern have focused on Obama's recent verbal statements (and also those of HRC). They are particularly sensitive because they know his overall political stance is such that religious liberty is threatened. And religious liberty is one of the key emphases in the Manhattan Declaration, so it is understandable its founders would keep their antennae up.

[Roch101]

"they know his overall political stance is such that religious liberty is threatened"

You describe a negative feedback loop, Joe, that equates ignorance with knowledge. They "know" this because of misinformation which, when brought to light, is rejected in favor of the unsubstantiated suspicion which has taken hold because of misinformation which, when brought to light, is rejected in favor of the unsubstantiated suspicion which has taken hold because of misinformation.

It's like minds caught in quicksand.

[Bubba]

"It's like minds caught in quicksand."

Your post does not speak well of your ability to comprehend material presented in an undistorted manner. I guess that's a natural result of using a pre-selected prism to conveniently rationalize the information to neatly fit your pre-selected mindset.

It's like a mind caught up in a self-induced stupor.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, the administration's support of ENDA is one example that could be cited. I would also suggest you read the religious liberty section of the Manhattan Declaration to learn of all the positions taken by Obama and the national Democrats that have the effect of reducing religious liberty.

[Roch101]

ENDA, really? The act that would "prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees"? (1)

I suppose I cannot disagree that it is the history of the United States that people have cited religion as justification for discrimination, just as it is our history to reject such "moral" justifications for discriminatory acts, especially as applied to employment.

As for the liberty section of the MP, is it this part to which you refer?
----------

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti- discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, that is the section, Roch. And it will be very interesting to see how ENDA is applied in the event it is ever passed.

[Brenda Bowers]

Civil disobedience has never worked against a dictator!

Civil disobedience only works against a civil government which we Americans no longer have. Many in this country are seeing what is happening and are moving into positions to counter the Progressive/leftist socialists. When peaceful means are found not to work Americans will use ell the means at our disposal but we will not give up our liberties. Look for it because it is coming.

One other warning: the ballot boxes had better be carefully watched all before, during and after the November elections. Patriots had better be ready to protect those who want to vote regardless of race because the Panthers and others are sure to be out in force. BB

[Joe Guarino]

Brenda, I hope those things turn out not to be true. But we have certainly seen some telltale signs that justify your concerns.

[Roch101]

Joe,

The law does not allow unrestricted acts because the perpetrator views them as his religious prerogative. Just as there are laws against withholding appropriate medical care from a child because of religious reasons, there are also, rightly, laws that prohibit discrimination by businesses too, even if the operator of the business considers his bigotry justified by religion. Nonetheless, we cannot even discuss the examples in the cited paragraph in these terms because each is so faulty in its misrepresentation of the facts it has no place in a legitimate discussion of what is happening in reality.

First, there has been no policy instituted by the Obama administration that would force health care professionals to "perform or participate in abortions." We might as well be discussing whether Obama is against children because he eats them.

Second, Boston Catholic Charities was receiving $1M per year in state funds to facilitate adoptions. It is reasonable and just that any agency receiving state funds exercise its state sponsored mission consistent with state laws. (Indeed, Catholic Charities was not discriminating in its adoption placements initially and it was only when its willful compliance with state law came to light that the Vatican demanded Catholic Charities stop placing adoptions). Should the government try to stop a religious institution from privately placing adoptions with its own funding, then I'd object and you and MP would have a point. This was not such a case and the misrepresentation is hyperbolic rhetoric intended to excite an ignorant audience with its exaggerations.

The facts of the New Jersey case are also wildly misrepresented by the MP. A "Methodist Institution" was not stripped of its tax exempt status. It had committed part of its property to public access in order to qualify for a tax exemption that applied to any property opened to public use (the exemption being granted because of committing the property to public use, not because of religion). When the institution discriminated in providing access to what it had pledged to be publicly accessible, it lost the tax credit on that particular property.

Each of these examples is grossly misrepresented by the Manhattan Project (Not to mention not tied to the Obama administration). I do not know how people bear it -- having their "facts" consistently exposed as wrong -- except that the alignment of a story with one's preconceptions is apparently more important that the accuracy of story. Where it me, I'd question a source that relies on people's ignorance to put forth its positions. But, hey, the world is a big place and its people varied -- just don't expect efforts like the MP or others that rely on perpetrating misrepresentations to have any persuasive effect on reasonable people.

[Roch101]

"Brenda, I hope those things turn out not to be true. But we have certainly seen some telltale signs that justify your concerns." -- Joe

I think it is highly irresponsible for you to encourage disillusion opinions, Joe, especially ones that hint at violent acts.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Obama doesn't have to eat children to get his protein, Roch. He and his high-minded party eat their healthcare-providers. Then they spit them out.

Check your facts.

[jaycee]

Roch seems to have forgotten the violence of the Black Panthers armed with clubs ready to kill white people to prevent them from voting, all in order to assure Roch's Messiah would ascend to the throne of the White House.
These are the kind irresponsible and violent acts which Obama inspires. God keep us from further harm by this false prophet. (Obama, not Roch.)

[Roch101]

Jaycee, I am well aware of the two Black Panther members intimidating people outside of a polling place (I am not aware that they killed any white people or that their efforts put Obama in the White House though -- more of the kind of exaggerated nonsense I was referring to in this thread). I condemn it. Do you take the same view of Brenda's preparations for non-peaceful means to exert her political preferences against the will of the majority?

[Brandon Burgess]

Jaycee seems to forget that white people have been known to hang and shoot black people who try to take on an active role in American society, all in order to keep the holy white race in power. I'm sure Brenda agrees that THAT government was more uncivil than this one.

In this day of youtube and concealed carry, I don't fear the black panthers. I do fear those who think they live under an unholy, unconstitutional tyranny and would hint at subverting the political process, that our soldiers are literally dying to preserve.

This country and our political process was designed so that we don't have to kill each other to achieve political ends but it seems that is what Brenda, the Glen Becks and the militia types really want. They pretend they are preserving the ideas of the founding fathers when they are really trampling all over them. The country voted and your guy lost and now you want revolution?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Roch, I believe you started off the comments on this thread with the accusations that people were going off "half-cocked" and things were "getting ridiculous".

Well. Things are no longer just getting ridiculous - they ARE ridiculous.

You're so intent on "gotcha" partisianship (playing the SAME game that Breitbart did with the NAACP & Sherrod) that Brenda's RHETORIC (say it slowy a few times) on the vigorous defense of liberty (as I recall the Founders couldn't have founded anything without a fairly violent revolt) have become racist death threats (that everyone else here has to repudiate lest they be racist too) a few comments later.

You really need to get a grip on the "exagerated nonsense".

Brandon, it pains me to say it, but I'm not entirely certain what our soldiers are dying to preserve at this point.

And yes, this country and its political process was designed to transfer power peacefully. I hope to see the beginnings of a peaceful revolution this November - and, as a physician thoroughly disgusted by my own treatment in public service (under the administrations of Democrats) - not to mention the joke of "healthcare reform" railroaded through Congress earlier this year, I will work and speak in a fashion I never have before to see "your guy" loses in 2012 - because I believe his agenda is indeed the path to tyranny.

You say I wanna revolution. Well, you know, we all wanna change the world. And I can find no hope in Obama's changes.

[jaycee]

Firstly, Roch must have been reading a different blog than I, as I read NOTHING whatsoever from Brenda to suggest that she is personally preparing to assault or kill anyone.
Secondly, please read for comprehension, Roch. Nowhere did I or anyone say that the Obama supporting Black Panthers had killed anyone.
Thirdly, yes, a young Black Panther with a weapon scares me more than Brenda does.

In his usual ignorance of facts, Roch assumes that his ilk are the "majority." That won't be known until the votes are tallied, will it??

[Brandon Burgess]

Jaycee, I know what you do for a living and I know some of the people you interact with over there. I don't doubt that you don't personally know more than a handful of men who are so ticked off about republicans losing power that they sit around and talk about "the revolution" and "when the stuff hits the fan" and are hoarding guns and ammo for that time.

I'm not a big fan of what Obama has done. But anything less than a peaceful political process is un-American. Our country was founded not as a place where people could pray at government functions or start a revolution when there political party lost power. This country was founded so that people could debate and vote without fearing violence.

This whole thing is just hilarious because a lot of the right wingers that refuse to organize and get active are the very ones who are calling for revolution. The black panthers are no better than the right wing extremists and the eco-terrorists.

[Brandon Burgess]

And Jaycee, I'm more worried about the Tim Mcveighs than the black panthers. Tim Mcveigh killed white folks to.

[Roch101]

" Roch assumes that his ilk are the "majority." That won't be known until the votes are tallied, will it?" -- Jaycee

I am not sure who my "ilk" are (I am afraid I will never understand the small-minded right that divides everyone into an us or a them), but the votes were counted. Your guy lost.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"Your guy lost". No "us or them" there.

Roch that is EXACTLY the is kind of arrogance that will keep "your guy" from winning again.

We "small-minded" folk are fed up. But by all means, keep on hurling the insults and putting words in our mouths.

[Roch101]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure Jaycee supported McCain.

[jaycee]

Roch, read for comprehension. You're either befuddled these days or deliberately inventing your own "facts."
Brenda was talking about the upcoming November elections. Until the votes are counted we won't know who the majority of the voters are, will we?
Your "ilk" are the once-powerful Dems.
I support the Republican party.
brandon, you don't know me yet presume so much? Do you use a crystal ball or just consult a fortune teller? You have NO idea how off-base you are, young man.
And the only revolution I've seen anyone advocate from the conservative side will be waged in the voting booth. Unlike the lefties/Dems who employ black thugs with sticks to deny voters their rights and influence elections.
"Hoarding guns and ammo"?? "when the stuff hits the fan"?? "the revolution"?? LMAO You've been listening to Roch's spittle-flecked paranoid fantasy rants for waaaay too long.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Jaycee, I second the "read for comprehension" vote.

[bubba]

"LMAO You've been listening to Roch's spittle-flecked paranoid fantasy rants for waaaay too long."

Roch has a new apprentice.

[Brandon Burgess]

No Jaycee I have never met Roch but I have known a few self proclaimed patriots who sit and talk about the day they will rise up and restore the republic using guns rather than votes. Im all for civil disobedience. I feel that advocating for or excusing violence to achieve political ends is unAmerican and should be denounced at every turn in order to preserve our way of life. Folks who would pick up a gun over the outcome of 4 years of elections are more like Osama bin Laden than Thomas Jefferson. Folks who pretend that a majority vote and ensuing policies of that elected government indicate tyranny are misguided. It was silly when Bush wass in office and its silly now.

[Joe Guarino]

Religious liberty is also the freedom to have religious beliefs; and to speak to them and act upon them in an unrestricted fashion. Some of the trends we have seen, if allowed to continue, would tend to limit the ability of churches, clergy and people of faith to do these things. That is very worrisome, and it is what motivates Colson and Dr. George. Labeling religious belief as bigotry is a rhetorical device manipulating the use of language to intimidate people into silence.

[jaycee]

brandon said:
"I don't doubt that you don't personally know more than a handful of men who are so ticked off about republicans losing power that they sit around and talk about "the revolution" and "when the stuff hits the fan" and are hoarding guns and ammo for that time."

"...self proclaimed patriots who sit and talk about the day they will rise up and restore the republic using guns..."

So without even knowing me you presume to know the thoughts in the minds of my friends??

You presumption is arrogantly pejorative and personally insulting.

[Bubba]

"You presumption is arrogantly pejorative and personally insulting."

But it's what we have come to expect of certain people whose emotional maturity age significantly lags their chronological age by a large and ever increasing margin, jaycee.

As both their contributions on this thread display, Brandon's emulating his spiritual mentor.

[Roch101]

"Your "ilk" are the once-powerful Dems." -- Jaycee

I am registered as unaffiliated. I support and vote for members of the Democratic and Republican parties -- I've even voted for a libertarian once or twice.

[Roch101]

"Some of the trends we have seen, if allowed to continue, would tend to limit the ability of churches, clergy and people of faith to do these things." -- Joe

Well, you keep saying that, but when asked for specific examples of those "trends" you offered misinformation and misrepresentations. Other than your own sense of unease, is there anything that someone who does not share your predispositions can evaluate as a matter of fact?

[Bubba]

To sum up his last post: Roch doesn't see it, therefore it can't possibly exist.

[Joe Guarino]

Again, Roch, read the entire religious liberty section of the Declaration. While you might tend to minimize or justify some of the examples given, some of us take them quite seriously.

There are international examples of pastors being effectively gagged-- and not necessarily in places thought to be totalitarian. There are numerous examples in this country of violations of religious liberty and religious speech. I really don't feel compelled to list them.

Those, like Obama, who tend toward a more secularistic, relativistic society, will be allied in favor of these violations-- or will blithely tolerate them. Those in the political/activist sphere who want to erode conscience protections, and who favor the gay sociopolitical agenda, are prime examples.

[Roch101]

Joe, you are welcome to take the example of a policy that forces health care providers to perform abortions seriously, but when the policy doesn't exist, what is it that you are taking seriously? An hallucination.

[Brandon Burgess]

Jaycee you are lying. I said nothing about the beliefs of you or your friends. Are you really going to sit here and say that you have never encountered extremists like the ones I speak of but you will sit and pretend that black panthers are a threat to society when we have right wing extremists blowing up buildings and killing gunning down folks who exercise their right to assemble. Health care reform never blew up a doctors office

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"Healthcare reform never blew up a doctors office."

No Brandon, not yet. But I've worked in inner-city ED's and over-booked rural clinics (where, in most cases, security is lapsed to nonexistent) . . . and there has been a very palpable increase over the last several years in patients taking out their tensions and frustrations on health care personnel.

I honestly think that we'll be seeing some medical Columbines in our future - and it will be the direct result of "reform". Of course, no one really invested alot of thought or effort into the prevention of about domestic terrorism until McVeigh blew up the Murrah building.

Roch, I'm an Independent too. But I don't try to insult people's intelligence when it comes to where I hang out in the politcal spectrum. It would be nice if you'd do the same.

I hope one of the these days you/others can make an argument with out calling people delusional . . . or casting aspertions about their mental health . . . or calling them racists/liars.

I know. I'm hallucinating.

[jaycee]

brandon, it appears both you and Roch need a Reading for Comprehension class.
You wrote this:
"'I don't doubt that you don't personally know more than a handful of men who are so ticked off about republicans losing power that they sit around and talk about "the revolution" and "when the stuff hits the fan" and are hoarding guns and ammo for that time.'"
Then you wrote this:
"I said nothing about the beliefs of you or your friends."
So were you lying when you wrote the first quote, or lying when you wrote the second quote??
And, for the record, I know absolutely no one who is advocating any violent acts such as you describe, contrary to your juvenile fantasies. Everyone I know takes their political action in the voting booth.

[Brandon Burgess]

Jaycee, I never said you were friends with the folks I mentioned. I figured that you, like other govt contractors I know, had encountered the same type of extremists that I have encountered at gun shows at the militia booths. But you say you haven't and I'll go along with that. Sorry for assuming to much. But it goes both ways. Roch and I disagree on A LOT of things yet everyone here, when presented with an argument from me that they don't agree with, assumes I am "in" with Roch.

My whole point was that folks like Ms. Bowers and Dr. J who appear to make excuses for politically motivated violence must be called out. I don't care what any of us thinks the founding fathers would have intended with regard to abortion, health care or busing/integration. I think we can all agree that the founding fathers fought and died for the freedom to establish a government for the people where people.

When I hear so called patriots talk about "restoring the republic" and "civil disobedience doesn't work", I get antsy. Jaycee understand I make no excuses for what those black panthers did at the poll and they should have been arrested. But seriously, lets look at the right's propensity for violence. The abortion clinic bombings, the murder of a doctor, the bombing of a federal building, Greensboro 1979. In my opinion, folks like Alex Jones, Glen Beck and those who follow them and sing their praises are the dangerous ones that are working to destroy America; not the president who was elected by a majority of Americans (not the supreme court) and who is doing what those American's elected him to do. If one doesn't like his agenda-fine, deal with it at the poll. Engage in civil disobedience. But to take up arms or advocate doing so only to achieve political ends is just about the most un-American thing one can do.

This isn't a pro-Obama post or a pro-Roch post. This is a post advocating for the preservation of the American way that so many folks seem so quick to want to subvert all because they don't like what the president is doing. Some folks cite the right of the people to rise up against a tyrannical govt but I do not believe a govt that was elected and that has not subverted the voting process to be a tyranny.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Dr. J who appear to make excuses..."

--My bad. Dr. J did not appear to condone or advocate political violence. She only offered an observation. Thank you for your perspective Dr. J. And again, I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to Jaycee. I did not mean to imply that you or your friends were extremists. I do find it hard to believe that in your line of work, you have not encountered such individuals but again, if you say so then I believe you.

As for Bubba's comment, it is just ridiculous. Roch and I recently butted heads regarding a situation in which a man engaging in open carry was harassed by an officer for not presenting ID. I tend to lean to the right when it comes to gun issues but it seemed that Roch leaned further in this case. Anyway, it's kind of surreal: Jaycee hasn't really insulted me yet and I appreciate that and I would like to continue this dialogue in a civil manner. It seems we are all growing tired of Bubba and his agenda and are engaging each other with a little more tact and respect. That is a good thing. And thanks Joe for providing this forum for an exchange of ideas.

I still contend that right wing extremism is a greater threat to the American way than left wing extremism. I still contend that Obama is doing what a majority of Americans elected him to do. Can't say I'm satisfied but there is always 2012.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Brandon, just before I hit the post on a blistering retort (that you RICHLY deserved) to the 5:02 comment, I caught your mea culpa. So I've modified my response. CONSIDERABLY.

You're artfully back-tracking now (and it's a good thing, because my retort was about as fire-breathing as I've EVER been in these blogs in all of five years), but you need to finish the job.

You said, "Dr. J did not appear to condone or advocate political violence".

LET'S BE CRYSTAL CLEAR (AND YOU MAY REPEAT IT AFTER ME). AT NO TIME HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE HAVE I ADVOCATED OR "MADE EXCUSES" FOR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE. PERIOD.

And it's not like there are not a few people in this blogosphere have pushed EVERY button.

As an observation (and the point I think Brenda was trying to make), I DO see violence within our borders and in our future if those brokering all the change do not change their tactics . . . and the rhetoric (on all sides) is not dialed-down.

For instance, the "your guy lost/shut-up-and-deal-with-it" CRAP is EXACLTY the kind of supreme arrogance that 46% of the American voting public who did not vote for Obama (along with a whole slew of people who did not vote at all) DO NOT CARE FOR. I would argue that a good percentage of the American public that did vote for him is feeling snookered . . . they do not believe he is doing what they elected him to do . . . and "the majority" is shifting under his feet.

You yourself made a key observation here. "Jaycee has not insulted me yet". And that's a MAJOR frustration in these blogs . . . as the liberals in it will say any damned uber-ugly thing they want about a conservative . . . but the conservatives RARELY return fire in kind (and even Bubba usually has to be provoked). Instead, they (rather patiently most of the time) explain their positions over and over again - to people who (despite all of their noble/progressive/enlightened rhetoric) would apparently prefer that we all shut up, lay down and die.

Nice try at turning your sights, but I am not growing tired of Bubba. I think Bubba is a breath of fresh air - who regularly cuts through a lot of stinky-blue cheese. And I don't accept your premise that the extreme right ia a greater threat to America than the extreme left. You see, as I see it, the extreme left is in the White House right now - and is appointing Supreme Court justices like Elena Kagan (may a merciful God that you don't believe in have mercy on us all).

And you're right. This post is NOT about Roch Smith, Jr., who has NEVER fought a battle that involved losing some of his own skin (but who LOVES to smear & slur those who have . . . especially if the ugly behind those battles do not reflect well on the deep-blue politicians and agendas he espouses).

[Bubba]

"It seems we are all growing tired of Bubba and his agenda and are engaging each other with a little more tact and respect."

And the "we" you refer to here would be.......?

You lost your right to respect in recent times over various issues and remarks you've made on this and other blogs. Roch lost that right YEARS ago.

As far as you "butting heads with Roch", Roch does the same thing with Cone, an admitted friend. We all know what effects "butting heads" does to that dynamic.

[Roch101]

Frankly, Dr. Johnson, you don't know what you are talking about. But it is true that I never fought a battle, accepted a couple thousand dollars as a settlement, decided it wasn't enough and dedicated the next ten years of my life to blaming others for my decision. That much is true.

[Roch101]

Uh, a couple hundred thousand dollars...

[Brandon Burgess]

Dr J: "Nice try at turning your sights, but I am not growing tired of Bubba."

-Obviously, which is why you engage in the same moronic, manipulative and disgusting tactics as him.

Such as:

Dr J implies that I said: "...your guy lost/shut-up-and-deal-with-it"

When what I really said was:"If one doesn't like his agenda...vote...engage in civil disobedience."

And Dr J, you'd be surprised to learn that we all struggle. I'm not telling you to move on. In fact, I say keep up the good fight. But I am saying you aint special.

Bubba, do not address me until you are man enough to stand behind your incendiary comments. Punk.

[Bubba]

"Bubba, do not address me until you are man enough to stand behind your incendiary comments. Punk"

LOL!

Anything else, little buddy?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Roch, as per usual you are living up to your name as I always read it. And you should have stopped while you were ahead.

We've played this game over and over again. The settlement in 2001 was negotiated in BAD FAITH on a pack of LIES . . . including the false claim that the practice/people who canned me FOR SAVING A BABY'S LIFE AND DOING THE DUTY ASSIGNED TO ME BY THE STATE - the people who tried to sue me into oblivion for telling the truth (even Cone gets that) - the people who were actually paying themselves "a couple hundred dollars a year - were "nearly bankrupt".

By accepting the settlement, I was snookered into believing that I was being vindicated AND helping the hosptial stay afloat. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. Especially when you're in this blogosphere and lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Six soul-sucking years of my life (first building a practice from nothing - then the battle to return home) were totally negated by the fraud.

And I know that's just fine with you. Because I did not worship at the altars of Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Sleazely, Perdue, Obama, etc. And because my experience does not say much for any of those societal do-gooders.

All doctors are "rich" and they're for sure "not special". Hold onto that thought when, after a few years of Obamacare, you - or your desperately-ill child - cannot find one.

OBTW, check your facts (given the N&R's history in Randolph County, maybe you should do in some other fashion that just reading old newspaper accounts). The settlement was NOT for a "couple hundred thousand dollars". It wasn't even for one year's salary.

So tell me, Mr.-Truth-Justice-and-the-American-way, do you really think that one year's salary cover a destroyed practice & reputation (how many times have you/your pals called me "crazy"?) and a life/career derailed? Better yet, do you actually approve of the lying and cheating?

I DO BLAME THE NON-PROFITEERS WHO LIED AND CHEATED ME OUT OF MY HOMETOWN PRACTICE AND HUGE CHUNK OF MY LIFE. AND, AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OF BEING BLOWN OFF BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT (BECAUSE I CANNOT GET TO STATE LAW ENFOREMENT UNTIL THE LOCALS REFER - ALA NIFONG), I CAME TO THIS BLOGOSPHERE WITH THE HOPE THAT "CITIZEN JOURNALISM" WOULD AMOUNT TO MORE THAN A FEW PROGRESSIVES BLOWING EMPTY, HYPOCRYTICAL BLUE SMOKE UP ONE ANOTHER'S BUTTS.

I WILL CONTINUE TO BLAME RANDOLPH HOSPITAL/ITS EXECUTIVES FOR WHAT THEY DID TO ME/MY FAMILY/MY PATIENTS/MY COMMUNITY, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO CHASE THEM IN ANY VENUE I CAN FIND UNTIL THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I believe it's called "civil disobediance".

And what's more, I no longer give a rat's tail what you/Cone/Fec/Sue think. Go converge on yourselves.

While we're at it, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE . . . tell us about the personal skin you've lost fighting injustice. Really. I'm DYING to hear all about it.

OBTW, I'm sure Mike Baron appreciates your way-too-little-way-too-late endorsement on the occasion of his cessation of blogging. The Greensboro blogosphere's latest failure-of-citizen-journalism-to-be-relevant sure gave me the warm fuzzies.

Brandon, playing over-compensating Grasshopper to Roch is not serving you very well. You have implied/injected/interpreted/figured meanings into everyone else's statements here, but apparently no one can summarize your own without being "moronic, manipulative and disgusting". I also fail to see how my "tactics" or blogging style remotely resembles Bubba's, but you've distorted so many things in this thread that I suppose I should not be surprised.

I quote: "The country voted and your guy lost and now you want revolution".

As I said, yes. I do. At the polls. Soon.

Very clearly, I should have posted the initial blistering retort.

[Brandon Burgess]

Dr. Johnson, if denouncing even the hint of political violence makes me disgusting than so be it. Right wing extremists have murdered more Americans than I can count and I feel that even today they are more of a threat to America than the black panthers. You disagree and that is fine.

Bowers appears to be advocating violence against a govt that I don't believe is tyrannical. I think her views are extreme but I respect her and defend her right to freedom of speech. If that makes me a moron than so be it.

I respect you for fighting the good fight. I respect Dr. Guarino even though I abhor some of the comments posted here regarding race relations. I don't understand how either of you can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a man like bubba. A "breath of fresh air"? bubba? Your just pulling my leg now.