Category Archives: news

Amended Complaint in Defense of ‘Redneck Not Racist’ K-12 Bus Driver Fired for Displaying Confederate Flag on His Vehicle

The Rutherford Institute has filed an amended First Amendment lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Oregon on behalf of a 28-year-old K-12 bus driver who was fired for displaying a Confederate flag (with the word “redneck” emblazoned across it) on his personal vehicle. Kenneth Webber was fired on March 8, 2011, five days after being suspended for refusing to comply with an order that the flag be removed from his truck while it was parked in the employee parking lot. The amended complaint comes in response to the district court magistrate’s ruling that Webber does not have a cause of action under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Oregon Constitution.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is ‘a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment…that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable,'” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Ken Webber’s case is a clear example of what happens when free speech and political correctness collide. Yet the question that needs to be asked is not whether the Confederate flag represents racism, but whether banning it leads to even greater problems, namely, the loss of freedom. The answer to that is a resounding yes.”

Kenneth Webber, who has been employed by First Student Bus Transportation Services, a company providing services to the Phoenix-Talent School District # 4, for four years, began flying the Confederate flag in the bed of his pickup truck over a year ago. The 3-by-5-foot Confederate flag, which has the word “redneck” emblazoned across it, was a birthday gift from Webber’s father in 2009. Webber drives his truck to work and parks it in the employee lot, which is leased from the school district, before reporting for his duties driving the K-12 bus for the Phoenix-Talent School District.

On March 2, 2011, Webber was called into his supervisor’s office and ordered to remove the flag from his pickup or be suspended from his job. The demand to remove the flag was allegedly made after the school district superintendent visited First Student’s facility and saw the flag on Webber’s truck. The superintendent reportedly requested that Webber remove the flag because “some people find that symbol offensive,” justifying the request by pointing to the fact that the school district is “about 37 percent minority students,” and “we have a policy…about displaying symbols on school property that were racist, or had a potential to be seen as racist.”

Insisting on his right to free expression on his personal vehicle, Webber refused the demand, was suspended and was sent home for the day. The following day, Webber reported to work and was called to meet with two managers, who again demanded that he remove the flag or be suspended, this time for three days. Again, Webber refused and was suspended. On March 8, Webber was called into his manager’s office and was terminated after he again refused to remove the flag from his pickup. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed the original complaint in March 2011.

Webber has insisted that his display of the Confederate flag does not show him to be a racist but a “backyard redneck. I work for what I have. I support my family. It’s just who I am. I’m a redneck. It’s a way of life.” Rutherford Institute attorneys have asked that Webber be given his job back and paid for lost wages.

Housing District Employee Suspended For Displaying Cross

Colin Atkinson, the Wakefield District Housing (WDH) employee who was in the news recently for fighting for the right to keep displaying a palm cross in his van, has been suspended from work following continued harassment.

Mr Atkinson had displayed a small palm cross in his work van for fifteen years when his employers told him to remove it after an anonymous complaint suggested it may offend those of other faiths.

After a campaign mounted by Christian Concern and negotiations with his employer it was agreed in April that Mr Atkinson could continue to display his cross in his van.

Originally published by Christian Concern on August 1, 2011.

However, after a resolution had seemingly been found, Mr Atkinson suffered repeated problems at work. He was moved to a different workplace location 16 miles away, has had his work van removed from him and been told to travel by bus instead due to “general financial cutbacks.”

Mr Atkinson filed a grievance procedure and has now been told to stay at home. Speaking to the Daily Mail, he said:

“I thought common sense had triumphed when the company agreed I could go back to work. But I have found there is still a lot of hostility against me, even though I have done nothing more than defend the basic rights of Christians to express their faith in public.

“My employers have broken their promises and I believe they are trying to humiliate me or dismiss me for seeking to stand up for my rights. It is disgusting what they are doing.”

One of the bosses at WDH who had asked Mr Atkinson to remove the cross from his van disappeared from the office about a month after Mr Atkinson returned to work. His absence was due to Mr Atkinson’s presence in the office, according to the company.

Mr Atkinson added:

“Meanwhile, the boss resumed work three weeks ago but I feel he should be the one who should be moved, not me. My bosses have now offered me a pay-off to retire early but a condition is that I, my wife Geraldine and all my family would be prevented from speaking out publicly.

“That is not my style. It would be breaching my human rights.”

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said:

“After a public outcry, Colin was allowed to return to work and to continue to display a palm cross in his van.

“However, since the media attention died away, he has suffered continued harassment and victimisation, and Wakefield and District Housing has not honoured its agreement to allow him to return to work. It seems that WDH hoped that Colin could be bought off and go quietly. But he will not be gagged or bullied.”

Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union “fees” taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union’s regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law. In the Foundation-won Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political and other non-bargaining activities.

The teachers filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in Columbus, late Thursday. The teachers are employed at various school districts, including Marietta City Schools in Marietta; Green Local Schools in Green; the Western Brown School District in Mt. Orab; and the Trumbull County Joint Vocational School District in Warren.

The lawsuit focuses on unlawful union dues confiscations from Ohio teachers’ paychecks during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years and seeks to reclaim the teachers’ mandatory union fees spent illegally. The OEA is currently pouring money in support of a ballot measure to repeal the recently-passed Right to Work law, which makes union dues strictly voluntary for teachers and other public employees.

“OEA union officials have a long history of abusing teachers’ rights in the workplace to fund their political coffers,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “It’s important to remember where the OEA union machine gets a large amount of its money as it gears up its efforts to defeat recent public-sector reforms in the Buckeye State – reforms that allow teachers to opt out of forced dues payments.”

The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier legal advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – has established numerous precedents and protected legal rights at the U.S. Supreme Court for both private-sector and public-sector workers who wish to refrain from formal union membership and full union dues payment. Currently, the Foundation has a case pending with the Supreme Court brought for teachers in California forced to subsidize union boss political spending.

The Plight of Marco Sauceda and the Loss of Our Freedoms

By John W. Whitehead

“A person should feel secure in their own home. No matter black, white, Hispanic, Asian, I don’t care who they are, they should feel secure in their own home. The police have no right to come in your house and push you around and beat you up and do the things they did on March, 15, 2009.”—Ryan Deaton, defense attorney for Marco Sauceda

Too often, we elevate the events of the American Revolution to near-mythic status and forget that the real revolutionaries were neither agitators nor hotheads, neither looking for trouble nor trying to start a fight. Rather, they were people just like you and me, simply trying to make it from one day to another, a task that was increasingly difficult as Britain’s rule became more and more oppressive.

America was born during a time of martial law, when government troops stationed themselves in homes and trespassed on property without regard for the rights of owners. Prior to the American Revolution, there was virtually no right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a consequence, British soldiers entered homes and places of business, virtually at will. The effects on the American people were devastating and long-lasting. As one colonist wrote, “our houses, and even our bedchambers, are exposed to be ransacked, our boxes, trunks, and chests broke open, ravaged and plundered by wretches whom no prudent man would venture to employ even as menial servants.”

Fast forward more than 200 years and we seem to have come full circle, once again being victimized by government agents that show little regard for our property or our persons. Indeed, if you want to get a sense of what “justice” in America has been reduced to, just consider the case of 30-year-old Marco Sauceda, who was recently sentenced to serve 30 days in jail and pay a $500 fine for resisting arrest after police mistook him for a burglar in his own home.

Police entered Sauceda’s Texas home on March 15, 2009, allegedly after a neighbor reported seeing a black man kicking in the front door. Obviously frightened, Sauceda, a Honduran immigrant who speaks no English and has the mind of a child, barricaded himself in his bathroom in response to the police invasion. When police did finally get Sauceda out of the bathroom, they pepper-sprayed him, shot him with a pepper ball gun and wrestled him to the ground.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would recognize that there’s something wrong when an innocent man with the mental acuity of a child is not only subjected to a warrantless invasion of his home by police officers but is physically brutalized by those same government agents and then forced to serve time for resisting arrest. And in fact, the jurors in Sauceda’s case did recognize that he had been wronged, but other than asking the judge for leniency in sentencing, they did nothing to right that wrong—they rendered him guilty. The judge was no better, going so far as to suggest that the unarmed Sauceda should have been sentenced to six months in jail for, believe it or not, putting the police officers—who were armed to the teeth, no doubt—in harm’s way.

This case highlights everything that is wrong with the so-called criminal justice system in America, a system whose shortcomings are more often condoned by the judiciary than set right. Unfortunately, whatever protections we have under the law are being steadily eroded by legislation and court rulings that render the individual completely defenseless against the encroachments of the state. In a very real sense, we truly are back to where we started in those pre-Revolutionary War days, seemingly having learned next to nothing from those early days of tyranny at the hands of the British crown.

We are once again being subjected to broad search warrants, government agents trespassing on property without regard for the rights of owners and the blurring of all distinctions—for purposes of searches and seizures—between what is private and public property. Once again, the courts and state legislatures are seen to favor the interests of government officials, especially law enforcement, even if it comes at the expense of civil liberties. Indeed, there is no true justice in a court system where the judge, the prosecutor and the police form a triad against the accused. And once again, Americans are finding themselves underrepresented, overtaxed and forced at gunpoint, practically, to dance to the government’s tune. The similarities to pre-Revolutionary America are startling.

As government invariably oversteps its authority, Americans are faced with the pressing need to maintain the Constitution’s checks against governmental power and abuse. After all, it was not idle rhetoric that prompted the framers of the Constitution to begin with the words “We the people.”

We must remember that our freedoms were created with extraordinary care and foresight, but they were not meant simply for the moment. Our precious liberties were to be passed on to our descendants indefinitely. As the Preamble to the Constitution declares, the Constitution was drafted to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Formally adopted on September 17, 1787, it has long served as the bulwark of American freedom. And we the citizens are entrusted as guardians of those freedoms. When we shirk that duty, we leave ourselves wide open for an authoritarian regime to rise to power, place restrictions on our freedoms and usurp our right to govern ourselves.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Huge Win for Free Speech!

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Texas Gov. Rick Perry citing that the plaintiffs, Kay Staley and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, had no standing in the case. Staley claimed that Gov. Perry’s call for a day of prayer for the nation and his participation in the prayer rally, The Response, were unconstitutional because they violated the Establishment Clause.

Liberty Institute filed a motion to intervene and argued in court today on behalf of the American Family Association (AFA), which is planning and promoting The Response, scheduled to take place August 6 at Houston’s Reliant Stadium.

“The dismissal was a total and complete victory,” said Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Institute president and CEO. “The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s attempt to stifle free speech and religious liberty failed miserably. Today was a victory — for Gov. Perry, for AFA, and for the First Amendment.”

Early this year, the Freedom from Religion Foundation was dealt a heavy blow when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed its lawsuit against the National Day of Prayer. The court’s ruling in the case, which used arguments Liberty Institute made in its amicus brief representing Dr. James Dobson, Citizenlink, and dozens of state family policy groups, proved invaluable in winning today’s case.

The Role of Law

The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Therefore, it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be “free to choose”.

The above is a summary of a thought provoking web article on the necessary role of law in preventing morally criminal choices. Abortion is one of those non-morally neutral choices. This behavorial choice should be sanctioned against because it does harm a developing human life. Government exists to protect its present and future citizens that perpetually creates it. Abortion is a threat to our most important right of all: our right to life.

The author also reveals the dishonesty of pro-abortion advocates. Their choice of terminology is a dead give-away.

Go to the website http:www.abort73.com/abor www.abort73.com/abortion/the_role_of_law to read the article.

A National Family Portrait

In the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF)’s new report on The State of America’s Children 2011, we give a comprehensive overview on the well-being of America’s children. But just who are America’s children and families today? Children make up almost one in four of the people living in the United States today. More than one-quarter of our nation’s children are young-infants, toddlers, or preschoolers. They are the poorest age group in America. And the younger they are the poorer they are-cheating them in the years of greatest brain development. In on child population and family structure we take a closer look, and a national child and family portrait begins to emerge.

One of the most striking facts about America’s children is the rapidly blurring distinction between who is a “minority” child and who is in the “majority.” Today, almost 45 percent of America’s young are children of color, and by 2019-just eight years away-they will be the majority of our child population. In fact, the majority of children are already children of color in the District of Columbia and nine states-Hawaii, New Mexico, California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Maryland, and Georgia. Of the 74.5 million children in America, 41.2 million (55.3%) are White, non-Hispanic; 16.8 million (22.5%) are Hispanic; 11.3 million (15.1%) are Black; 3.5 million (4.7%) are Asian/Pacific Islander; and 951,000 (1.3%) are American Indian/Alaska Native. The number of Hispanic children has increased every year since 1980, rising from 5.3 million in 1980 to 17 million in 2009. The number of White children has decreased every year since 1994, and the number of Black children has remained steady over the past two decades.

Behind these numbers and statistics is an urgent call to action. Throughout America’s history and still today, children’s life chances have always been unequal based on color, although God did not make two classes of children and every child is sacred. But practicality will force what morality has been unable to achieve. We can’t afford to keep leaving whole groups of children of color behind who are becoming our nation’s majority without condemning our entire nation to failure. Right now The State of America’s Children 2011 tells us children of color are behind on virtually every measure of child well-being. They face multiple risks that put them in
grave danger of entering the pipeline to prison rather than the pipeline to college, productive employment, and successful futures. Children of color are at increased risk of being born at low birth weight and with late or no prenatal care, living in poverty and extreme poverty, lacking family stability, facing greater health risks, lacking a quality education, being stuck in foster care without permanent families, ending up in the juvenile justice system, being caught in the college completion gap, being unemployed, and being killed by guns.

The multiple risks facing children of color are cause for great concern from us all who need to raise a next generation that can care not only for themselves and their own families but also our seniors of tomorrow. While today there are almost twice as many children as seniors, the national snapshot shows that by 2040, that gap will close. There will be 94 million children and 81 million seniors. Our children’s success in education and in employment will be essential to keep our society functioning, businesses running, adults teaching, and health care professionals serving everyone’s needs. Today’s children will care for all of us tomorrow, and we’ll be counting on them as the economic drivers of the future who will be raising their own families, assisting their parents, and investing in the economy and in Social Security to keep us all thriving. We must take extraordinary steps to address the crisis today-so we will have a generation who can succeed in life.

The snapshot of our nation’s families tells us a lot about where our next generation is heading, because family structure and stability make an enormous difference in every child’s life and impact the availability of resources-both emotional and financial-for children. Single parents often need extra support, and teen parents even more. About 70 percent of all children-but fewer than 40 percent of Black children-live with two parents. Twenty-three percent of all children and half of Black children live with their mother only. Black children are more than twice as likely as White children, almost twice as likely as Hispanic children, and three-and-a-half times as likely as Asian/Pacific Islander children to live with neither parent. Teen parenthood also varies widely; the birth rate for Hispanic teens ages 15 – 19 is twice that for White teens but just above that for Black and American Indian teens.

Taken together, all of these numbers paint a clearer picture of what our country’s children-and future-will look like. It’s clear that if we still want to see a strong, prosperous America tomorrow, it’s time to invest in a positive rather than negative future for millions of our children right now. There is not a moment to wait or a child to waste.

Click here to learn more about The State of America’s Children.

Freedom Index, Which Congressional Representative Protects Your Freedom

On August 8, The New American published its Freedom Index. In it, researchers scored the votes of members of both he U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate based on ten bills of Constitutional significance. The ten bills included (1) H.R. 2 “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”, (2) H.R. 4 called “1099 Reporting Requirement Repeal” that was also part of Obamacare, and (3) H.C.R. 35 was a resolution to defund Obamacare.

The House passed all three bills but the Senate only approved because of its direct negative impact on business.

Because the Freedom Index is based on the founding legal view that freedom is protected by the strict limitation of Constitutional precept to all other federal law making, a vote for each of the three bills received a For Freedom score and a vote against each of them were given Against Freedom score.

So, how do Greene County, Ohio representatives measure up to protecting our freedoms?

Steve Austria scored 100% on the three bills and 70% on all ten bills.
Rob Portman also scored 100% on the three pro-Constitutional healthcare bills.

The scores of other notable Ohio politicians include:

Mike Turner (R-Dayton) who voted for all 3 bills (100%).
Dennis Kuninich (D) who received a score of 0 and only 1 out of the ten (Libya Troop Withdrawl bill)
Sherrod Brown (D) did vote for HR 4 “1099 Reporting Requirement Repeal” and the only other bill voted for was the Ethanol Subsides Repeal bill.

It is also worthy of mention that only the above republicans voted for legislation to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.

To read the entire Freedom Index report, go to The New American website www.thenewamerican.com.

UN Youth Conference Pays Lip Service to Youth Concerns

By Nicholas Dunn

NEW YORK (C-FAM)   When a young person attending this week’s UN Youth Conference stood to ask a question and identified himself with a pro-life NGO, the moderator of the side event informed him that the panel was not interested in hearing his perspective. Such disinterest in discussion with youth characterized the closing meeting for the UN’s International Year of Youth, themed “Dialogue and Mutual Understanding.”

Weeks before the conference, organizers forced NGOs to limit themselves to sending five young people, despite the fact that many young people had already received their confirmation letter and made travel arrangements. A representative from the UN Program for Youth told the Friday Fax that because over 1,200 young people had registered for the conference, conference planners had to limit attendance and participation due to a lack of space and security reasons.

On the first morning of the conference, many young people showed up to register, confirmation letters in hand, only to be turned away. What is worse, the hall of the General Assembly was empty for most of the conference. Many of the young people who attended the conference were puzzled at the lack of attendance and participation from youth. In his opening address, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asked those in attendance whether more could be done for youth. His question was met with a resounding “yes” from the crowd. Yet many felt as if the UN was merely paying lip service to youth.

Often, moderators of side events allowed no time for interaction between the panelists and the young people in the crowd. In one side event on the subject of HIV/AIDS, entitled “Crossfire: a dialogue between young leaders and policy decision-makers,” five young people were pre-selected and given scripted questions. At many meetings, only ministers and heads of state spoke, while the youth in attendance listened.

Of the youth issues that were discussed at the conference, most concerned the “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR) agenda. UNFPA sponsored nine side events, many of which focused on promoting young people’s “sexual rights,” such as comprehensive sex education, the abolition of parental consent laws, as well as contraception and the decriminalization of abortion.

When SRHR advocates were confronted with questions from conservative and pro-life young people, they simply ignored them. At a meeting sponsored by Y-PEER, the youth arm of UNFPA, a young person in attendance cited data from the World Health Organization (WHO), which shows a 190% increased risk of breast cancer in women who use oral contraceptives for at least two years before the age of twenty-five. Panelists reacted with frustration at his use of statistics and discredited the information.

In stark contrast to the SRHR agenda promoted by UN officials at the conference was the overwhelming presence of pro-life and pro-family young people. The International Youth Coalition (IYc), formed at last year’s World Youth Conference in Leon, Mexico, issued a “Statement of Youth to the U.N. and the World,” which was presented to the UN General Assembly during a high level thematic panel discussion.

Nicholas Dunn writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Young Voices Speak the Truth about Human Life to United Nations

By Lauren Funk

NEW YORK, July 28 (C-FAM) The enthusiastic voices of pro-life youth from around the world dominated the events of this week’s High Level Meeting on Youth at the United Nations, drawing the attention of UN bureaucrats and delegates alike.

“I keep running into all these pro-lifers, they’re everywhere…in fact most of the people I’ve interviewed are pro-life,” a young woman working for UNFPA told a member of the International Youth Coalition as she interviewed conference attendees.

“We [members of the International Youth Coalition] were half, if not more, of the young people actually at the conference,” a participant from the International Youth Coalition told the Friday Fax. “And any people who spoke against us [and our message about human life] were adults, not youth.”

The International Youth Coalition’s “Statement of Youth to the UN and the World” was presented to the General Assembly’s session on Monday. The statement, which outlines eight principles based on the dignity of the person, was received with applause by the youth in the NGO gallery.

In addition to participating in the official events of the UN’s High Level Meeting on youth, the members of the International Youth Coalition hosted a “Youth Formation Day” led by a group of nationally renowned speakers, many of whom were youth, who presented to an audience of over 100 youth and members of non-governmental organizations.

“The pro-life youth who participated in the conferences’ interactive panels and discussions spoke with such passion, not staring at a paper, but looking at us, at the audience. The others [those who worked for UN agencies or related organizations] looked bored, like they wanted to leave and be done with it… they were not totally engaged,” another youth participant explained to the Friday Fax.

The International Youth Coalition also sponsored an event hosted by the Holy See Mission to the UN, which presented a view of youth that centered on dignity and living life in true freedom, instead of a life guided by selfish passions.

“Youth have a lot more on their minds than sex. Our youth are in need of a challenge to a life of true greatness,” explained one of the presenters, former America’s Next Top Model contestant Leah Darrow. Darrow’s challenge to the youth and delegates alike joined with those of Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, Meghan Knighton of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, and Jeffrey Azize and Michael Campo, producers of the critically acclaimed documentary, “The Human Experience.”

The presenters criticized those who painted youth’s future with bleak brushstrokes, insisting that the key to realizing human dignity is to challenge youth and all of society to live a life of virtue.

Archbishop Francis Chullikatt told the Friday Fax, “The young panelists beautifully manifested the important role of young people in transforming today’s society and culture through Gospel values. Their personal witness to Christian life is the kind of legacy that needs to be left for future generations.”

Laura Funk writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.