Gary Johnson: We're Fighting for Fair Debates

FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson/Our America Initiative.


#LiveFree


#PushBack


#LibertarianRepublican



-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Change The Presidential Debates in 2016!

FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson and Our America Initiative.


#PushBack


#LibertyRepublican


#ProgressiveLibertarian


#LiveFree


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"




Our America Initiative

   

THE OUR AMERICA INITIATIVE’S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE, YET VITAL: TO REDEFINE THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT IN AMERICA. WE AIM TO RESTORE LIBERTY, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM AS THE TRUE AMERICAN VALUES, TO COEXIST AS INDIVIDUALS WHO RESPECT THE RIGHTS AND SANCTITY OF ALL PERSONS, TO FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ALLOWS EACH PERSON TO PURSUE HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL DREAMS AND HAPPINESS WITHOUT THE BURDENS OF UNNEEDED GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS.  

April 21, 2014

Our America’s new video

Just weeks before the 2012 election, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a poll showing that only 54% of American voters were satisfied with their “choices” for President.  A full 40% said they were NOT satisfied.

Is it possible that a significant reason for this dissatisfaction was, simply, that a great many Americans didn’t realize who their choices were?  And is that any surprise, given that the Republican and Democrat parties have gone to extraordinary lengths to convince American voters that their candidates are the only real options, despite the fact that more people consider themselves to be independents than Republicans and Democrats combined?


Letting America know that there are more choices begins with the presidential debates.  You can help here: Our America’s Debate Challenge


The most powerful weapon the two “major” parties use to exclude other candidates from serious consideration is their Commission on Presidential Debates.  Yes, that “Commission”, regardless of its official-sounding name, is theirs.  It was created in 1987 by the Republican and Democrat national parties, and is a private organization funded by special interests and run by a board of — you guessed it — Republicans and Democrats.  There is nothing nonpartisan about it, and they have made no secret of their desire to keep anyone other than their own two nominees OFF the debate stage.
As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nation’s dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates.  Allowing other qualified and credible candidates on the debate stage will dramatically alter the political and policy landscape — and we are committed to making that happen.


Our America has just released an Internet video as part of this campaign. Check it out here: Change the Presidential Debates, and share with your friends.


Our effort is two-fold. First, we are challenging the Commission on Presidential Debates in court, and second, we plan to inform and mobilize people from all over the country to let debate sponsors, the news media and others know that allowing the two “major” parties to control the all-important debates is simply not fair — and not acceptable.


To kick this campaign off, the Our America Initiative must raise $50,000 — soon. Please go to Our America’s Debate Challenge today and help us reach that goal. This is a fight we can win, but only with your help.


P.S.  Don’t forget to share our debate challenge video with your friends, and go to Our America’s Debate Challenge today to help.

Greg Palast & Alex Jones: Koch Brothers Exposed!

FYI - From Greg Palast/GregPalast.com and Alex Jones/InfoWars.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

A Libertarian Christian's View On Marriage.

FYI - From Norman Horn/Libertarian Christian Blog and C.S. Lewis.

#LiveFree

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

C.S. Lewis on Christian Marriage (in brief)

By Norman Horn

C.S. Lewis had some wise words regarding marriage in Mere Christianity:

"I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise [sic] that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Although Lewis was speaking specifically about divorce, one can see the parallels to the gay marriage debate today. As I have repeatedly stated (see here and here), what we need to affirm in the church is that we are for freedom of association, for freedom of contract, and for the independence of the church. My guess is that Lewis would suggest the same path in our situation.
Will Vaus, author of Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C.S. Lewis, also has an interesting post on his blog regarding Lewis’s perspective on homosexuality.

(HT Scott K. for the quote.)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's recent speech at the Rally for Democracy.

As a left leaning libertarian minded independent, many of my libertarian friends, will not agree with me on this, but I DO NOT believe that corporations are people and I DO believe that people have a right to organize. I say these things proudly! Below you will find former Rep. Dennis Kucinich's remarks at the recent Rally for Democracy.

#LiveFree

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 12, 2013
Liberty Tree Foundation

Dennis Kucinich Speaks at Barrymore

Dennis Kucinich and Ben Manski speak to Wisconsinites on February 12th, 2013 as part of Liberty Tree's "Shut the Chamber!" campaign kickoff (complete audio below, courtesy of WORT 89.9FM, followed by printed excerpts).

To hear and download Rep. Kucinich's entire speech (he begins speaking at the nine minute mark), click HERE

  Ben Manski: “ We’ve moved from the question of whether or not this amendment to the Constitution is possible, to whether or not it’s a good idea. We’ve moved into the realm of the possible. We are those who are there as the first to the fight, who make possible the change that other people later come to believe was inevitable. That is our role here tonight.

Dennis Kucinich: “ We understand our common ground, what all of us stand for, and what our common purpose is. We look forward to the day when all of us will have our rights protected. Our economic rights are linked to moral principles. The kind of moral principles that are bedrock principles upon which this country was founded, the kind of moral principles that animated the creation of our country, today we are seeing those principles destroyed, we are seeing the wealth redistributed upwards, we are seeing the destruction of the public realm, and we are seeing the destruction of democracy itself. And the fight is here in Wisconsin, because what happens in Wisconsin does and will affect the nation. What happens in Wisconsin will make a difference, and what you do in Wisconsin will make a difference. But let's go back, because this struggle which in some ways intensified over 20 years ago goes back to the trade agreements of NAFTA, GATT, World Trade Organization, they were all about knocking down the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike, the right to decent wages and benefits, they were about knocking down the economic conditions of workers, keeping wages down and the dehumanization of work. We understand that the forward momentum of these agreements were about breaking unions, breaking the public sector, redistributing the wealth upwards and a false austerity. Less democracy.

FYI - a VERY good piece by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State! I totally agree with this, and to quote the below article, "If a church hospital wants public funds...it should be required to stop imposing its dogma on those in need."

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Medical Emergency: Catholic-Public Hospital Mergers Can Mean Loss Of Services

JANUARY 21ST, 2011

BY ROB BOSTON

People should be able to access medical care without interference from religious groups.

There has been a lot of talk about medical care lately, especially in light of the House of Representatives’ recent vote to repeal the health care plan. Americans United doesn’t take a stand on that law, but there are aspects of this discussion that are of interest to our organization.

One thing we firmly believe is that people should be able to access medical care without interference from religious groups. In some parts of the country, this is becoming difficult to do – especially when public hospitals and Roman Catholic hospitals merge. When this happens, church officials demand that the public hospital adopt a series of rules that reflect Catholic dogma.

The Ethical and Religious Directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ban all abortions, for any reason. They ban the distribution of birth control. Sterilizing operations are forbidden, and a patient’s end-of-life decisions can be overridden if they conflict with church doctrine.

Yesterday, this controversy hit home for many of us at Americans United. The Maryland Health Care Commission voted unanimously to allow a Catholic hospital called Holy Cross to build a new facility in northern Montgomery County. The commission made this vote even though another hospital run by a group affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventists had proposed building a facility that would offer the full range of reproductive care.

Several people on the AU staff (me among them) live in Montgomery County. We were shocked by this decision. Our county, which is largely affluent, progressive and well educated, will be given a new hospital that doesn’t provide complete reproductive health care. I don’t believe most county residents support this.

AU Field Director Beth Corbin was at the commission meeting yesterday. For months, Beth has worked with women’s groups and the reproductive rights community to persuade the commission to back the Adventist option.

After the vote, Corbin told The Washington Post that the fight isn’t over. Legal action is being considered.

Americans United, The Post noted, “was among several advocacy groups that filed a lawsuit under similar circumstances in Florida a decade ago over the operation of a public hospital under Catholic religious doctrines. The case was settled out of court; the hospital no longer operates under Catholic directives.” (See more about that case here.)

The Post noted in a Jan. 19 story that this issue is sparking controversy all over the country. In a case from Arizona, Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix stripped St. Joseph’s Hospital of its Catholic affiliation after doctors performed an abortion to save a woman’s life.

In Oregon, a Catholic hospital lost its religious affiliation after doctors said they would refuse to stop performing tubal ligations on women who requested them.

I’m glad medical professionals at those hospitals stood up to church authorities, but many others simply buckle under and discontinue the services. This happens even though Catholic hospitals often receive public support. The new hospital in Montgomery County, for example, is being built on county-owned land.

What’s especially frustrating about this is that the people being denied these services – rape victims, poor women, those facing terminal illness – are already in exceedingly difficult positions. Instead of getting the services they need, they end up surrounded by inflexible church teachings.

There is a better way: If a church hospital wants public funds and support, it should be required to stop imposing its dogma on those in need.

FYI - From Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, http://www.au.org

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Montana Allows God-Talk At School Graduation

January 2011 AU Bulletin

A public school violated the First Amendment rights of a student when it forbade her from acknowledging God and Christ in her 2008 commencement remarks, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled. 

The court, in a 6-1 vote, held that a public school would not have violated church-state separation if it allowed student Renee Griffith to discuss her religious beliefs during a valedictorian address. By preventing her from going forward, the school infringed on the student’s free speech rights, the court said.

Griffith planned to mention her religious convictions in the speech by stating, “I didn’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me…. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him.”

Prior to the commencement ceremony, Griffith was asked by the school to remove the religious language.

Justice William Leaphart, in his dissent to the Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1 decision, argued that public school was right to consider the student’s remarks a church-state concern.

“Attendance at a high school graduation is compulsory,” he wrote. “The speakers chosen by the school clearly have a ‘captive’ audience. The student body of a public school is presumably very diverse with a mix of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics, many of whom would resent being required to attend a ceremony in which Christ and His love was being shared with those present in the captive audience.”

FYI - From Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, http://www.au.org

Pledge Of Allegiance Law Upheld In New Hampshire

January 2011 AU Bulletin

A New Hampshire law requiring that public school students have the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day is constitutional, an appeals court has ruled.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the New Hampshire Patriot Act’s primary effect is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism. The law – which was enacted in 2002 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks – states that student participation in the Pledge is voluntary and students who choose not to recite it may stand silently or remain seated.

“In reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith or church,” wrote Chief Judge Sandra Lynch on behalf of the three-judge panel in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District.

The lawsuit was brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation on behalf of three children who attend the Hanover school district and the Dresden district in New Hampshire. Their parents, who identify themselves as atheist and agnostic, also joined the suit. 

The plaintiffs argued the recitation of the Pledge – with its “one nation under God” phrase — made their children “outsiders” to their peers.

Several Religious Right legal groups intervened in the case on behalf of the statute, including TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice.

‘Father Of The Constitution’ Opposed ‘Faith-Based’ Funding.

FYI - Some VERY good food for thought!


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Madison’s Mandate

January 2011 Featured

By Rob Boston

‘Father Of The Constitution’ Opposed ‘Faith-Based’ Funding

The “faith-based” initiative may seem like a relatively newfangled notion, but it’s really not. James Madison faced a similar proposal 200 years ago — and firmly rejected it.

In February of 1811, Madison, fourth president of the United States, had to deal with a bill Congress had passed officially incorporating an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia. Acting on constitutional principle, he reached for a pen and promptly vetoed the measure.

In a message dated Feb. 21, 1811, Madison – widely considered to be the Father of the Constitution – told Congress that he considered the bill a violation of the First Amendment.

The proposed legislation was no mere symbolic measure. In fact, it contained 11 sections and included detailed information about how the church was to be organized and what steps were to be taken if the minister resigned. It also authorized the congregation to help the disadvantaged and to offer schooling to poor children.

All of this state-sponsored entanglement in ecclesiastical affairs was too much for Madison.

“[T]he bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions,” wrote Madison, “and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’”

Madison went on to criticize the measure because “the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.”

In other words, Madison believed that churches don’t need approval from Congress to help the poor and to educate poor children if those projects are being paid for with private donations. And granting congressional sanction for such charitable endeavors, he feared, might set a precedent for public funding of them.

Madison’s veto isn’t as well known as some other incidents in church-state history – but it should be. Historians say his action is significant because it demonstrates that Madison, the primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, held an expansive view of the scope of the First Amendment’s church-state separation provisions.

Religious Right revisionists who promote bogus “Christian nation” concepts of American history are fond of claiming that the First Amendment language barring laws “respecting an establishment of religion” was intended only to prevent the designation of a national church.

Madison’s veto shows that he believed otherwise.

The House of Representatives apparently saw the wisdom in Madison’s action. Members briefly deliberated the veto after Madison sent the bill back to them. Two days later, they returned to the matter and upheld the veto by a vote of 79-21.

A month later, on March 2, 1811, Madison struck again, vetoing a House bill granting a plot of federal land to a Baptist church in Mississippi. He told Congress the bill “comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’”

Congress failed to override this veto as well. The House vote was 55-33.

Madison’s low-key persona and troubled presidency – he was in office during the unpopular War of 1812 when the British burned Washington – lead some today to overlook his contributions to religious freedom.

That’s unfortunate. A strong supporter of religious liberty, Madison celebrated “the total separation of the church from the state.”

What would Madison think of today’s faith-based initiatives? We don’t have to guess. Evidence from his own pen tells the story. http://www.au.org

The FCC Pushes To End Internet Freedom. - TAKE ACTION!!!

FYI - Our Personal Freedoms and Civil Liberties are eroding more and more everyday.  People, we have a duty to stand up and speak out because, if not and before we know it, we'll all wake up without any rights!   

Do you know which other countries regulate their internet?...Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and so did the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is the kind of company we want to keep. Just saying...

 Call, write, or e-mail your Senators and Representative.  Ask that they NEVER support such a measure.  If not for yourself, remember the less fortunate, remember your children, remember your grand-children.  Because.....


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke




-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
________________________________________________________________________________
*From The Washington Times:

FCC crosses the Rubicon into online regulation

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman,Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the "problematic" services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they're going to be mad. If companies don't act, they're just as likely to find irate customers who don't want their experience bogged down by others.

It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCCshould stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

Campus Bars Veteran Over Combat Essay.

What about this veteran's First Amendment Right?

FYI -
Campus Bans Veteran Over Essay!

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

TAKE ACTION - Using Sharia Law In U.S. Court Cases Is A CLEAR Constitutional Violation.

Friends,

In an attempt to uphold our Constitution and preserve Separation of Church and State, the state of Oklahoma recently passed SQ755, a constitutional amendment barring their state courts from using Islamic Sharia Law in deciding cases. C.A.I.R., the Council on American-Islamic

Relations, is challenging this new law. I ask that you take action and protect the Constitution. This is not an attack on Islam. It would be wrong for any religion to attempt to circumvent our legal system. You can contact the Oklahoma Chapter of C.A.I.R. by the following means:

• Muneer Awad, Executive Director (405)248-5853
• Nazia Khan, Opperations Coordinator (405)415-6851

Email: info@ok.cair.com

C.A.I.R.'s National Headquarters can be contacted at:

453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (202) 488-8787
Fax: (202) 488-0833
info@cair.com

If you choose to send an e-mail, feel free to use the e-mail below, that I sent, as a template. Remember, be respectful! This is not an attack on Islam. People have the right to practice any religion they so choose, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This is an attempt to

open a productive dialog, while voicing your concerns.

-ADY

_____________________________________________________________________

To Whom It May Concern:

Good morning. I hope this e-mail finds you doing well. I wanted to take the time to share my concerns about CAIR's opposition to Oklahoma's SQ755. As a tolerant and open minded individual, I am glad that we live in a country that allows us all the freedoms of speech, religion, and association. These rights are granted to us by the Constitution's First Amendment and the legally upheld concept of Separation of Church and State. This ensures us that personal religious beliefs will not interfere with our legal system or dictate any legal decision.

In addition to the Constitution and federal laws, by passing SQ755, Oklahoma took steps at the state level to preserve the Separation of Church and State. Just as you admirably work for a grater respect and tolerance of Islam in the United States, you must also respect the laws, practices, and freedoms granted by our Constitution.

Respectfully,

Aaron Yeargan

The 1st Amendment At Its Crudest And Most Hilarious! - STEEL PANTHER: Community Property!

This video is hilarious! I found it after listening to an interview with Chuck Liddell and how he is a big fan of these guys! And, thank you IceMan...now...so am I! Once again, I love my Freedom of Speech! This is funnier than Mohammed in a bear suit! Although I will admit....the lead singer has a little bit of a Silence of the Lambs Buffalo Bill tucked in vibe going on...lol!





PART 2

The Liberty Solution - with Amanda Owens & Mike Shanklin

Hello All!

On Wednesday, 6/2, I had the pleasure of being a guest on Movement Radio's The Liberty Solution w/ Amanda Owens and Mike Shanklin. It was their inaugural broadcast. As both a military veteran and Libertarian, I was able to give a libertarian viewpoint on different military issues. My main discussion point was the Snyder vs. WestBoro Baptist Church Freedom of Speech case. I hope you all will check it out, and tell your friends - Every Wednesday Night @ 10PM EST. You can listen to the show by clicking on the below link:


The Liberty Solution - with Amanda Owens & Mike Shanklin

You can also download the show for free, as a podcast, on iTunes by going to the Movement Radio iTunes page and searching for The Liberty Solution.

As I discussed during my time on the show, PLEASE exercise your 1st Amendment right and protest the WestBoro Baptist Church! They're nothing but hateful bigots! Their protest schedule can be found below.


WestBoro Baptist Church Protest Schedule:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html

Thanks,
Aaron

P.S. I hope to be back on Mike and Amanda's show soon to discuss military tribunals, enemy combatants, The Patriot Act, and Don't Ask Don't Tell. Now, for some random entertainment -

Islamic Jihadist Group Going After "SouthPark."

The creators of SouthPark are true believers in the 1st Amendment. Everyone knows that they push the envelope. Personally, I don't watch SouthPark because I don't like the content of their shows anymore (I grew up...I'm a Family Guy fan now...lol!), but I'm so very thankful that we live in a country where they have freedom of speech. If you don't like what they have to say, why not change the channel - don't threaten their lives!!! These extremists must have forgotten that the same sacred document that protects the creators of SouthPark also protects their American hating, 9/11 loving, pieces of shit asses!!!

-Aaron


_______________________________________________________________________________________


(CNN) -- A radical Islamic website says despite a provocative post -- warning the creators of "South Park" that they risk violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit -- the site is calling simply for protest, not violence.
Revolutionmuslim.com, based in New York, was the subject of a CNN investigation last year for its radical rhetoric supporting "jihad" against the West and praising al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its organizers insist they act within the law and seek to protect Islam.
On Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com posted an entry that included a warning to "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they risk violent retribution -- after the 200th episode of the cartoon series last week included a satirical discussion about whether an image of the prophet could be shown. In the end, he was portrayed disguised in a bear suit.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid," the posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says, "and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
Read CNN blog about RevolutionMuslim.com's post
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death on a street in Amsterdam, Netherlands, by an Islamic extremist in 2004. He became the target of radical Muslims after releasing a short film about oppression of Islamic women in Europe.
Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, told CNN it was meant to show those offended by the depiction of Mohammed how they can voice their opposition, including by sending letters to the South Park's creators. The group is also considering demonstrations.
The posting provides the addresses of Comedy Central, which airs "South Park," and the show's production company. A spokesman for Comedy Central said they had no comment on the posting.
Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the website runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have "defamed" the Prophet Mohammed -- citing one religious authority as saying "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that."
U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.
Al Amrikee said the purpose of including the al-Awlaki sermon in his posting was to remind Muslims that insulting the prophet is a severe offense for which the punishment in Islam is death.
The clip ends with a warning on a graphic directed at Parker and Stone, saying "The Dust Will Never Settle Down."
It's a word game, federal officials tells CNN, that allows the group to post support of terrorists, like the alleged Fort Hood, Texas, shooter, on its website. The website is protected under free speech laws of the United States.
"Certainly the comment on this website is very ugly, but it is certainly not specific enough to get anyone arrested," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.
Last year, CNN asked one of the founders of the radical group in New York to explain its philosophy.
Younes Mohammed chose his words carefully, telling CNN he saw nothing wrong with Americans dying in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack.
"I don't think it was wrong," Mohammed said. "I think it was justified."
He added, however, he does not encourage any violence on U.S. soil.
And Mohammed said he also doesn't see anything wrong with his messages -- he dislikes the United States and he yearns for a Muslim world.
"We're commanded to terrorize the disbelievers and this is a religion ...," Mohammed said. "The Quran says very clearly, in the Arabic language ... terrorize them. It's a command from Allah."
"I define terrorism as making them fearful so that they think twice before they go rape your mother or kill your brother or go onto your land and try to steal your resources," he added.