News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Skip has been sounding the alarm on Democracy Spring, the latest (no-doubt well-funded) progressive-barbarian horde sent to pillage your constitutional rights.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, quoted here in Luis v. United States, also makes a case (IMO) for WHY the progressive left’s get-“outside”-money-out-of-elections fraud would violate those rights (emphasis, mine).
Constitutional rights protect the necessary prerequisites for their exercise.
ABC NEWS TEAM SHADOWED BY ARMED GUARDS: Has An Iron Curtain Descended On The Cincinnati IRS Office? Does a Free Country so severely control a Free Press? Last time I knew, no. We are often told, when we object to more Governmental intrusion, “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about!”. … Read more
For many, the answer is “er, somewhere in there”. For others, it’s an inside joke (watch and find out). I agree with the Professor – what has come to pass was never written at all. This is splendid discussion of what I have posited in the past – that perhaps it is time to bring … Read more
“Two billboards in which images of Native Americans are used to make a gun rights argument are causing a stir with some residents who say the image is offensive and insensitive.” (You can read the whole thing HERE.) It’s called the First and Second Amendments, all you politically correct chumps. This is still America, not … Read more
From Caffeinated Thoughts, long time friend of the Grok Shane Vander Hart reports on a court decision in favor of Thomas Monaghan and his property management corporation, which objected to the HHS contraceptive mandate on religious grounds. Judge Zatkoff’s decision protects freedom granted under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Thomas More Law Center, in their press release, … Read more
The abridged definition of “Freedom” is how many choices one can make, unforced and unfettered. I get to make the choice – not you and not Government. When you and Government starting making those decisions for me, that by definition, is less Freedom.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, was written solely because it was felt at the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, that the innate Liberties and Freedoms that were assumed to part and parcel of the Constitution of a limited Government needed to be specifically enumerated to PREVENT an attempt down the line for Government to override them.
And now we see this happening, as the Obama Administration is working overtime to rewrite the the meaning of the First Amendment containing our first and most important Right – that of the free expression of religion (vs Obama’s “freedom to worship within a set of 4 walls”). Rooted deeply with that free expression is the Right not to be forced to violate that – and in this case, the Right to not be involved in the killing of the unborn. But Obama believes that there is an unwritten and unemumerated Right to Government to tell people “this is the way you will think – and it will be what we tell you to think and to behave”.
Grokster Scott’s post was not what I was expecting and certainly the folks in the video were speaking their hearts. But in putting up some of the quotes, I think he missed one – and the one that makes the most importance, so I transcribed it. Rev. William Owens Jr., Founder, “God, Guns and the Constitution” start speaking at 2:07 (and ends the clip) has the following to say (emphasis mine):
This Administration is far from the truth. The agenda is becoming more and more obvious to all, that it’s a distraction. It’s a reason, an excuse to carry out an ideology that is more evident every day, every week that goes by, that it is anti-American. And when you touch the Second Amendment, you can’t become more anti-American because America would not be without her guns. And guns would not be necessary without her God.
We call upon Americans, both black, white, Hispanic; Republicans, Democrats, Independents and even those that are not of our faith to agree upon this: without God, without guns, without the Constitution, America’s end will come with haste.
For when they change our Constitution, they will take our guns. And when they take our guns, they will also seek to take our God. That’s when America will fight back.
All of what the Reverend says is true. Read that last paragraph, for that is what Obama and his Progressive perps are in the process of doing. Wilson, TDR (at the end), FDR, LBJ – Progressives all and made no secret at all that the principle reason for the Constitution was to limit people like them. Is the fence of the Constitution standing like an armored wall, or more like a bulging fence whose bottom is being pushed out more and more?
I DVR and watch the “Talking Head Sunday Morning shows” like Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, and even WUMR’s Closeup”; why? Somebody is bound and determined to say something stupid. Well, it is still early and have only gone through Fox New Sunday, but Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did not disappoint. In talking with Chris Wallace, the topic of gun control came up. Leaving aside her takeoff on why gun murders are so low in Japan (“noexplanation for that, except that they may have good gun laws”). Of COURSE, all acts of violence depends on taking her kinds of guns away from people she doesn’t like like. And she stands on the BEST part of the Constitution / Bill of Rights for “allowing” guns, too!
No further sales of assault weapons, what’s is the justification for an assault weapon? No further sales of those? No further sales of the increased capacity 30 rounds in a gun. We’re talking background checks which is very popular even among gun owners and hunters.
We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves and their homes and their jobs, where ever, and that they…and their workplace, for recreation and for hunting and the rest.
So we are not questioning their right to do that.
Sigh…shades of “Are you serious?” This women used to be the Speaker of the US House and now is the Minority Leader in the US House. Is it too much to expect that she’d get which Amendment speaks to what issue on one of the top issues of the day?
Then there was Stephanie Cutter (“Propaganda for Obama”) on This Week:
“They may as well attack me as well.” OK, battle joined – you asked, we’ll oblige: You’re an arse of a Libertarian for siding with Statists that promote promise threaten Governmental Tyranny against fellow citizens simply for holding opposing political views.
This is the first of a series of posts about Governmental Tyranny (or in this case, the threatening thereof) set this against the current Second Amendment Right battle being waged by those that would willingly disarm law-abiding Citizens. Sure, they say that they respect “legitimate” uses for hunting and some forms of sport shooting, but lesser respect for the use of firearms for self-defense. And when it comes to the real reason that the second Amendment exists, to be able to credibly fight against a tyrannical government, it seems that scoffing or demonizing (see our posts on the English wanker Piers Morgan strewn all over the ‘Grok lately) is in order using one of two arguments:
Here’s the back story: this stems back to Grokster Steve’s post on NH State Rep (Democrat) Cynthia Chase’s threat to use the force of the State of New Hampshire Government to screw over a group of people simply because this recent transplant from RI cannot stand that they want less government over their lives and her philosophy / religion demands more. So she threatens:
“What we can do is make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict freedoms that they think they will find here.”
It seems de riguer / all the rage for Democrats lately: “You disagree with me politically – thus, I shall destroy you personally. I will use Government to take stuff away from you”. As Grokster Steve put it “Sounds more like tyranny“. Rush Limbaugh agreed with Steve! Even the UL recognized the inherent danger in what she said:
A much greater threat lies in the dictatorial impulses of legislators who find it permissible to reshape the electorate in their favor through the selective dismemberment of our liberties.”
Dictatorial. The simple word for this is tyranny. And Grokster Susan got the tweet from NH State Rep (Democrat) Peter Sullivan that amplifies the Democrat mantra:
‘If you think Democrats are overstepping on guns now, wait til they get a hold of the first amendment!’ H/T The Looking Spoon
I’m so very tired of the intellectually empty argument from self-loathing (yet surprisingly haughty) Americans that “the Constitution was written by a bunch of dead, white, slave-owners” and that “the second amendment was written about muskets“.
Regarding the first of these two arguments: The Founders were the intellectual superstars of their time. Most of them were rigorously trained, from very early ages, in philosophy, mathematics, logic, rhetoric, writing, politics, religion, the Greek and Latin languages, and economics. Many of them went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton (College of New Jersey), or Columbia (King’s College) as teenagers. Many of them could quote, from memory, Cicero, Plato, Virgil, Horace, Caesar, and others. They mastered these subjects, and were some of the most well-rounded individuals this country has seen, or ever will.
Thirty of the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention were college graduates, all trained in similar fashion.
The point here is…
Wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people.
– F. A. Hayek, the Road to Serfdom
Certainly, Progressives believe that they have new “freedom not to be bankrupted from illness” with Obamacare – but are destroying the First Amendment Right to expression of religion (the HHS mandate, and opposed to Obama’s “freedom of worship”)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
and making others indentured servants to pay for it:
I have been getting Imprimis (a monthly commentary from Hillsdale College) for a while now. I had kept this one, entitled “Individual, Community, and State: How to Think About Religious Freedom” as it has a number of things to reflect upon: Fourth, the power of government, necessary as it is to maintaining a shared moral … Read more
Happy Christmakwanzukkah? How about Yule or Saturnalia? Whatever your winter solstice holiday poison may be you can bet your Establishment Clause and his eight tiny ACLU reindeer that the real winners will be the secular humanists and the flying monkey Lawyer-politicians that pull their empty sleigh, craven acolytes of the void, committed to pressuring anyone … Read more
Every Sunday, I DVR the talking head shows. This week was more arduous than most because we already knew what the topic du show were going to be: Newtown and the horrific event that happened there. Knowing, too, who was going to be on the shows, I heard exactly what I thought I would – call for increased gun control under the stereotypical Progressive rubrics of “Nobody needs that” and “I don’t know anyone that…” as if on their worldview, only their “acceptable” items should be purchased under some strange definition of “Freedom”. But that wasn’t the worst of it – my eyes nearly popped when I hear Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA, San Francisco) say the following on “Meet the Press” (emphasis mine):
Is this the way we want America to go? In other words, the Rights of the few overcome the safety of the Majority? I don’t think so! I think America is ready (on her intent to submit a gun control bill on the first day of the next session).
The “Rights of the few” – funny, I always thought that Rights were an innate part of the ALL simply because they are US Citizens. Perhaps I am just too old school for these fascist Progressives – I do believe in what the Founders wrote that our Rights are given to us by our Creator and Nature’s God and not just a bunch of legislators yammering away. Sadly, she is from the philosophical Left that only believes that when it is conducive to their argument of the day.
No, Ms. Feinstein, it is NOT the “Rights of the few” –
There’s a whole lot of yakking going on in the Right side of politics – what went wrong and “what went wrong” but really different. And of course, the various nostrums of what to fix and what to leave alone will be as numerous (at the least) as the number of folks yakking (EVERYbody’s got to get their two cents in, dontcha know?). For me, the standard of “never less speech but MORE speech always applies. Especially when this popped up from a Libertarian:
There also needs to be a question of “which conservative”? Conservatism as in “God hates Gays” and Christian Shiara law, or Conservatism as in small government and leaving the people alone. There is a huge difference between Westboro Conservatism and actual Conservatism.
Now, did you really think I’d leave that hanging in mid-metaphysical space? Hah!
Skip wrote about it yesterday HERE. It’s worth revisiting to see the updated comments. Brownshirts. In the middle off the night. On trumped up charges. With plenty of TV cameras there. This sucks. Our President does too. He is…something other than what a President should be. This is simply disgusting.
Glen Reynolds over at Instapundit is just.all.over.this Obama #FAIL and the way it illustrates the hypocrisy that ReProgressives and Socialists have between the words they speak and what they want you to believe about them, and the actions that belie those words and public beliefs, as he floats all over the blogosphere and reports back:
Compare Margaret Thatcher and Rushdie to Obama and Nakoula.
When Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa pronounced on him for a novel considered insulting to Islam, Margaret Thatcher immediately ordered a protective detail to be sent to Rushdie, who took him to an undisclosed secure location. They have been protecting him ever since. Bear in mind that Rushdie had been a severe and vocal critic and political opponent of Thatcher.
Compare and contrast to Obama and Holder’s treatment of Nakoula.
Indeed. Margaret rushed not just to defend a private citizen and his thoughts / speech (Salmon Rushdie) but more importantly, one of the primary pillars of Classical Western Liberalism: Free Speech. Sadly, it seems since that time, Britain has come to embrace a perverse version of Political Correctness in its stead, but at that time, Thatcher understood the power of Free Speech.
Frankly, so does Obama – and fears it.
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch Vetoed SB175 this week, a bill that would allow heirs to control the commercial use of a celebrities identity. But I’m not all that interested in the Veto or the bill, I am more…amused…by the hypocrisy in his explanation for it.
The Union Leader reports Governor Lynch as suggesting that this particular bill could have “a chilling effect on legitimate journalistic and expressive works.” That “legislation that could have the impact of restricting free speech must be carefully considered and narrowly tailored?”
Had I been drinking coffee when I read this I would have spit it all over my laptop because this is the same man who two years ago said he was willing to sign HB1459 which would have bureaucratized paid political speech by any business out of existence for fear of failing to properly meet all the requirements before “speaking.”
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…
Back to “Really, Judd?”
But what is the point, if you govern out of control, at cross-odds to Constitutional philosophy, once you get there, as the Democrats now wish to?
Oops, this time, its Republicans showing a lack of knowledge of Constitutional values – and respect as well. All I can say is that I am really glad that I’m not in NY (or my server). The Daily Caller has the story:
Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.
If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.
An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”
Yeah – their version of NH’s HB1704 (sideways) – we will silence speech, particular that which might be critical of others. The Founders had the equivalent problem of anonymous speech back then – only then, it was not computers and servers it was hand operated paper and ink printing presses (re: slow, laborious, and expensive). In fact, if looking at history, we might still be singing “God save the Queen” without that anonymous speech.
Oh, that pesky parchment that is the foundation for all our laws? Was THAT considered? Er, no: