The Death of Free Speech

Let’s first consider the First Amendment of the Constitution:

“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.”

Let us further consider a quote from the noted French philosopher François-Marie Arouet (also known as Voltaire):

“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Over the past few months, we have witnessed the greatest opposition to the freedom of Americans to speak their minds that I can remember.  Vocal and violent protests to conservative speakers on college campuses only demonstrates the fear that the Progressive Left has for the rational and confrontational opposition to their point of view.

The fact that college and university campuses have “safe spaces” for their sensitive snowflake social justice warriors is a far cry from the purpose of higher level education to turn out well rounded, well-educated graduates.  Indeed, they are turning out mental and emotional cripples incapable of listening to and evaluating different points of view.  This trend of graduating emotionally mental midgets can be blamed directly upon the staff and administration of these colleges and universities, and indirectly, are violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” applies to any college or university accepting Federal funding.  As Congress approves funding for education (including colleges and universities) and cannot by law restrict speech, colleges and universities, by extension, cannot oppose the expression of ideas that may not be inline with their staff or administration viewpoints.  Accepting funding from a government source implies that that entity is now an agent of the government, and must accept the same responsibilities and restrictions that the government has.  (I know that businesses that accept government contracts/funding must conform to governmental regulations, and I see no reason for colleges and universities to be treated any differently.  My Google-fu is weak today, but I am aware of cases that were successful in proving that if government funding is present, then that person or entity receiving the funds could be considered acting on the behalf of the government, i.e., as an agent of the government.)

The Progressive Left has encouraged protests against hate speech, racist speech, anti-Islamic speech, anti-LGBT speech, anti-XYZ speech, etc.  Almost any speech is anti-something and must be protested against (although I have yet to see any of these same groups protest against speech that defames the Christian belief).  And yet, who determines what is offensive?  Therein lies the slippery slope that we, as a society and country, have been sliding headlong into – the political correctness trap.  From a 2013 post:

Here’s the problem with political correctness – the standard of what is politically correct is subject to what someone finds objectionable to their race, religion, and/or belief system. In other words, there are no absolute standards or limits to what these people would find objectionable.  Where this could eventually lead is a suppression of our ability to voice our opinions for fear of being publically attacked, and potentially charged with a hate crime.  Freedom of speech now becomes a casualty of “political correctness” and “hate crime” laws.

Dr. Ben Carson stated it best in his now famous speech at the National Prayer Breakfast:

“And one last thing about political correctness, which I think is a horrible thing, by the way. I’m very, very come — compassionate, and I’m not never out to offend anyone. But PC is dangerous. Because, you see, this country one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression. and it muffles people. It puts a muzzle on them. And at the same time, keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed. And we cannot fall for that trick. And what we need to do is start talking about things, talking about things that are important.”

The First Amendment does not define what is or is not hate speech, nor should Congress define it as well with the laws it passes.  However, Congress has passed laws defining certain crimes singled out as being “hate crimes” when in fact all crime is hateful against society – the circumstances behind that crime may be heinous, but should be dealt with within the criminal code without regard to whether the victim or criminal is black, white, straight, gay, etc.  That by itself is discriminatory.

However, if one were to listen to former Democratic Chairman and Presidential Candidate Howard Dean –

“Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” – Tweet from Howard Dean

– It becomes clear that certain people do not understand the Constitution and the principles that this country was founded upon.  For instance, if all hate speech (and by extension, hateful thoughts) were banned, think about the following groups and activities that would be outlawed and banned because someone, somewhere would be offended by their opinions and activities:

  • The KKK
  • Black Lives Matter
  • Blue Lives Matter
  • All Lives Matter
  • NAACP
  • All Christian Churches and denominations
  • All Muslim mosques and denominations
  • All other religions and denominations
  • Everyone with skin color (or lack thereof)
  • Everyone that is of Asian, African, European, etc. descent.
  • Everyone who is a different sexual orientation than themselves
  • Everyone who hates (or likes) cats
  • Everyone who likes (or hates) dogs
  • Everyone who hates (or likes) animals
  • Everyone who hates eating liver, asparagus, cauliflower, etc.
  • Everyone who likes bacon
  • Whoever doesn’t believe (or does) believe that Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is real and settled science
  • Put your favorite hate group / thought here…

A bit ridiculous, right?  And that is exactly the point!!

Limiting the ideas and opinions that people can express demeans us all, and limits our individual ability to grow as a person.  Yes, we do reserve the right to agree or disagree with the opinions expressed (and even to walk out & not listen to the speaker), but we do not have the right to prevent them from speaking or assault the person for expressing themselves.  Yet, this is exactly what happened to conservative speakers that were engaged to speak at college campuses in California.

The excuses given have been that the speakers “trigger” violent activities, promotes hate speech, is a racist, and a host of other charges.  But when it really gets down to it, it is not the speakers that are the problem, but the protestors.  By inhibiting the free speech that the protestors supposedly support, the protestors have revealed themselves not only as being hypocrites, but as being more intolerant than they have accused the speakers to be.

More is the pity…

Professor Glenn Reynolds had this in an opinion piece in USA Today:

In First Amendment law, the term “hate speech” is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist, sexist or in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories — like “true threats,” which have to address a specific individual, or “incitement,” which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action — it’s protected.

The term “hate speech” was invented by people who don’t like that freedom, and who want to give the — completely false — impression that there’s a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect because it’s hateful. What they mean by “hateful,” it seems, is really just that it’s speech they don’t agree with. Some even try to argue that since hearing disagreeable ideas is unpleasant, expressing those ideas is somehow an act of “violence.”

There are two problems with that argument. The first is that it’s idiotic: That’s never been the law, nor could it be if we give any value to free expression, because there’s no idea that somebody doesn’t disagree with. The second is that the argument is usually made by people who spend a lot of time expressing disagreeable ideas themselves, without, apparently, the least thought that if their own rules about disagreeable speech held sway, they’d probably be locked up first. (As Twitter wag IowaHawk has offered: “I’ll let you ban hate speech when you let me define it. Deal?”)

We have the First Amendment for a reason – for the freedom of expression, whether by our acts of Faith or speech, to disseminate those thoughts by talk or print, and to openly assemble to give a speech to voice those opinions, whether they are critical of the government or not.  For thugs to protest this right of others to speak while keeping it only for themselves shows that they, not the speakers, are the real Fascists.

PicturePicture

Pardon My Rant

I believe that the Democratic Party, the women marchers with their p***y hats, the student protestors, the Hollywood Liberals, and any other anti-Trump, anti-American persons needing safe spaces & safety pins should all join up and form a new political party called the WAH! Partytm  (WAH! stands for Whiners And Hypocrites!).  This appropriately named Party is all inclusive except when they’re not, accepts all points of view except what is not their own, and allows their members to make promises and promptly break them when politically or personally advantageous.  Nominees for inclusion into the WAH! Partytm include:

  • All the entertainers that stated that they would permanently leave the country if Trump was elected.  To the best of my knowledge, none of them have done so.  In my mind, they have lost all credibility in whatever they are saying.
  • The student protesters in Berkeley that rioted because a Conservative was scheduled to speak on campus, potentially melting multiple snowflakes in their safe spaces because someone has a different opinion than they do with the civil right to say it.
  • The judge in Oregon filing a stay order to halt the temporary immigration ban from dangerous countries, violating his oath to uphold the laws of the United States and potentially endangering the Citizens of this country.
  • Democrat Party committee members not showing up to vote on Cabinet nominees (an extra pacifier needs to go to these people).

wah1

  • Democrat Party members that stated that they would oppose any President Trump nominee to the Supreme Court, no matter who it was.  (guess they lost their safe space)
  • Various entertainers and politicians that have been harping that the common man sacrifice for the Climate Change Cause, but fly around the world in private jets and have several mansions which pollute more in one year that what the normal person could do in ten years.
  • The women that marched in their p***y hats and dressed up as female bits to protest the election of Trump as President (for saying something inappropriate years ago), the right to kill an unborn child (why?), and who the h*** knows what else.  Nothing that Trump said years ago could have equaled what was said or displayed on protest signs, nor the sad spectacle of B-list celebrities spewing profanity and threats – that protest also gathered a lot of press, but the marchers lost all credibility.
  • The Black Lives Matter crowd, who would rather celebrate a lie than embrace that all lives matter.
  • The Mainstream Media, who has it wrong on so many levels, from biased reporting to polls that have no reflection on reality.  To whit –
  • People who believe that firearms are the problem with Chicago’s high murder rate.  Try looking at the people committing the crimes first before blaming an inanimate object.
  • The Democratic Party as a whole – making and breaking promises and rules to screw the American People over, and to hinder the Trump Administration wherever possible.
  • Any and all politicians that will knowingly violate their oath of office to support a party position or for personal gain that compromises the safety, security, and well-being of the American People.  This includes those politicians that choose to ignore the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution.

I’m sure that I’ve missed a few, and I’m also sure that certain people and corporations will beclown themselves during tonight’s Superbowl.  Further nominations will be accepted in the comments.

Be well, my friends.

The Same Dance, Only Worse

Eleven years ago this month, I started writing in a personal blog.  Looking back at one of the first posts, I ran across this statement:

How a President and his wife (now a Senator) were able to avoid jail while they committed perjury is beyond me except for “connections.”

How things haven’t changed…

It’s also interesting that eleven years ago, Trump had a reality show, he made some pretty bad statements that were recorded, and he was a Democrat, and this was all after a President was impeached for lying about having inappropriate sexual relationships with an intern.

I cannot and will not defend Donald Trump for his foul mouth – he is the one that owns that particular chunk of bad manners.  He has made public apologies, and that should be the end of it…except it wont be.

The Media, always drawn to any sleaze involving Conservative or Republicans while ignoring the Democrats or Progressive/Liberals for similar or worse actions, will milk this for all its worth while looking for anything else to smear Trump.  It won’t matter how much the Hildebeast is exposed for the shady dealings, lies, and outright treason that she has committed, the Media will continue to shield her as much as possible.

And I cannot for the life of me understand why.  I can speculate, but I do not understand why the Media would support a person that does not respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the laws of this land.  For instance –

During the second debate, both candidates were asked “What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?”  The answer (in part) from the Hildebeast was telling where her priorities and loyalties lie:

“This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.

“Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that.

“I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don’t always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.

“I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you’re wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else.

“So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, they’ve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty.”

I would like to point out as many other people have is that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights did not figure in the Hildebeast’s answer to this question.  If anything, her answer – when carefully read – reveals that she wants to appoint Justices that will support a Progressive/Liberal viewpoint which is actually counter to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, despite what her follow-up response to the Second Amendment:

“And I just want to quickly say, I respect the Second Amendment. But I believe there should be comprehensive background checks, and we should close the gun show loophole, and close the online loophole.”

Her statement about the Second Amendment is absolutely false – she does not respect the Second Amendment, and has stated as much in earlier speeches and policy conferences.  She would, in essence, appoint Justices to overturn the Heller and McDonald rulings, and sign legislation such as H.R.4269.  What doesn’t get legislated away and supported by a Leftist Supreme Court, she will ban and confiscate by Executive Order.  These would gut the Second Amendment rights of the People without touching the Amendment itself.  These statements and strategies are all in the public domain should you search for them.

Back to the original response – Overturning the Citizen’s United ruling is a blow against the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and press.  Stop and think about that – the Media is for a candidate that is against corporations, unions (!), and other organizations stating their opinions by running ads against or for candidates.  If overturned, then could censorship of the Media be far behind?  Giving the Liberal/Progressive penchant for government control of everything, it’s not a stretch, and the media should be very aware of the company they are keeping.

A good example of this is the recent Obamacare fiasco.  Insurance companies are losing money hand over fist, and have petitioned the Government for assistance per legislation.  The Government is refusing, so the insurance companies are withdrawing from the exchanges, leaving many people scrambling for insurance.  There are several examples of the Government reneging on promises, legislation, or treaties throughout history.  Just ask the Indians…the Veterans…or Michelle Malkin (who just had her third insurance carrier bail on her).

To rely on the government for anything long-term is stupidity at best and insanity at worst. – Tom Roland, Equal Diversity

My friends, I am beyond concerned – I’m genuinely frightened at a Hildebeast presidency.  With the polls as they are against Trump and Republicans running for the hills trying for self preservation, a Felon in Chief is more than just possible.  We cannot depend on the Republicans to hold the line in the House and Senate against a Hildebeast presidency – they have overturned only one Presidential veto in the almost 8 years of an Obama presidency, and that was for a no-brainer.  The Republicans have been squishy at best, absent at worst, and ineffective most of the time.  But they’re still better than the Democrats being in charge.

In closing, there’s this from Mark Davis at Townhall.com:

There is plenty of fair criticism of Trump on the right. Some of his conservatism seems recently cultivated, and he has only fitful fluency in its language. Doubt is not unreasonable. And some of his pronouncements, from trade policies to the minimum wage, are soundly unconservative.

But his priority list offers a shot at conservative results more satisfying than we might have seen from perhaps half the field he defeated. Immigration, Obamacare repeal, a serious war against global jihad, a Reaganesque tax plan, job creation—if he bats only .500 on these, we will see a far better America than under her malicious stewardship.

And that’s before we get to the issue that will give the next president an imprint on America lasting until the grandchildren are grown: the Supreme Court. It is an unpardonable disconnect for any constitutional conservative to show nonchalance or outright approval as Hillary Clinton plots a savaging of the Bill of Rights.

So Trump is coarse. So he has said some offensive things. So he won’t mix well at George Will’s patrician cocktail parties. So he causes the elites to clutch their pearls and get the vapors. So what? We have a country to save.

And there are two kinds of conservatives right now: those who will take up the fight to save this nation from Hillary Clinton, and those who won’t. From the halls of Congress to the cubicles of punditry, many will be judged for years to come by their choices in the coming days.

And let’s be clear. Taking up the fight means taking up the fight. It does not include mere restraint from savaging the nominee. It does not mean playing Paul Ryan head games containing tepid good wishes wrapped in a refusal to endorse.

Taking up the fight means making it abundantly clear to all who listen that every voter should pull the lever for Donald Trump. Anything less leaves America’s door unlocked for the home invasion that will accompany the Hillary Clinton inauguration.

Folks, I don’t know what it will take for you to get through this election – clothespins on the nose, an ice-cream binge, Jack Daniels, or what ever else – we do need to vote for the one chance that this country has, no matter how uncouth or unpalatable their actions have been in the past.  And that person is Donald Trump, (and yes, vote for any and all Republicans running for Congress, state, and local offices).

Thoughts for the Week

Here are some thoughts for the upcoming week…

Republican Presidential candidate Governor John Kasich is a RINO.  He  has been anti-gun until 2015 (that’s when the NRA changed his grade from a “F” to an “A”), thinks that the Iran nuclear deal is a good one,  is soft on immigration, and supports Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Like all politicians, he says what we want to hear, but his past has been more Liberal than Conservative. He needs to give up his campaign and not play spoiler.

epa protest

protest

immigration

immigration (1)

liberal bigots

nazi and terrorists

am i islamophobic

liberal logic

protestors

Black olives matter

Emerson

conservative and liberal freedoms

the constitution