Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’
Posted by revkharma on May 8, 2015
OK, this is one of the things that has ground my gears for years.
The famous hoary old quote trotted out whenever the libs disagree with something a libertarian or conservative says in public that ”offends them”
Immediately they say,(harumph, harumph) “Well free speech is all well and good, and we all know that there is a First Amendment.
BUT….. We all know that YOU CAN’T YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER”
Then the speaker smiles smugly like the Church Lady, and sits back. The argument is over, and I win! So SHUT UP they explained.
OK, so the quote is not in any law, but was part of an introduction by Justice Holmes in a 1919 court ruling.( US. V Schenck) In that ruling they said a pamphlet against the draft that contained the phrases ‘Assert Your Rights” and ‘Do not submit to intimidation”
Pretty mild stuff, eh?
What is even more interesting is that the entire decision was OVERTURNED IN 1969!!!
(Brandenburg v. Ohio)
The ruling reversed a previous Supreme Court decision setting a new precedent for the “clear and present danger” standard in First Amendment cases. The Court now held that a person’s words were protected as free speech as long as they did not directly incite unlawful action
Court held that all speech,including inflammatory speech, such as in this case by the KKK, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The link must be there, the speech MUST directly result in the violent action.
So, next time someone says
Well, we ALL know you can’t shout Fire in a theater and gives that stupid look, the best reply is:
“Oh? What about Brandenburg v. Ohio?
Posted in Civil liberties, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, Politics | Tagged: Bill of Rights, Constitution, fire in a theater, First Amendment, Freedom, Government Power, Hate speech, Islam, Pamela Gellar, Politics, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on November 9, 2014
We have seen a new name floated for AG, Loretta Lynch is a prosecutor from NY.
Without question, she will be biased and partisan. That is part of the deal with this administration.
A few questions should be asked, in my opinion.
1. Do you support the current goals and plans to administratively refuse to prosecute immigration crimes, and will you support executive amnesty?
2. How will your deep ties to the Clinton Administration and your representation of Bill and Hillary Clinton during the Whitewater investigations affect your objectivity?
3. If presented with information and evidence which implicates those who preceded you in this office in potentially illegal or unconstitutional acts during the gun walking, or IRS investigations would you be willing to prosecute such former administration actors?
4. Will you state now, for the record, that you support a fair and neutral application and interpretation of EEOC and 14th amendment issues, and agree to follow truly race blind policies and practices while conducting the business of the United States as Attorney General?
5. What is your position on and interpretation on the Second Amendment?
Think anyone in either party would have the C O Jones to ask those questions during confirmation hearings?
If so, think there is a chance in hell of getting any of them answered?
Posted in administrative power, Attorney General, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, Civil liberties, condron.us, Constitution, Democrats | Tagged: Attorney General, Bill of Rights, civil rights, Clinton, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Obama, race politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 20, 2014
Feb 13, 1913 The United States ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Since that time what was introduced as a way for the wealthiest among us to pay a little more (sound familiar?) has grown and expanded beyond all imagination. Here is a graphic to illustrate:
(Source for this can be found here)
Additional outrage can be gleaned from such things as this:
(Found on Politico)
Rep. Jeff Duncan wants to know why IRS law enforcement agents are training with AR-15 rifles.
As chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee, Duncan (R-S.C.) toured a federal law enforcement facility in late May and noticed agents training with the semi-automatic weapons at a firing range. They identified themselves as IRS, he said.
“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?
Today during a hearing Paul Ryan in questioning IRS commissioner John Koskinen stated the following:
You demand that taxpayers present seven years worth of information, yet you can’t maintain six months worth of employee emails?
All of this (and much much more) brings to mind only one question:
It is time, if not well past time, for the IRS to be abandoned. It is time to repeal the 16th amendment and dissolve and destroy the Internal Revenue Service and all the dangerous and repressive government coercion it represents and creates.
Time after time, republicans and democrats have used and abused the power of the IRS to compel and control others to advance their own power.
It’s time. NOW.
Posted in 16th Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Fair Tax, Government Power, IRS, liberty, Political parties, regulations, Taxation, White House Enemies List | Tagged: Abolish IRS, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Federal Government, Freedom, Government Power, IRS, Leviathan, Opressive Taxation, Politics, taxation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 9, 2014
KHARTOUM (Reuters) – A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.
OK, Where is the condemnation from the United Nations? From western nations? From the White House? From the House or Senate? From ANY leaders anywhere in the world??
And one more thing:
“Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Note the phrasing ‘Granted… by the Constitution and Law…”
The words betry a mindset, one which is different from the original ideas enshrined in the US Constitution. At least originally our founding documents declared that our rights pre-exist and supercede our constitution and laws. Rights co exist with humanity, ‘endowed by their Creater’ and inalienable.
As soon as they are ‘granted by law, or granted by Constitution’, they can be removed or altered by law.
As we in this nation continue to ‘grant rights’ by government fiat, we move quickly toward a legal grant which can be removed also by law.
Watch out, we are moving toward the very standard embraced by the Sudanese.
Posted in Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Culture of Death, Government Power, islamism, Politics, religion of peace, transnational law, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill of Rights, change, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, Islamism, liberty, society, Sudan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on July 26, 2009
Over the last few years we have heard increasing debate as to the status of the United States of America as a ‘Christian Nation’. While touring the world and apologizing to sundry nations and aggrieved groups for the behavior of America throughout history. In his speech in Turkey in April President Obama stated flatly that
“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
He “carefully calibrated” his language, but clearly has internalized the recent academic ideals that the First Amendment bars all religion rather than preventing the Federal Government from banning them. While this has been debated, other events have transpired around the nation. The steady and incremental creep of Muslim Sharia has made strong and decisive advances into all areas of American society. Killings of young women have been deemed ‘ Honor Killings’, a terrifying combination of words which should defy understanding. Various universities across the country are using state and student funds to install ‘ritual footbaths’ to allow Muslim students to perform explicitly religious acts funded by the Universities. In a startling contrast, Minneapolis Community and Technical College has plans to install such foot washing stations, while at the same time it prohibited campus coffee carts from playing Christmas Music. The New York Times detailed the foot bath issue in 2007.
Recently there was a coordinated move in March of that same year in Target Stores. It seems that groups of devout Muslim workers in Target stores began to refuse to process orders with merchandise containing pork. Target switched those workers to other jobs so as not to force even a small conflict with their professed beliefs. Likewise, cab drivers in Minneapolis who were of Somali Muslim origin were refusing to allow passengers in their cabs who they believed to be carrying liquor.
In each of these cases we see a creeping accommodation to the beliefs of Muslims and thier expressed religious beliefs.
With all this as a backdrop comes news from New York that a devout Catholic nurse, with her objections previously on file in writing was coerced into participating in an abortion at Mt. Sinai hospital. The New York Post has details here. It clearly is not difficult to see the contrast. The act of permitting someone to purchase pork products is not the same as being forced to consume them. Allowing someone to carry a bottle of whisky is not the same as drinking it. Abortion has become a fundamental issue to Roman Catholics, and participation in the procedure is a grave moral issue to believers. Yet the Obama administration has moved to dilute and overturn previously established ‘conscience clauses’ which provided protection for health workers who for reasons of faith refuse to engage in certain practices.
No, Mr. Obama is correct. The USA is no longer an explicitly Christian nation. We no longer draw our moral guidance from the principals of the Founders. While not all were devout Christians, they never the less drew guidance from ‘ Nature’s God’ and the Creator. Certainly they were not motivated by the ‘ pillars of Islam’. However, increasingly throughout the country, due to an overdone sensitivity to offending, we are allowing those who practice Islam to establish themselves and their faith and it’s rules in a preferred place in our culture. No, we are not a Christian nation. But absent someone paying attention and making an effort, we will slide slowly and unerringly into becoming a Muslim Nation. The Communists often were quoted as saying that the capitalists would sell the rope used to hang them. Well, we are becoming so solicitous of those who would destroy our culture that we are willingly dismantling it for them.
Posted in Abortion, Christianity, Faith, First Amendment, Founders, Freedom of Religion, Islam | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, Christian Nation, Founders, Islam, Obama, Sharia | 2 Comments »
Posted by revkharma on July 16, 2009
There is so much smoke and mirrors, we never know where to look. When something truly important is happening, most of the people in this nation are too distracted to see what’s going on. This is by design. If the people who paid the bills knew what they were paying for,they would be outraged.
The most recent examples:
A couple of weeks ago, all media attention was focused on the ‘Michael Jackson Funeral’ seemingly the most important news on the planet. While that was covered end to end, all the 24 hour news channels wall to wall, the house slammed a thousand page ‘climate change’ Cap and Trade bill through with barely a comment from anyone. At the last moment, a three hundred page amendment was also put in place. This contained payoff money to just enough legislators to buy their complicity in robbing their constituents.
In fact, the ‘bill’ that was voted on did not actually exist. There was no single printed version of ANYTHING. But this momentous legislation was forced through with little notice.
This week we have the glorious spectacle of ‘hearings’ into the nomination of a clearly radical jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States. We are focused on her ‘Wise Latina’ quote. All the supposed ‘right wing’ media are screaming about that. All attention is on that throw away line. With barely a few sentences this canard can be dismissed and ignored. Then the legal geniuses like Lindsay ‘Grahamnesty’ from South Carolina can agree that barring a ‘meltdown’ he will vote to confirm her. After all, she’s not really a racist or a bigot. That would be the worst possible thing we could do to the Supreme Court.
The real issue is her appeal to international law to drive the Supreme Court. IN Roper v. Simmons, and Lawrence v. Texas:
Judge Sotomayor said, the court was using the foreign or international law to “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and . . . whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.
Another dangerous area will be Second Amendment law. Judge Sotomayor, has generally found the right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Legally this view holds that such rights do not pre-exist the Constitution, and thus can be regulated. In a ruling in a NY case about martial arts weapons, her ruling displayed such views. From Volokh, here are details:
In other words, the Second Amendment is not “a fundamental right.” The Sotomayor panel could have offered a legal explanation for why (in the panel’s opinion) nunchaku are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore a mere rational basis test for nunchaku bans is appropriate. But the Sotomayor court did not do so. To the contrary, the Sotomayor per curiam opinion treats any Second Amendment claim as not involving “a fundamental right.”
broadly held internationalist theory, combined with her incredibly restrictive views on the Second Amendment it is clear the real danger is not her views on ‘wise latina’s’ but her views on the US Constitution. But we will not hear much discussion of that. Once more we are told where to look, lest we see the freight train headed our way.
As important as that is, even THIS is something of a distraction.
While we watch the dog and pony show in the Senate committee room, the house and senate are once more ramming a bill through. This time it is to alter finally and fundamentally the economic liberty of every American. The takeover of our health care system by the federal government will be a complete alteration of the political and economic system of the USA. Once the Federal Government is installed as the guarantor and arbiter of each individuals medical care, we will cease to be actual citizens, and will become subjects. The level of control which can be exerted on an individual when the government controls the payment for and allocation of all medical treatment is beyond comprehension. There is no area of life which cannot conceivably be regulated by the government in the ‘interest of controlling medical costs.’ Everything from the food you eat to the job you hold, to your after hours hobbies can affect your health. If a central federal authority is ‘paying for your health care’ it can regulate, and dictate any and all activities which impact that cost, as it is now a federal interest. By legislating mandatory participation, they can then legislate mandatory regulation.
But the news is watching the Sotomayor hearings.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it.
We are about to– no we have ALREADY run off the rails. We are not the same country I grew up in.
Keep the Faith
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, corruption, deception, Freedom, Global government, Government expansion, Government Power, gun rights, International, liberty, nationalization, Politics, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, change, Congress, Constitution, Federal Government, Freedom, gun rights, liberty, Second Amendment, society, Sotomayor, Supreme Court | 5 Comments »
Posted by revkharma on May 11, 2009
Often in discussions with people the subject of expanding government power and the increasingly intrusive nature of government. Generally the reaction will be ‘eye rolling’ and defensive comments. “The government is working to protect us.” Or ” If you haven’t done anything, you have nothing to worry about!” Or even the complete head in the sand position of those who say it’s all just made up science fiction kind of thing.
It’s not made up, and yet people are ignoring all the signs as government continues to expand, increasing ever more intrusively into what used to be considered the private sphere. This happens over and over, and the courts, which historically were charged with ensuring that government did not exceed its Constitutional mandate, have surrendered and now are complicit with the expansion of government, and the contraction of individual liberty.
In what may seem a small thing, and to some, a good thing, a court in Wisconsin has just ruled that police do not need a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device onto a private vehicle, even if the individual in question has not been identified as a suspect in any crime. Even more appalling, is the assumption by the court that placing a device, on a privately owned car, parked on the owner’s driveway is not at all intrusive as a “driveway is a public place”. This is not a parking lot, this is a driveway on an individual’s private residence.
The end result of this is expansion of the government power to legally have unfettered ability to observe and track the private lives of law abiding Americans. Justice Louis Brandeis is famously quoted as having stated:
The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness… They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
This critical right, the right to privacy is vanishing and most Americans either are not aware, or do not care. We are surrendering more and more rights as we beg the Washington for more and more government cheese. In order to provide the free goodies which the politicians are providing, more and more of the wealth earned by law abiding citizens must be confiscated and distributed to others. As more people become wards of the State, more must be confiscated from the law abiding hard workers who are the last resource for government to drain dry. Gradually this is dawning on those who feel the increasing burden. Those who keep their hold on power by ‘redistributing wealth’ know that the entire house of cards will collapse without the cooperation, or at least submission to law, of those who supply the wealth. Once they decide they have had enough, it will all end.
Another lesser reported quote attributed to Brandeis is the following:
The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible retribution.
As the government continues, with the blessing of the judiciary, to cross clear constitutional boundaries, law abiding Americans are beginning to lose respect for government, and to replace it with fear. A nation whose citizens fear their government cannot long survive. Jefferson’s famous quote clearly applies here:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; When the government fears the people, there is Liberty
The balance has tipped long ago to the former. By the increasing application of the police power of the state, government has instilled a level of fear in the citizenry in order to maintain control.
There are several issues that will need to be looked at here. First, the court ruled that there is actually no issue at law here to prevent this. The concept of ‘curtilage’ and legal definitions of private/public access. It may be that this is an area not yet covered by law.
The Deacon suggests some interesting ways to get lawmakers to realize the seriousness of this. Spend a few dollars and get some of the devices. Place them on the private vehicles of police, or politicians. Then alert them that ‘someone’ has been tracking them. The moment some government official realizes that there is no legal/constitutional prohibition against such devices, you can bet that laws will be introduced rather quickly.
Or, should you find your vehicle suddenly is carrying some small GPS beacon that’s not factory equipment, the smart thing would be to carefully remove it and sell it on E-Bay or Craigslist. When they begin to realize that they are presenting profit opportunities to someone they are attempting to intimidate, the practice might cease.
These may seem facetious but at least it causes thought! We are moving slowly and inexorably toward a police state, and the vast bulk of the American polulation either is ignorant or apathetic. Those who pay attention must do something to stop the slide, or we will simply slip quitely beneath the waves of state control and into total surrender.
Keep the Faith
Posted in Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Freedom | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, fifth amendment, fourth amendment, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, police power | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 8, 2009
December 29, 1860 a resolution was passed in Charleston, South Carolina. It laid out the reasons for which the legislature was determined to dissolve the legal bonds which bound the state to the United States. There is still a debate over many things, the primary contention still is the ‘true reason’ for secession. Die hard believers still say the issue was ‘States Rights”. Opponents still ask the question: States rights to do what? In this they are casting the accusation of Slavery. In retrospect there is really not much debate, regardless of the noble intent of some, the bulk of the leaders were slavery proponents, and they were the driving force behind the secession and the war.
That is the muddied history which still clings to very word ‘Secession’. The war fought and won by President Abraham Lincoln would seem to have settled the issue of the right of States to secede from the Union.
If that is the case, then why have so many states begun the process of passing State Sovereignty, or Tenth Amendment Resolutions? The last several decades have seen a steady and almost unstoppable trend toward increasing centralization of power in DC, at the expense of the states, and individual liberty.
Recently there was a stunning landmark which passed with little notice. An article in USA Today documented a change in funding for states. The largest source of revenue for most states is now the Federal Government. We are rapidly heading to a point of no return. The DC Government will continue to expand programs, offering limited term financing for them. As the federal funding goes away, states will be forced to increase taxes on their residents to replace the DC dollars which have evaporated. They will turn to DC for more funds, giving away more and more control as they accept increasing federal funding for day to day operations. Once the states are completely dependent upon the DC government for revenue they will no longer be functional as separate government units. At that point we will effectively have the end of the United States, total replacement with a monolithic federal unit dominated by a central government. This will complete the process begun with the 17th amendment. The states are being made irrelevant by design. The founding premise, of Federalism is a notion relegated to obsolete textbooks, and most Americans have never even heard of the concept. Principles of subsidiarity are non existent in our nation. The ideas of Federalism, local rule, and self reliance have been replaced by a culture of dependence and Big Government control and reliance on The State to provide all.
It may be too late, but somehow some of the states are taking stock and beginning to realize if nothing is done, the country will be altered permanently.
At this time, more than thirty states have such State Sovereignty resolutions in process. The Tenth Amendment Center has a clearinghouse for information on the progress in various states.
The big question that needs to be asked is this: Once a state passes such a resolution what happens when the inevitable conflict arises. Just how strongly will the states fight to protect their rights?
And just how strongly will DC assert its powers? Will this become a new war, fought in the courts? Or will we see another brutal conflict, with states joining together against a federal government intent on maintaining a union by all means necessary, including force?
A potential wild card is the movement toward a new Constitutional Convention. At this point we are roughly two states short of the threshold required to call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Should that happen, all bets are off. I would bet that the current members of Congress, the lords of the two party system will do anything necessary to prevent such a thing from happening. Perhaps that’s a weak point.
It is interesting to see some of the maneuvering taking place recently. Several states have taken aim directly at the DC government’s infringement of Second Amendment rights. Alaska, Montana and Texas have passed or introduced state gun rights bills, which assert that any federal regulations are invalid within the borders of the state so long as the manufacturing and sale of said items remains exclusively within the state. This is a direct challenge to the many tentacles the DC government has extended via the expansive interpretation of the ‘Commerce Clause’. There is little question, should any of these bills become state law that there will be swift action to challenge them in federal jurisdiction.
As more states get on the same side, the media will be less able to characterize them as extremists
Ride fast and shoot straight has numbers and info on the growing movement. As you can see there is a large and growing sentiment among the various states. As more and more join, this will be perceived as mainstream, making it difficult for the media to describe all adherents as fringe elements.
We need to move on all fronts, using everything at our disposal to press the issue and to regain control of our government from the entrenched party structure that has simply bent government to serve their wishes instead of the goals of the Constitution. Much work needs to be done, but it is beginning to look just a little bit less daunting as more join the fray.
Keep the Faith
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Government expansion, Government Power, governors, Gun Laws, gun rights, New Constitution, Second Amendment, Second Constitutional Convention, Senate, State Supremacy, states rights, Term Limits | Tagged: 17th amendment, Alaska, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Federal Government, Federalism, Freedom, gun rights, Leviathan, liberty, Montana, Politics, republicans, Secession, Second Amendment, State Supremacy, Texas | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 6, 2009
Consider Ms. Carrie Prejean who, by all accounts is a beautiful young woman, driven and focused to win. Her chosen venue is various competitions, Beauty Pageants. She won the title of Miss California in March of this year. These contests, while playing up the angle of question and answer, community activity and involvement are still dedicated to finding and promoting physically attractive women.Certainly there are personality and intellect requirements in the modern era, as the contestants now are thrust into a media whirlwind as soon as their names are disclosed. They choose this life for themselves. The attention, pressure and constant scrutiny are a given, and any woman who cannot take such focus will not long survive.
There was a tempest stirred up when one of the judges of the 2009 Miss USA contest asked her a question about her views on homosexual marriage.
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?
Note of course that Mr. Hilton is known as a gay rights activist. (We will not discuss here if it makes sense that a gay man should be a judge of a female beauty contest) Miss Prejean gave a carefully worded reply which reflected her personal opinion:
Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
Let’s be clear here: This was a question in the “Personality” competition section of a beauty contest. She was asked a question by a celebrity judge, one who brought his personal baggage to bear in his judgements and influence. Miss Prejean gave a personal opinion as an answer, hedged her response carefully allowing that anyone could make their own choice, and moved on. Mr. Hilton however, would have none of it. On his personal blog, immediately after that exchange used a coarse term to refer to her, and stated later that he would have ‘ripped the tiara off her’ had she won. He also told ABC news that before that question she was the front runner, but afterward there was no way she would win
Clearly she was penalized for her spoken views. She made no mention of intent to force others to accept her views, to make them law, nor to prevent others from acting or legislating anything different. She has subsequently been the focus of attacks and a campaign to discredit her. All this because of her spoken words on a televised program in the United States
Consider also radio talk host, Michael Savage. He is a man of varied background and experience. He published several books under the name of Michael Weiner he has several degrees, including a PhD in something called “Nutritional Ethnomedicine.” His radio persona, Michael Savage, host of the “Savage Nation” rails on various topics, focused upon a mantra of ” Borders, Language, Culture.” He attacks liberals, and those he believes are destroying the historic culture of America. He surely does not sugar coat his views, and his show has grown to be among the top five radio talk shows in the nation. His language is blunt, his opinions are fiercely held, and he simply will not allow dissenting callers to win. Particularly since the 9/11 attacks, he has sharpened the stick he uses to poke into the eye of his opponents. He uses what his detractors call offensive terms to demonize Islamic terrorists, democrats and liberals in government, and essentially anyone who disagrees with him. His intent to offend and bring on attacks was clearly demonstrated by the title of his NY Times best selling book ” Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder”. He clearly relishes the controversy.
Yesterday the British Government published a list of “Named and Shamed” people who would not be permitted to enter Britain. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary published a list of names, stating that those named were barred from entry under a law introduced in 2005. The most famous application of the law was the prohibition of a Dutch member of Parliament, Geert Wilders,who had been invited by the British Parliment to present a short film about the dangers of radical Islamic terrorists. The reason given by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was that his entry might incite others to violence, due to his record of anti Islamic remarks and the film he was invited to present to the British Parliament.
On that new list just released is none other than Michael Savage. It seems the land which gave the Magna Carta to the world now gives blacklists due to ‘offensive topics.’ Mr. Savage has announced plans to sue. England, which has libel laws which are quite different than those in the US, will provide a venue which makes his victory quite likely. Unless, of course he is prevented from suing because of his offensive views.
We live in a time which is turning concepts of civilization inside out. Those who advocate for the destruction of our societies and government are given protected status. Those who speak against them are demonized and pushed aside, their views labeled as ‘too shocking’ to be permitted. Dissent is only allowed on one side of the debate. Political issues are supposed to be the area of free wheeling and open debate. Now, in the two nations which blazed the path of freedom and open societies, minority opinions are the only opinions permitted.
We are being pulled along on a path to disintegration by an increasingly militant left which is abetted by activist courts and compliant legislators. The Federal Government is expanding scope and influence and crushing the liberty of individuals and the states which originally formed the nation. Politicians no longer stand on principle, or ideas, they run simply to obtain, and maintain a seat at the table of power. This was amply demonstrated by Senator Specter’s shift to the donkey party from the elephants. He made no attempt to disguise his reasons, he has openly said he knew he would lose his primary this year, and changed parties to keep his seat in the US Senate. In the past, this would have subjected him to rage and a demand that he resign. Now it is greeted with a shrug from his constituents, and a pat on the back from his media allies and his new party cronies.
There must be a way for Americans who revere the founding principles of this nation to regain the momentum. We who believe that the Constitution was created to protect us from intrusive and oppressive government must find a way to restore that balance. We must look again to Thomas Jefferson:
“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”- Thomas Jefferson
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Banned from England, Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Civil liberties, Constitution, Democrats, First Amendment, Founders, Free Speech, Freedom, Government Power, Islam, liberal court, Michael Savage, Political parties, Politics, Senate, State Supremacy, transnational law | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Constitution, democracy, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, government, Government Power, Islam, Leviathan, liberty, Michael Savage, Perez hilton, rights, society | 1 Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 1, 2009
A scorpion scuttles to the bank of a stream, seeking a way across. He spies a frog and asks him to carry him across the water. The frog is doubtful, and asks the scorpion “Why would I do that? What if you sting me?” The scorpion replies, “I would not do that, if I were to sting you, we would both drown.” Thinking for a moment, the frog agrees. The scorpion climbs on his back and they head into the water. About half way across, the scorpion wields his tail, stinging the frog with a deadly poison. Just before they sink below the water, the frog asks the scorpion “Why…?” To which the scorpion replies:
“It is my nature to do so”.
(From Aesop’s Fables, roughly from memory)
The political pundits are whirling and spinning, all trying to explain or excuse the move yesterday by Arlen Specter from Pa. He has returned to the Democrat party which he left in the 1960’s. He has said coyly that the Republicans ‘left him’. He felt uncomfortable in a party which would not allow for diverse views. Republicans are stunned, and media mouths are dropping in shock. I can’t understand anyone being shocked. Mr. Specter has shown his sense of political expediency outweighs his courage since he switched affiliation in 1965 to defeat a Democrat incumbent for a district attorney position. Mr. Specter has always walked the walk of political survival. Recall his courageous vote ‘Pursuant to Scottish Law I vote Unproved’ during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Rather than take a stand and display principle, he managed to evade accountability. He saw the poll numbers and knew there was no slam dunk with either side, so he took no side.
In the same way he saw the poll numbers and knew he might not win reelection this time, so rather than take a stand, he took a leap. Only weeks after stating flatly that he was a ‘republican, and would always be one” he jumped to the other party, ensuring that he would now have some measure of power in congress that he could not earn in the minority party.
Republicans supported Specter in the 2006 election. President Bush expended much time and effort to help reelect Specter, and he made promises to help the republicans work toward their objectives. (Why would I aid the democrats? If I do that we all lose!”) He repaid the work and effort by giving his vote to Obama and his ‘stimulus package’ (Because, it’s my nature!”)
The Republican party was once home to bedrock conservative ideas: Small government, limited taxation, and support for the Constitution. Over the last decade or so they have drifted, becoming essentially a smaller version of the Democrat party. They agreed in principle that big government was essential, they just haggled over the exact size and goals of that government. In essence the debate was not over a controlling centralized government. It was over who should hold the reins, and in which direction the power of government would be directed. With two parties controlling things, the debate becomes one in which actions of ‘our guys’ is deemed good, and the actions of ‘those guys’ is deemed bad. As long as it’s ‘our party’ we are told to cheer for any application of government power, especially when punitively applied to the other party.
After 9/11, George W. Bush’s ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ was transformed into something sometimes referred to as ‘ American Greatness Conservatism”. This was merely a different mask on the face of an expanding State system. The thinking seemed to be that as long as the controls were in the hands of ‘the good guys’ it was not a bad thing to have Big Government. The flaw here is that in the constitutional system set up in the U. S. those controls don’t belong to a single party for long. And once the Democrats get hold there is no reason for them to slow the expansion of government, as they can accurately say the debate is over. Now that the party in control is all about spending, people like Specter can go along, join them and have no fear of reprisal. They will happily spend others money and reap short term benefits. Arlen Specter moved from one party to another because control of our government is held by parties, rather than by representatives of the people.
As I was mulling all of this, one more thing came to my attention. There are now stories that Justice Souter will be leaving the US Supreme court, giving President Obama his first opportunity to show his true inclinations and philosophy. The dominance of parties will be on display here. The leftists who now control the Democrat party will push for the appointment of someone who shares the deeply felt, but deeply hidden views of Mr. Obama. A clear indicator of his thinking is the nominee to be legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh. Mr. Koh is an ardent proponent of what he he casts as ‘Transnationalism’. This is a political theory which, if put into practice, would literally undermine the US constitution and replace it with ill defined concepts of multi- national, or global law. Such foundational principles as our First
Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, which he regards as an obstacle to America joining with the ‘international community’ will be pushed aside.
Writing for National Review Online, Ed Whalen gives us a preview of Koh’s stunning views:
As part of his general case for what he contends to be the “more venerable strand of ‘transnationalist jurisprudence’” over the “blinkered view” of a “nationalist jurisprudence” (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int’l. L. 43, 48, 52 (2004)), Koh approvingly sets forth the transnationalist view that
domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system. In Justice Blackmun’s words, U.S. courts must look beyond narrow U.S. interests to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and, whenever possible, should “consider if there is a course of action that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.”
(98 Am. J. Int’l. L. at 53-54 (emphasis added).
In order to ‘coordinate’ like this, there is only one path. That path is to subordinate, or abandon the Constitution, and substitute some form of ‘International Law”. This is not the same thing as historically understood, and agreed upon framework such as the outlawing of piracy. This is an entanglement of regulations and rules designed and implemented by groups similar to the EU.
If we allow this, we allow the end of the United States of America.
George Washington, at the end of his time as President spoke forcefully about the dangers of Parties and the destruction they could do to the new born American nation. We see his words as prophetic now, as parties run the government for their benefit, instead of the benefit of the people who put them in place.
I think we may have a short time with an open window here. Arlen Specter’s party change exposes clearly the raw power of parties, and their strangle hold on government and our nation in general. Perhaps we should encourage others, who have complained that they feel marginalized by the parties to leave. Instead of switching, they should be encouraged simply to leave and follow no party at all. It seems as if the Republican party is sliding into irrelevance. Let’s see if we can prevent another ‘party’ from replacing it, and instead have the American people be represented. If we allow another party to form, we risk the fate of Aesop’s frog, for we already know what is in the nature of political parties.
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights under attack, Civil liberties, congressional representation, Constitution, deception, Freedom, George Washington, Government expansion, Government Power, liberal court, liberty, Obama Administration, Political parties, Supreme Court, transnational law, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: Arlen Specter, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, dishonest government, Federal Government, Freedom, freedom of religion, Government Power, liberty, Obama, parties, Politics, Supreme Court, Transnationalism | 1 Comment »