Category Archives: 1st Amendment

Continuing on a theme

Posted on by

As I wrote yesterday, Shelly Moore Capito won the ‘Pub primary for US Senate in West Virginia. She left an open House seat in West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District to run for the Senate. Four different ‘Pub candidates ran in the Primary to fill her 2nd District seat; Capito declined to endorse any of those candidate.

The winner of that four-way primary was the Tea Party candidate, Alex Moony, the former GOP ‘Pub Chairman for Maryland. Moony’s win once again exposed the lie that Tea Party candidates can’t win; he won handily over his other three opponents.

Moony had the backing of Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) and grassroots organizations throughout the 2nd District. A number of other Tea Party groups, including the Tea Party Express, congratulated Moony on his win.

***

Obama’s FCC has, in spite of widespread criticism and Congressional warnings, approved a Rule that, in affect, implements Net Neutrality. The Washington Post reports:

FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet

By Cecilia Kang,

Net neutrality protesters outside the FCC. (Brian Fung / The Washington Post)

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.

Smaller companies that can’t afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers.

Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

“I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future,” said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can’t allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

“I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed,” she said.  “I would have preferred a delay.”

The column continues here. FOX News chimed in with this article.

FCC to cripple the Internet

By FoxNews.com

The Federal Communications Commission thinks the Internet in the United States can be run at two speeds. Backtracking from an earlier proposal, the FCC now believes it will be just fine to let Internet service providers (ISPs) control what you access online, with a few exceptions that the FCC would police.

While this new proposal might not kill the Internet, as it exists now, it would certainly cripple it – at least for American consumers and businesses.

Multiple leaks about FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to the commission, which will be presented on Thursday, indicate that the agency would not allow ISPs to give preferential treatment – faster Internet access – to their own subsidiaries. But it would allow other companies to pay for faster, more reliable access. (No matter that such a similar restriction has already failed in the case of Comcast giving preferential treatment to its own Golf Channel.)

If the Internet does not maintain net neutrality, wherein all digital data is treated the same, countless businesses will suffer.

Unfortunately, there is no halfway approach to how data should flow over the Internet. It’s a binary proposition: Either access to the Internet is equal, no matter the type or size of the business, or it is not. Letting Amazon have better access because it can pay and because it is not owned by AT&T will not make the situation more equal.

If the Internet does not maintain net neutrality, wherein all digital data is treated the same, countless businesses – tech companies in Silicon Valley, auto companies in Detroit, health care providers in Houston, startups in New York – will suffer. And, of course, you and I will pay for diminishing service and be denied the option of choosing what we want to read, view and listen to at faster speeds.

Representatives of the country’s largest ISPs are claiming that the one solution to preserving net neutrality in the U.S. – legally classifying broadband Internet utilities as utilities – “would threaten new investment in broadband infrastructure and jeopardize the spread of broadband technology across America, holding back Internet speeds and ultimately deepening the digital divide.” That’s according to a press release attached to a letter signed by Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus and Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the first place, those companies are proposing to introduce their own digital divide, in which consumers would have no choice. Faster, more reliable Internet access would be granted only to those companies that would pay AT&T, Time Warner, et al. Want better access to your child’s school website? Too bad, Verizon will say no – unless the school can fork over the kind of fees that an Amazon or Facebook would pay. Thus, the digital divide would grow exponentially if these CEOs have their way. 

Secondly, there is no “threat to new investment in broadband.” Indeed, the situation is quite the opposite. There is constant improvement in optical switches, which increase speeds. And there is plenty of motivation for ISPs to upgrade: It’s called competition (can you say Google Fiber?). You and I pay dearly for these services every month, but if it’s not enough to run their businesses properly, then AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon should start charging subscribers more up front and providing better service. Crippling the Internet for their own profit, with no promise of improvement, is not a solution. It’s a disincentive for ISPs to upgrade.

Moreover, access to and the flexibility of the Internet have done nothing but improve under the de facto standard of net neutrality since the early ’90s. Suddenly handing over control of how reliably and how fast certain content gets sent to a few companies would kneecap the U.S. economy.

There is more to the article at the FOX website. Go and read it all. The reality of this move by the Obama government is to control the use, access and content of the Internet. If they can’t restrict the free flow of information by act of Congress, they will do so through the back-door via regulation. The real purpose is to violate the 1st Amendment rights of the free flow of news and information.

Facebook

Supremes Support Free Speech and the 1st Amendment

Posted on by

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that individual free speech and the 1st Amendment trumps the federal government when it comes to campaign contributions. The government’s claim of the need to constrain ‘possible’ corruption had no bearing when it comes to Free Speech and the 1st Amendment, SCOTUS said.

Chief Justice John Roberts said, “The limits deny the individual all ability to exercise his expressive and associational rights by contributing to someone who will advocate for his policy preferences.” He continued saying, “A donor must limit the number of candidates he supports, and may have to choose which of several policy concerns he will advance — clear First Amendment harms that the dissent never acknowledges.”

Supreme Court strikes down overall limit on campaign giving

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Updated: 10:42 a.m. on Wednesday, April 2, 2014

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2008/06/25/Scotus__s640x437.jpg?0b3c56ae09cce99e3ed6854568a9f1d389f85d9c

The US Supreme Court

The ruling is certain to reignite a debate over the role of money in politics and it enraged Democrats, who argue that conservatives are dismantling the campaign finance system one ruling at a time.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the controlling opinion in the 5-4 ruling, said that while the government has an interest in preventing corruption of federal officeholders, individuals have political rights that include being able to give to as many candidates as they want, in order to show support.

The four liberal Justices called the ruling, “devastating to democracy.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing the dissent, believes that removing the limits for individual contributions leads to corruption. On the other hand, Justice Breyer has no problem with the multiple liberal PACs created by George Soros.

You can read more by following the links above.

***

Speaking of George Soros, here is a news-bit about him from the daily FOX Newsletter.

COURT SAYS DEM PATRON SOROS ON THE HOOK FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT CLAIM
New York Daily News: “George Soros’ South American ex-squeeze can sue him for alleged assault and battery stemming from a bedroom brawl in 2010, [a New York appeals court] ruled Tuesday, upholding part of a lower court’s decision. But the panel tossed Adriana Ferreyr’s attempt to go after the billionaire hedge fund manager for infliction of emotional distress, a part of her suit that had previously been upheld by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Debra James. In effect, the Appellate judges narrowed the focus of the case the Brazilian TV soap actress brought against Soros in 2010, when she sued him for breaking his promise to buy her a $1.9 million condo on E. 85th St. in Manhattan.”

Facebook

Peace…for our time

Posted on by

In 1938, after Germany invaded and incorporated Czechoslovakia into the German Reich, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany to make an agreement with Adolf Hitler to end Germany’s expansion in Europe. On his return to London, Chamberlain gave his famous speech saying he had gained, “peace for a time.”

barack_chamberlainOver the weekend, Obama announced an agreement created by Sec’y of State John Kerry with Iran to “halt” their nuclear weapons program. Of course, the agreement has no teeth and leaves Israel swinging, alone, in the breeze. As a consequence, Saudia Arabia, fearing a nuclear Iran, is in the process of buying some nukes of their own from Pakistan. The Saudis have split with Washington over the justifiable fear that if attacked by Iran, the US would do nothing.

Yes, peace…for a time. A year after Neville Chamberlain made his famous speech, Britain was at war with Germany. The events of this last week leads me to wonder what the coming year will bring in the Middle East. Israel has never announced whether it has nuclear weapons, nor has Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that would allow outside inspectors to see if Israel really had any. That aside, some sources estimate that Israel has approximately 90 nuclear weapons with enough material to manufacture 150-200 more on short notice.

***

Obamacare is heading back to SCOTUS again. This time for possible violations of the First Amendment. Obamacare requires individuals and corporations to buy and provide birth control for themselves and their employees regardless of religious opposition. Hobby Lobby has filed suit and that suit is going to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court to decide whether to review ObamaCare contraception mandate

Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  President Barack Obama’s health care law is headed for a new Supreme Court showdown over companies’ religious objections to the law’s birth-control mandate.

Amid the troubled rollout of the health law, and 17 months after the justices upheld it, the Obama administration is defending a provision that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.

Roughly 40 for-profit companies have sued, arguing they should not be forced to cover some or all forms of birth control because doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

Both sides want the justices to settle an issue that has divided lower courts. The high court could announce its decision whether to take up the topic as early as Tuesday, following its closed-door meeting.

Arguments probably would take place in late March with a decision expected in late June.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate “personhood,” saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.

The administration wants the court to hear its appeal of the Denver-based federal appeals court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain that calls itself a “biblically founded business” and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance. The Green family, Hobby Lobby’s owners, also owns the Mardel Christian bookstore chain.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said corporations can be protected by the 1993 law in the same manner as individuals, and “that the contraceptive-coverage requirement substantially burdens Hobby Lobby and Mardel’s rights under” the law.

In its Supreme Court brief, the administration said the appeals court ruling was wrong and, if allowed to stand would make the law “a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws.”

In two other cases, courts ruled for the administration. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets, is owned by a Mennonite family. Autocam Corp. is a Michigan-based maker of auto parts and medical devices that employs more than 650 people in the U.S.

The companies that have sued over the mandate have objections to different forms of birth control. Conestoga Wood objects to the coverage of Plan B and Ella, two emergency contraceptives that work mostly by preventing ovulation. The FDA says on its website that Plan B  “may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg … or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus),” while Ella also may work by changing of the lining of the uterus so as to prevent implantation.

Hobby Lobby objects to those two forms of contraception as well as two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Its owners say they believe life begins at conception, and they oppose only birth control methods that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, but not other forms of contraception.

Autocam doesn’t want to pay for any contraception for its employees because of its owners’ Roman Catholic beliefs.

The article continues at the website. You can read it here.

***

Thanksgiving is just around the corner. I wish you all have a great Holiday.
Facebook

TGIM

Posted on by

Thank God it’s Monday!  Why? Because now all the news that was hidden over the weekend becomes visible. It used to be, when the government, politicians, or celebs, wanted to put a low profile on something, they’d release it late on Friday after all the print media had passed their deadlines. Now, with electronic media, Drudge for example, late Friday no longer works. No, now they wait until late Saturday…and all those low-keyed items surface on Monday morning.

We have a local example hitting the headlines this morning. A democrat state representative from Kansas City was arrested by the Highway Patrol in Boone County over the weekend. During a stop, the Patrol found marijuana and paraphernalia in his car.

We shouldn’t be upset about this. After all, the law doesn’t apply to democrat politicians.

LaFaver to step aside from HDVC Chairmanship

August 26, 2013 / by / 0 Comment

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Kansas City Democrat Jeremy LaFaver, who chairs the House Democrat Victory Committee overseeing House races throughout the state, told The Missouri Times this morning that he will be stepping aside as chairman of the HDVC.

LaFaver was arrested Sunday in connection with a failure to appear in court warrant in relation to an expired license plate. He was then found with a small amount of marijuana as well as marijuana paraphernalia. He is currently out on a $310 bond.

LaFaver will be stepping aside, not stepping down permanently, sources close to the matter told The Missouri Times.

Perhaps LaFaver thought that since MJ was legal in California and Colorado, it was legal, for him, here in Missouri. I believe that thought has been corrected.

Missourians really should inspect their political candidates more closely. LaFaver’s qualifications were…that he was a “Child Advocate”, whatever that means. Regardless, his background didn’t include anything about the law nor common sense.

***

Mrs. Crucis and I attended the Cass County Young Republican’s BBQ and Fund Raiser Saturday night. It was a success. They raised more money this year than last year in the runup to the elections. Carl Bearden, Executive Director of United for Missouri, State Senator Ed Emery and U.S. Representative Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) were the featured speakers.

While I listened to the speakers, I thought of all the people across the country who are ignorant of the events that is driving this nation to destruction. They say they dislike politics. Many feel they have no power to affect change, so why bother?

I can understand those feelings. Some days, the antics of politicians enrage me and I have to step aside for awhile. But, I cannot abdicate my duty. The political world will not ignore me. I cannot remain ignorant, disaffected and inactive.

One day, those who have ignored the political scene will realize they are no longer citizens of a free country. While they dozed, ignoring politics, the nation slowly changed from liberty to tyranny. When they awake, they have no idea what happened.

The sad truth is that THEY happened. They abdicated their duties as citizens and thusly aided the tyranny in government, local, state and federal. People can ignore politics. Unfortunately, politics will not ignore them.

***

I can across the following article in my morning inbox. I don’t agree with all of it, especially the verbal attack on Sarah Palin, but within the article is a nugget of truth. A very large nugget.

There are some giggles in the article, parts will make you angry. The last few paragraphs are truth.

CURL: The Grand Old Party is about to go ‘Boom!’

By Joseph Curl, Sunday, August 25, 2013

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, the Republican Party will explode. When the smoke clears, there will be four (four!) new parties.

First, there will still be the Republican Party, sort of, but it will change its name to the GOPPPP (Grand Old Party Of Perennial Pathetic Putzes). The new name, though, won’t change the fact that the party has failed to win a majority of America’s voters in five of the past six elections or that it keeps running candidates even its own members don’t like!

It’s top contenders? Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida; Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas; maybe that guy who governs Wisconsin. You know, the polished politicos who say all the right things to get Republicans to like them, but who then go on to get slaughtered in the general election. Those guys.

Then, there’ll be a new super-combo-hybrid party joining the old GOP with the Democratic Party. No, not Republicrat — Demoblican. In this new abomination, there aren’t even Republicans-In-Name-Only — there aren’t even Republicans! There are just the truly enlightened public servants, here to serve us because they — and they alone — have been given The Gift from on high.

Sen. Rand Paul

It’s sole contender? Gov. Chris Christie. Sure, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will tease a Demoblican run, but in an epiphany, he’ll remember that his last name is Bush and disappear forever. That, of course, will leave the portly New Jersey pol alone, but don’t worry, he’ll debate himself endlessly, move right, then left, like John F. Kerry windsurfing, until no one has any idea which way he’s going. And then he’ll disappear forever, too.

Meanwhile, out of the ashes, rising like a Phoenix, will be former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, ruler of (you guessed it) the Phoenix Party. She will rally her millions of minions with a wave of her tawny tan hand and her powerful ShePAC will haul in $100 million in nine seconds. But then, even before New Hampshire or Iowa, the slog that is a presidential campaign will hit her and she’ll remember she’d rather be poolside in Phoenix (or more precisely, Scottsdale). And remember, one thing the former governor does really well is quit.

Last, there will be the new Constitution Party. And this one, unlike the others, will be real. The two combatants: Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, heavyweights both. The two men can flat-out talk: The Kentucky senator held court (and his bladder) for some 13 hours on the Senate floor, and the Harvardy senator has won just about every debating contest ever held in English (and Spanglish).

They’ll battle through 2015, then across the country in 2016. The eventual winner? Both of them. One will win the nomination, and pick the other as his running mate. End of the GOP — and good day to you, Constitution Party.

This scenario most likely won’t come true. But the Republican Party — and the country — would be far better off if it did.

More and more, conservative, core ‘Pubs are ready to move to Curl’s Constitution Party.

***

When states violate and ignore the 1st Amendment, i.e., the “free expression” of religious beliefs…

EDITORIAL: A bad picture in New Mexico

State supreme court tramples Christian beliefs

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Monday, August 26, 2013

Cherished American values are under attack in New Mexico, where the state Supreme Court there ruled Thursday that a group of activists should be free to bully business owners into violating their religious beliefs.

All five of the court’s justices told Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, that she had no choice but to provide wedding photography services for the “commitment ceremony” of any homosexual couple that asks.

They ruled that Mrs. Huguenin had run afoul of the law when she turned away a lesbian couple, forcing them to look elsewhere to find someone to snap some photos. Matters should have ended when the couple found a willing photographer, but we live in a society and culture accustomed to seeking judicial redress for the most minor of inconvenience. Here the aggrieved customer, to whom no actual damage was done, filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

The complainant wasn’t seeking a job at Elane Photography. She wanted to buy a particular service, and the seller declined. Such proposed transactions are refused thousands of times daily for a variety of reasons: a provider may have a scheduling conflict or the price offered may be too low. Often, the “Gosh, I’d love to, but I’m all booked up” excuse is offered as a polite way of saying a firm would just rather not accept that assignment.

It makes sense for a business to sell as much of its products or services to as many people as want them, but if a baker decides, for example, to sell only 12 loaves of rye bread a day, that’s his choice. There’s no need for the government to step in and dictate the terms of sale.

Important issues of religious freedom can be at stake when bureaucrats intervene in the marketplace. A kosher butcher should not be required by the state to handle and sell pork products because one customer has a craving for bacon. A Hindu grocer, professing vegetarianism, shouldn’t have government come in and decree he must sell steaks and chicken to committed carnivores.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Richard C. Bosson peddled his judicial activism as an act of compassion and the price of citizenship. “At its heart,” he wrote, “this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.”

Mrs. Huguenin’s attorney, Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defending Freedom, found the court’s reasoning to be dangerous. “The idea that free people can be compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” he said after the verdict. “Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom.”

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is needed to overturn this misguided ruling and restore the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Compromise and tolerance shouldn’t apply exclusively to customers whose sole gripe is a momentary rebuff. Activist groups shouldn’t be able to impose their views on the rest of society simply because they’re able to come up with the noisiest protests and most determined lawsuits. Judges must not lose sight of the moral and religious views of business owners. That, too, is the price of citizenship in a free society.

***

Today’s post is getting long. Instead of posting another article, I’ll just provide a link to it.

When Mark Levin published his latest book, The Liberty Amendments, he released a firestorm. His book is an outline how to restore the Constitution, to add amendments that will constraint government and keep it “small and lean.”

Sen. Tom Coburn: We need a constitutional convention to take back our country

Go and read it. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has taken Levin’s book and is running with it.

Facebook

A Pitful Example of Citizen Apathy

Posted on by

I’m still upset about the Siege of Boston where various paramilitary organizations suspended the Constitution. They claim “special circumstances.” The last I looked, there was no “special circumstance” that allowed for the suspension of the Bill of Rights.

Some Presidents have violated the Bill of Rights. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Roosevelt did likewise and more during World War II. The FBI, under Hoover and later Directors, has spied on American and violated numerous civil rights as well. All those examples of pass behavior and their acceptance at the time, does NOT make it right nor in many cases, legal.

The Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, provides for the freedom to assemble—to gather in groups to express political grievances. Freedom of movement, the right to travel about at will without restriction, is not in the Constitution although it was in the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. Freedom of Movement was not included in the Constitution because the authors felt it wasn’t needed but was a fundamental right recognized by all.

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4] — Wiki

The US Constitution provided for Freedom of Travel between states via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the authority to regulate that travel was granted to the states rather than the Federal Government. Travel within the states was deemed to be a state issue according to several SCOTUS decisions.

[T]he Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] — Wiki

The result of this ambiguity is Boston on April 19, 2013. The rights of the people to assemble, to move about, to openly travel for whatever reason, is limited, according to law. Whatever government grants, the government can take away. We saw this last week in Boston. People were ordered to return to their homes and to remain there. Those who ventured outside risked being detained, restrained at gunpoint as the photos below testify.

Boston-No_free_passage

Boston-No_breaking_arrest_at_homeHowever, the Constitution, in the 4th Amendment, does say that people have the right to be secure in their homes. That right can only be suspended by a search warrant showing probable cause and to state specifically what is expected to be found.

The government forces in Boston did not acquire search warrants. One spokesman said there weren’t sufficient judges available and since they were in “hot pursuit” (four days later!?), a warrant wasn’t required. People were evicted from their homes, at gun point and without warrants—a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Boston-Alles_Geauf-2The tragedy of these acts is that the people of Boston accepted this violation of their rights. Some of us laughingly call Massachusetts as a “People’s Republic”, a reminiscence of the Communist governments of East Europe.

We’re not laughing now.

Welcome to the new “progressive” disunited states where the government decides what rights, if any, you may have. Mayor Bloomberg made this statement.

Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of U.S. Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ Following Boston Bombings

Apr. 23, 2013 8:16am

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the Boston Marathon bombings have created a unique scenario — one in which traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution must change. Rather than shying away from cameras and other security mechanisms that some view as infringements upon individual privacy, the politician claims that the most recent attack calls for a new paradigm.

As for those who fear government intrusion and express serious concerns about how these technologies and other policies could impede privacy, Bloomberg is sympathetic — but only to a point.

…

As the Observer’s Politicker notes, Bloomberg also invoked gun control while making his point about the Constitution and security. In connecting what he said is the Supreme Court’s recognition that there are some interpretations of the Second Amendment that give way to “reasonable gun laws,” the mayor said that the nation will also need to “live with reasonable levels of security.”

That—is the view of the left. Whenever the Constitution prohibits some act or desire of government, whether it is freedom to travel, to be secure in our homes, or to our right of privacy, the needs of government must prevail and the Constitution be damned.

I’m still waiting for the citizens of Boston and Massachusetts to protest these arbitrary acts by their governments. It’s been nearly a week. I’m still waiting.

Facebook

Boston under Siege

Posted on by

The Boston Marathon was bombed. The ones who set the bombs are either dead or in custody.  That’s good. But the method used to find them?  That’s another issue.

From numerous reports, most of them still waiting for verification, Government, by this, I mean the state, local and the Federal government, suspended the Constitution in Boston. I don’t remember any declaration of martial law in Boston, but that is what, in effect, happened. The 1st and 4th Amendments were violated repeatedly. In some cases, even the media was treated like criminals (should I cheer?) being forced to the ground at gunpoint.

For those of you with access to Facebook, you can view nearly 150 photos taken by individuals in Boston and Watertown. They are horrifying.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.471951542877595.1073741826.373523032720447&type=1

How would you like to look out your window and see this pointed at you?

Boston under Siege

Boston under Siege

This is what you can expect when the dems and liberals control government. When the search for Dorner was on in California, there was no lock-down until they had him located and then it was only for a few surrounding blocks. Boston was massive, massive over-reaction.

And, Bostonians submissively accepted this.

Facebook

but not through Observations…

Posted on by

That is a phrase I heard during last Sunday’s sermon. The essence of the phrase, Luke 17:20, is that God is not accessible through “Observations.” In other words, not through personal acts and ceremonies. In another context, viewing the events as we pass through them, the “observations” of those events and what they may foretell, the phrase acquires a completely different interpretation.

Case in point. Liberals and their democrat sycophants, tell us they revere the Constitution, that they only want to uphold its provisions. However, as we observe them, their acts betray their words.

They claim to support the 1st Amendment, but their actions indicate they only revere that part that protects their, not our, free speech. The other portions of the 1st Amendment is ignored. They ignore the religion component of the 1st Amendment by forcing religious organizations to violate their Church doctrine—specifically, forcing the Catholic Church to provide condoms and birth-control drugs either directly or though health insurance programs.

Not only does this violate the actual text of the 1st Amendment, the “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof,” it also violates that “separation” of church and state that isn’t in the Constitution but is contained in the Federalist Papers. In the first instance, Obama, in the guise of the chief executive, wants to force the Church to violate church principals. The governmental order restricts the  Church—constrains its ability to freely exercise the principals created through centuries of Church doctrine and canon law. In the second instance, Obama’s acts violate the non-constitutional separation of church and states by imposing political conditions upon the way the church conducts its internal affairs.

From another perspective, Liberals and democrats tell us they have no intention of violating the 2nd Amendment. All the months leading up to the election last November, it was a constant mantra from the left.

The courts, over the last few years, have been reinforcing the common viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment in that it was an individual right and the government could not suppress the individual right to own personal weapons. In another case, the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment also applied to the states. Other court cases on whether individuals have the right to self-defense and to bear arms beyond the threshold of their residence are winding their way, slowly, through the courts.

These court actions caused the libs and dems to be quiet on the 2nd Amendment until after the November election. Once they passed that hurdle, they renewed their attempts to suppress our 2nd Amendment rights—see recent actions in New York, Colorado and Connecticut.

What is yet to be known is whether the acts by these states violate the terms of the SCOTUS decision that the U.S. 2nd Amendment also applies to the states. I expect lawsuits to be appearing in all three states that these news laws violate the 2nd Amendment.

The point to all this is that liberals lie. They espouse how they revere the Constitution all the while planning to violate it at the first opportunity when they think they have a measure of short-term advantage. For them, it is not an issue of whether their acts are allowed by the Constitution, it is whether they can gain some advantage through politics or through the apathy of their opponents. Once an act is allowed to stand, it will be extremely difficult to remove it. Perhaps only through blood—the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists.

We maintain our personal freedom through Observances. Observances that are contained within the Constitution and by observing—and reporting, the acts of those who desire to oppress us. Constant vigilance is Observance.

Facebook