Tag: first amendment

Democrats vote to squelch free speech

8:31 pm

Fascists: The Democrats in the Senate tonight voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the first amendment.

Tonight the Senate voted 78-18 to advance the Democrats’ proposal to amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to prohibit or restrict participation in political campaigns. A number of Republicans voted to advance the bill, but will oppose it in debate and will vote against it. Charles Grassley said, “We should have debate on this important amendment. The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics.”

I call them fascists without shame, as that’s what they are. Their only reason for pushing this amendment is to silence their critics and shut down freedom, which is what fascists do. Sadly, there appears to be about 40% of the American populace that agrees with them. I call them fascists as well.

15 comments

Court rules in favor of rock throwers and thugs

7:34 pm

In a ruling today a court has ruled that the police have the right to curtail the free speech of Christians on a public street if Muslims threaten them with violence.

Let me describe what happened again that so there is no confusion. There was a Muslim festival open to the general public on the streets of Dearborn, Michigan. Some Christians wanted to walk through that festival holding signs and preaching the gospel. They were attacked by a mob. The police, instead of arresting the attackers, threatened the Christians with arrest if they didn’t shut up and leave.

If you doubt me, watch the video of that event, which I posted when it happened under the title The Stoning of Christians — in Michigan.

In essence, the court has sanctioned the heckler’s veto. If you don’t like what someone is saying, threaten them with violence and the police will shut them up for you so that you don’t behave badly.

16 comments

University of hate

2:08 pm

Shades of climategate: An activist has released to the public the correspondence from a Brandeis University listserv devoted to expressing hatred for conservatives, Jews, Christians, and anyone who doesn’t conform to modern leftwing dogmas.

More here. It seems that 92 professors, many from Brandeis but also including academics from other institutions, belong to this listserv and post there regularly. Many also signed the petition that protested Brandeis’s decision, later rescinded, to give Muslim dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s an honorary degree.

Read the articles. The language used by these so-called intellectuals is childish, simple-minded, bigoted, and hateful. It reveals to the world who they are, and what they stand for, and should serve as a warning to anyone thinking of attending Brandeis or who is there now: It is time to find another place to go to college.

Leave a comment

Lawyer threatened with disbarment because of his political views

9:42 am

Fascists: A South Carolina lawyer has been threatened with disbarment by his state’s legal agencies because they want to prevent him from publishing his political opinions.

Todd [Kincannon] is now reporting that the South Carolina governmental authorities responsible for governing the professional conduct and ethics of attorneys have decided that Todd’s conservative political and religious advocacy on Twitter, and elsewhere, is too offensive to be permitted, and needs to be gagged.

Specifically, Todd has written that the South Carolina Commission on Lawyer Conduct and the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel have informed him that his political and religious commentary is “unethical” to a degree sufficient to warrant legal sanction to the point of disbarment. … More specifically, Todd writes that these governmental agencies have threatened him with disbarment should he proceed with his planned publication of a book advocating conservative political and religious beliefs.

He has been forced to delay the release of this book, as well as stop posting his opinions on line, while he files a lawsuit to prevent his disbarment.

Leave a comment

Seven unjustified school suspensions

6:51 pm

Seven school suspensions that were insane and completely unjustified.

I’ve posted about most of these stories previously, but it is important to read about them again to see how completely ridiculous and oppressive they were. Each one of these actions was a good reason for everyone to pull their kids from these public schools, especially when the school officials who perpetrated these obscenities were not fired.

The first and third were especially egregious, but the third illustrates how best to combat the schools when they act this way.

Fourteen year old Jared Marcum wore a NRA “Protect Your Rights” t-shirt to school with a hunting rifle on it. Despite the fact that the shirt didn’t violate the school’s dress code, a screaming teacher demanded that he turn the shirt inside out. Marcum was then removed from class, suspended, arrested, and faced a year in jail for “obstructing an officer” because he wouldn’t stop protesting his innocence while he was being hauled away. In this case, 100 kids wore the same shirts to school as part of a protest without being challenged and the family lawyered up and got the charges dropped. [emphasis mine]

If one student is suspended for making his pop tart look like a gun, every student in the school should do the same. If one student is suspended for innocently using the word “gun” in conversation, then every student in the school should use the word repeatedly in conversation. If students and parents inundate the school with more examples of the behavior the school was trying to ban, the schools stop this insanity very quickly.

6 comments

Hobby Lobby wins

9:28 am

The Supreme Court today struck down the Obamacare contraceptive mandate imposed by the Obama administration on all businesses.

Despite the opinions of many on the left, some of whom have even threatened to burn Hobby Lobby to the ground for making this challenge, this is a victory for religious liberty. Since when in this country did the government get the right to force religious people of any religion into doing things that directly violate their religious beliefs? This rules clearly says the government does not yet have that right.

No one who supports freedom, however, should rest easy. The decision was 5-4, and with a Democratic Party today quite willing to put restrictions on free speech, we must be prepared for more assaults on freedom.

7 comments

Democrats rewrite their attempt to repeal the first amendment

9:38 pm

The Democrats have rewritten their attempt to repeal the first amendment, adding one word in the hope no one will notice that it really changes nothing.

This is the new language:

To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

The phrasing is slightly different than the original, with the addition of the word “reasonable,” thus making believe that this makes their constitutional amendment more palatable. It does not. What it does do is illustrate once again that the modernDemocratic Party is not in favor of free speech. 42 Democratic Senators have endorsed this amendment. As John Hinderaker so cogently notes in the article above — paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson — the Democrats “have sworn eternal hostility against every limitation on government’s tyranny over the mind of man.”

3 comments

At hearings in the Senate Ted Cruz sharply criticized the proposed Democratic proposal to amend and restrict the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

10:23 am

At hearings in the Senate Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sharply attacked the proposed Democratic proposal to amend and restrict the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Cruz even offered to replace the Democratic proposal, which would allow Congress to limit spending on political campaigns, with the first amendment itself. All the Democrats rejected that change, illustrating that they reject the first amendment itself.

2 comments

The Democratic Party’s proposed constitutional amendment to limit free speech.

12:38 pm

Fascists: The Democratic Party’s proposed constitutional amendment to limit free speech.

More than 40 Senate Democrats have signed on to a constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall’s (D., N.M.) that would fundamentally alter the right to free speech. Republicans are attacking the proposal, which would “give Congress clear authority in the Constitution to regulate the campaign finance system,” even though it has absolutely no chance of becoming a reality.

Key quote at the end:

It’s a reflection of today’s Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

It is important to note that this amendment is not being proposed by the fringe of the Democratic Party, but is endorsed by more than two-thirds of the party’s members in the Senate. It is in the mainstream of the liberal community, a community that increasingly relishes the idea of squelching free speech and blacklisting individuals because of their opinions.

4 comments

On Sunday the Bureau of Land Management arrested a man, after deploying snipers against him, for taking photographs of agents rounding up his family’s cattle.

9:10 pm

On Sunday the Bureau of Land Management arrested a man, after deploying snipers against him, for taking photographs of agents rounding up his family’s cattle.

On Sunday, the Logandale, Nev.-based Moapa Valley Progress reported that Dave Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, was arrested while taking photographs of his family’s cattle that are being rounded up by federal agents. According to the report, Bundy was violating an arbitrary “First Amendment” zone that had been established by federal agents. Worse yet, federal agents also deployed snipers against the man.

Since when does a federal agency have the right to declare the first amendment void in certain places?

One comment

A college that bans any guns on campus has also decided to ban any speech that mentions guns.

8:43 am

Liberal free speech: A college that bans any guns on campus has also decided to ban any speech that mentions guns.

Officials at the private university–which prohibits guns on campus–told The College Fix that literature promoting guns in any way, shape or form is strictly forbidden. “Gun promotion is contradictory of the university’s policy to carry on campus,” wrote Lisa Albert, director of communications for TCU, in an email to The College Fix.

The fascist nature of the left reveals itself more and more. They start out banning behavior that might be construed — if you are naive — as contributing to violence. Then they move to banning speech. Next, they will follow by banning anything they disagree with.

One comment

Rodeo clown forces decimated and on the run!

10:36 am

Rodeo clown forces decimated and on the run!

As every Constitutional scholar knows, the First Amendment includes a clause that strictly forbids mockery of the President of the United States, depending on who it is, and which party he belongs to. It’s in one of the penumbras of the Constitution, or maybe it’s an emanation. I always get those two mixed up.

Once again, the thugs of the Democratic Party are working to destroy someone, merely because that person happened to express a negative opinion about their Democratic president.

3 comments

A Texas high school cut off the mike of a valedictorian during his speech when he deviated from his approved speech and began to talk about the Constitution.

8:53 am

The new freedom: A Texas high school cut off the mike of a valedictorian during his speech when he deviated from his approved speech and began to talk about the Constitution.

The school absolutely has the right in this context to cut off his microphone. I just find it a terrible approach to teaching.

3 comments

The words of those government officials who falsely blamed the Benghazi terrorist attack on an obscure YouTube trailer, and were then willing to abandon the First amendment to defend their lies.

9:09 am

The words of those who falsely blamed the Benghazi terrorist attack on an obscure YouTube trailer, and were then willing to abandon the First Amendment to defend their lies.

Yesterday’s dramatic congressional testimony about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya convincingly corroborated what was widely reported within days of the attack: that senior American officials on the ground knew immediately, despite the Obama administration’s storyline to the contrary, that the assault did not arise out of a “spontaneous” demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in protest of an obscure YouTube trailer of a homemade anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims.

Falsely assessing partial blame for the violence on a piece of artistic expression inflicted damage not just on the California resident who made it—Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is currently serving out a one-year sentence for parole violations committed in the process of producing Innocence—but also on the entire American culture of free speech. In the days and weeks after the attacks, academics and foreign policy thinkers fell over themselves dreaming up new ways to either disproportionately punish Nakoula or scale back the very notion of constitutionally protected expression.

The article then shows us who in American politics was willing to abandon freedom of speech for political reasons. If we have any courage, we should throw these words back in their face again and again and again and again.

10 comments

A Justice department official today refused to rule out the possibility of passing a law that would criminalize speech against any religion.

11:59 am

A Justice department official today refused to rule out the idea of passing a law that would criminalize speech against any religion. With video.

The exact wording of the question: “Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

Despite being asked the question four times, the official consistently refused to answer the question directly. In other words, the Obama administration would consider criminalizing speech against religion. Or to put it more bluntly, they don’t believe in freedom of speech.

2 comments

The Zombie Mohammad judge defends his actions.

5:57 pm

The Zombie Mohammad judge defends his actions.

On the first amendment:

Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.

So in other words, it’s an abuse of free speech to criticize Mohammad, but perfectly okay to physically attack that person for that criticism.

This judge has got to go.

Leave a comment

Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case

10:30 am

A Muslim admits to attacking an atheist; the Muslim judge dismisses the case. The punchline: it happened in Pennsylvania.

You can listen to the judge’s statement, beginning at 1:42, here. A video of the attack is here.

This judge should be removed from his office immediately. Rather than defend the law, he defended a specific religion, Islam, and showed a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

Leave a comment

A Maryland post office bans Christmas carolers

9:46 am

A Maryland post office bans Christmas carolers.

“He told them that they had to leave immediately because they were violating the post office’s policy against solicitation,” Duffy said. “He told them they couldn’t do this on government property. He said: ‘You can’t go into Congress and sing and you can’t do it here either.’”

I like this from the comments:

So our freedom of speech is suspended upon entering government property?

One comment

Veterans Administration Settles with Veteran’s Groups at Houston National Cemetery

10:36 pm

A victory for freedom: The Veterans Administration has settled the lawsuit filed against it by veteran’s groups at Houston National Cemetery over the VA’s attempt to stifle prayer at funerals. The key terms of the settlement:

  • The VA will not interfere with prayers during burial services.
  • The VA will not edit or control the speeches of speakers at ceremonies or events at the cemetery containing religious messages or viewpoints and cannot ban religious words in verbal communications between the volunteers and veteran’s families.
  • The VA will not ban religious speech or words like “God” or “Jesus” in condolence cards or gifts.
  • Payment by the VA of the veterans groups’ $215,000 in legal fees.

That it took a court suit to make the First Amendment clear to the VA is beyond sad.

Leave a comment
1 … 6 7 8 9