Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Harry Reid LG

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now.  Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes.  Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.”  Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should.  And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here.  What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs. 

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets.  That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

The First Amendment should NEVER be touched.  EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?

BZ

 

“Hate Speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is now your Federal Government

Free Speech - NoneProve you’re not insane.

Go ahead, prove it.  Organically and via whatever means testing is available, prove it.

Oh, and by the way, also prove you’re not a racist.

Prove anything involving a “not.”

The most difficult thing imaginable is to disprove a negative.

Yet, here we go again on the heels of “rampant racism” in America via Ferguson — the new “Hate Speech” buzzphrase meme.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter

$1 Million study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns

by Elizabeth Harrington

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

There you go.  Just what you need.  The federal government monitoring your writings and deciding, in the proverbial vacuum, just what is proper and just what isn’t.  In direct contravention of the First Amendment.  Please allow me to remind:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Frankly, this “hate speech” tracking sounds like Stalin to me, and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  Like some Third World tin-pot dictator.  Except that this is a LAW proposed in the United States of America.

Via now, Mr Barack Hussein Obama.  Another tin pot dictator who is clueless, rife with NPD, and unable to manage the most basic of businesses for a profit.  He would first classify profit as “evil.”  Then he would drive any and said business into the ground. I suspect he couldn’t run a lemonade stand for a profit, much less our country.

Remember when Mr Obama attempted to call out those sites that were deemed to be “fishy”?  From FoxNews.com:

Obamacare_Flag_Poster_telephoneWhite House Draws Fire for Requesting ‘Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform

by Molly Henneberg

The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send “fishy” information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

Conservatives have pounced on the request, accusing the White House of acting Orwellian.

“If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn’t sound right, send it to the White House?”said Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. ” People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?”

“Social pollution.”  Really?  As if the meme of unhindered and unrestrained government handouts aren’t social pollution for the stupid amongst us?  As if there are no limits to the depth and breadth of government largesse?  Sustainability?  Societal lampreys?

Possible air strike in Syria?

Sorry.  Shouldn’t have mentioned that.

BZ 

Surrender Your Dignity, Forward

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Freedom Go To HellThere is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course.  We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase.  And one that must be kicked to the curb.  There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations.  The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West.  The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.”  There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark?  You’re about to LOSE your country.  Get prepared.

BZ

 

What Happens When One Parent Speaks Out at a School Board Meeting About a Controversial Book Assigned to His Daughter

From TheBlaze.com:

by Oliver Darcy

A New Hampshire parent was arrested at a Monday night school board meeting after he voiced outrage his ninth grade daughter was assigned a book that contains a page detailing a graphic sexual encounter.

Frankly, let me state this up front:

In my opinion  this is a completely unnecessary display of force by a small-town police department.  I am a cop.  I state that up front.  I have worked in LE for 40+ years.  But I expect my fellow officers to follow the foundational documents to include the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I do not expect them to abrogate — primarily — our First and Second Amendment rights.

The Gilford Police Department embarrasses me.  In my opinion they will be sued and deservedly so.

Watch the video:

Gilford school officials claim the book, “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, contains important themes about a school shooting. But some parents believe a scene described in the book is inappropriate for their children.

According to WCVB-TV, the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers, which parents were unaware of until the book had already been distributed to their kids.

That passage includes, in part:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.

” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

Why yes, that would be precisely what I would want my daughter to read as an ASSIGNED BOOK in her high school.  Wouldn’t you?

He (William Baer) went to the school board meeting to express his objections.

“It’s absurd,” he told the school board.

“Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?” a school board member responded.

“Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?” he countered.

America, get ready for the rest of this story:

A police officer then arrived at the scene, instructing Baer to leave with him.

Moments later, Baer was escorted outside and placed in handcuffs. According to WMUR-TV, he was charged with disorderly conduct because he did not immediately leave when asked by an officer.

Fine.  First question: why were police officers there in the first place?  Do you, in your school meetings, customarily have LE officers assigned there?

A second video:

So speaking your mind constitutes a threat.  And going over your allotted time constitutes a threat.

“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs,” William Baer told EAG News. “That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy. They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent, which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”

But even further, into the insidious abrogation that occurred:

Understandably, Baer doesn’t want his daughter exposed to this kind of material, and says the school “has no business introducing such themes” to his daughter.

He’s also disturbed by school officials’ failure to notify parents that this novel was assigned, and there was no opportunity to “opt out.”

Baer, who is an attorney, believes that if someone stood outside the school and handed out copies of the novel’s sexually charged passage to students, he would likely be arrested and prosecuted.

He questions why it’s acceptable for “the state, through its schools and agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this same material.

In a written response to an EAGnews inquiry, Gilford school leaders admit they didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who are currently assigned the book.”

I have re-written this final paragraph, because I believe the videos above speak for themselves.  This is sad, embarrassing, and unfortunately indicative of the path that many departments have chosen to take regarding personal freedoms.

I suspect that department will be sued in short order.

BZ

 

A ray of hope for US freedom — “Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections.”

First Amendment FlagFrom the Associated Press:


GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

At first blush, good news for our First Amendment overall.  I have had concerns for quite some time, relating to our foundational freedoms — most recently by writing this post regarding Demorats wanting to expand so-called “hate speech” — and their ability to thrive and continue in a “Progressive” and “politically correct” world.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

“It’s not a special right to the news media,” he said. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

Is it possible the nation is beginning to realize that “breaking news” is no longer continuously and regularly broken by staid and old media outlets but, occasionally, by those persons and concerns who have an immediate and compelling presence in the blogosphere and the internet in toto?

“It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists,” he (UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) said. “There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers.”

This is the same Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy site, an older and respected blog in the digital ether with millions of hits extant.

A plus for bloggers; like myself and my cohorts.

One win this week.  Is it enough?

BZ