This is the continuation of a series of posts dealing with issues where some individuals in the United States government are attempting to hold at least a portion of the rest of the federal government accountable and responsible for its actions and inactions. The public displays we find, however, are not unlike the most bizarre of Kabuki Theater or Theater of the Absurd.
Here, the late Justice Antonin Scalia speaks with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday regarding originalism, textualism, purposivism and gun control.
This is just 1/9th of 1/3rd of our government confirming and upholding our basic freedoms. Further, let me state: this is the best of our government in action. Our government at work. What we pay it to do.
Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, these are your federal tax dollars either
Killed by Leftists, Demorats, Progressives, anarchists and, of all people, aided and abetted by the American Media Maggots.
Whose speech and freedoms will likewise be suppressed.
This used to be true. Is it now?
And even some Republicans who lack actual testosterone or estrogen.
Wait. I take that back. Too many Republicans operate on estrogen though they appear as males.
Stop. Perfect time for this video.
So why the big concern over freedom of speech? Because of past, recent and continuing incidents involving the lack of it on American college campuses. This video summarizes appropriately.
That was the view of a college professor, who accurately reflects the views on way too many American college and university campuses today. Most of these are, of course, funded by American Taxpayer cash.
Your First Amendment freedoms are at stake.
Further, your overall American freedoms are also at stake which, of course, is what makes this nation more exceptional than most any other.
What other nation has this:
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.
Leftists and Demorats will tell you our nation is evil on its face and is everything but exceptional.
But where do Leftists or Demorats actually mention freedom? Where is it that they wish to add to your freedoms in any fashion, instead of removing them? Removing them and then occasionally selling them back to you at a massive profit? Come on, Al Gore only wants $15 trillion of your taxpayer dollars.
Those freedoms buttressed and solidified by the sacrifice of 419,000 US soldiers and civilians in WWII. Yet what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by a politician — a Demorat politician mind you — is this.
He couldn’t be more wrong. The First Amendment exists not to protect pablum speech, but specifically challenging speech.
First, let’s be honest: there is no real definition for “hate speech.” It, like pornography, is in the eye of the beholder. The unsaid crux of the biscuit is, naturally: just who determines “hate speech”? That is the key.
Courts have ruled that the First doesn’t protect outright threats, speech that would tend to provoke a personal fight, and child pornography. “Hate speech” is not included as an exception.
KKK speech is protected. Symbols, like a burning cross, are protected. The Westboro Baptist Church is protected.
The Supreme Court has established a general principle that a government administrator can’t decide to charge a group a higher fee for event security based on anticipated public reaction to the content of the event, and a lower court found that this applies to colleges, too. So if Berkeley is basing its security decisions on what it expects Coulter to say, that could pose a problem.
We heard what one professor thinks of free speech. Another example of what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by “educators” is this, from the NYTimes.com:
What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech
by Ulrich Baer
Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.
Translated: the surfeit of emotional, sensitive snowflakes are in fact traumatized by certain speech. Their horror should not be delegitimized.
The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
Translated: censorship isn’t really the removal of free speech; it’s a guarantee not to offend. Offense is a much worse condition than that of the removal of speech itself. Restricted speech is a “public good.”
But listen to this.
In such cases (“when those views invalidate the humanity of some people”) there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.
Perfect. Who needs actual speech? In public? Just go to the internet. Meanwhile, we as Leftists will keep our politically-correct stranglehold on what it is you can hear and read.
The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to overestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth.
Again, Leftists proving there is no real “good” or “bad.” There are simply events that occur on a sliding scale created of their own highly-informed thinking.
We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.
You see? A “sophisticated understanding.” This is akin to saying that because some poor people cannot actually afford to go out and purchase a firearm, we need to eliminate the Second Amendment.
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.
Uh, yes it is. You lie. The exceptions are delineated above as determined in US courts.
It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.
Now it gets grotty. At first blush the paragraph above is nothing but mush. I provide this accurate translation for you: if only one of a delineated set of protected species are offended, even in the slightest, that speech is deemed hateful.
Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.
Translated: speech is now hateful when you question someone.
Here is a sentence that doesn’t even warrant reproducing in its entirety.
Unlike today’s somewhat reflexive defenders of free speech. . .
“Reflexive defenders of free speech.” In times past that was considered a positive feature, a wonderful attribute. Now, according to “educators,” that’s a glitch, a quirk, a serious problem requiring repair.
What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse.
Please tell me, ladies and gentlemen, where the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse are being quashed? Examples please. Be specific.
We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.
Of course. Thanks, Berkeley and other US universities, for rioting and burning and blockading and threatening so that opposing views cannot be remotely considered on campus. They really are “closed campuses” with regard to alternate views, theories and speech. Closed. Walled off. It is truly suppression by violence. On the part of Leftists.
Here is what Judge Andrew Napolitano said of this specific editorial.
Light to make the cockroaches scatter.
You know you have a serious problem when even Bill Maher skewers Leftists blocking free speech.
That’s an individual on a TV show. What happens when you have a mammoth tech giant like Google censoring from within? From DCClothesline.com:
Google’s Schmidt: “We’re Not Arguing For Censorship, We’re Arguing Just Take It Off The Page”
by Chris Menahan
Google is not going to “censor” their search results, they’re just going to take search results “off [their] page” to “essentially have you not see it.”
In a video from March 23 that’s just now going viral, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked by Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo how they plan to deal with extremist content. Eric Schmidt responded by mixing in “fake news” with “extremist things” and suggested their computer algorithms will determine what’s true:
“My own view on most of this sort of extremist things as well as fake news in general is that it’s essentially a ranking problem. We’re very good at detecting what’s the most relevant and what’s the least relevant. It should be possible for computers to detect malicious, misleading and incorrect information and essentially have you not see it. We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”
Read that again. “We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”
And this isn’t censorship how? You’re taking it off the page. Where “else” are you putting it?
You see, of course, just who makes this determination of censorship or hate speech, yes? Me? No. You? No. Leftists.
As far as Leftists are concerned, it is precisely your freedoms that put the world in its predicament today.
It is your freedom of speech that suppresses any number of individuals and makes them feel less a person. It is your Second Amendment that stacks bodies like cordwood and forces young black males to kill each other in large urban venues. It is your ability to drive where you want when you want that has polluted our skies and clogged our cities. It is your ability to eat what you want that has resulted in obese young people and poor people. It is your freedom to manufacture goods and create a mighty industrial base that has resulted in competition globally, which is a terrible idea and rife with pollution, greed, capitalism and consumerism. It is your freedom to regulate borders which has resulted in people unable to enter the US and partake of the Free Cheese available within. It is your freedom to be independent and sovereign which has closed off globalism and failed to consolidate power into a smaller, brighter, more enlightened band of clear-thinking individuals. It is the freedom to embrace religion which creates societal judgments which conflict with secularism. Islam not included.
When you have no Second Amendment, you have no First Amendment. When you have no First Amendment you have no freedom whatsoever.
As Europe is in a terrible cultural war with globalism and sovereignty, so is the United States.
“Hate speech”? I think you know who determines that and why.
Feingold: Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns
by Joe Schoffstall
Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who is running again in an attempt to win back his old Senate seat, was recorded at a fundraiser saying that Hillary Clinton might issue an executive order on guns.
That should come as no surprise given her background and history. We knew it was in her playbook.
Feingold can be heard in the video discussing what Hillary Clinton could do in relation to guns if she were to be elected president.
“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.
“Oh, so she can, I know that Bara…” the questioner counters. Feingold then talks of President Obama’s executive orders throughout his two terms.
“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is the Senate, have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House,” Feingold says.
I wrote earlier that with Obama enacting such sweeping Executive Orders (EOs) he is setting precedent than can be followed by other presidents. The objection is not necessarily with the number of EOs signed by Obama — in fact he has signed, to date, 252 EOs in seven years compared to George Bush’s 291 in eight years, contrasted with Bill Clinton’s 364 in eight years — but with the overarching and wide-ranging content of the EOs, subject matter best left to Congress and not to one man.
Obama’s EOs are the most restrictive in the history of the presidency, utilizing more compulsory, binding and legally obligatory words like “must” and “shall” than the six prior presidents.
Further, Obama has stated he has done so specifically because the entire DC process is frequently too slow and cumbersome for his taste.
When the president — any president — publicly states that his or her intent is to purposely bypass Congress, that eliminates the concept of “checks and balances” and thusly tends to condense the three branches of government — the Judicial, Legisaltive and Executive — into one: the Executive.
With that follows an imperial presidency and on the heels, nothing good save perhaps that of tyranny.
Finally, I ask: when was the last time a Demorat or Leftist increased your American freedoms instead of reducing them?
(CNN) At least 19 people were killed and 26 injured in a stabbing spree at a facility for disabled people west of Tokyo, making it one of Japan’s deadliest mass killings since World War II. Nine men and 10 women, ranging in age from 18 to 70, were killed in the attack.
Officer Satomi Kurihara of the Sagamihara Fire Department confirmed the death toll at the Tsukui Yamayuri-en facility in Sagamihara, a residential area approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of the capital.
Satoshi Uematsu, a 26-year-old who worked at the facility until February, broke in through a window about 2 a.m. Tuesday (1 p.m. ET Monday), Kanagawa Prefecture officials said at a news conference.
Because, as we all know — and Leftists know this best of all — if we eliminate firearms wholesale, then violence will simply plummet and go away. All will be well with the world, birds will sing, clouds will part and the sun will shine.
“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?” Dan Rather knows.
Yes, Leftists are in fact that naive. Logic and the nature of humanity, as I’ve written before, eludes the deluded.
The following table shows the number and percent of murder victims in the United States by the cause of death. Weapons used or cause of death include guns, stabbing, blunt objects, strangulation, arson, and more.
Weapons used or cause of death
feet, or pushing
1. Refers to club, hammer, etc.
2. Before 1973, includes drowning.
3. Includes poison, explosives, unknown, drowning, asphyxiation, narcotics, other means, and weapons not stated.
Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012.
But let’s stop dancing around the issue of “gun control.” Let’s get down to brass tacks: Demorats and Leftists want out-and-out gun confiscation. Make no mistake about that. Hillary Clinton and all other power elites have their own private police forces. You don’t. They have “theirs” and that is all they care about.
When you get down to it, Leftists and Demorats will only be satisfied when there exists the complete removal of firearms from American citizens. The outright trampling of the Second Amendment. What’s left? Tire irons? Knives?
But here’s one thing you won’t be able to do with a knife or a rock or a lamp or a baseball bat or a torch or a pitchfork: defend yourself against a government. Oppose oppressive government regimes. Governments, all governments, our government, will always be armed with heavy, military grade weapons. Historically, our Second Amendment does not exist to allow Americans to hunt. That’s a ridiculous claim when made by anyone. The Second Amendment exists in America in order to resist tyranny in any form and that includes an over-reaching government, foreign or domestic.
Demorats and Leftists are not grounded in reality. They are only versed in power and money. The citizenry can be armed or it can be disarmed. Those who are disarmed are called Proles, Serfs, Groundlings, Commoners.
In the meantime, criminals will still commit crimes, the mentally unstable will still be unstable, and Leftists will still be unable to grasp these fundamental concepts.
Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship
by Paul Bedard
Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.
STOP. Read that first sentence again: “Finally making good on LONG-HARBORED ANGER at CONSERVATIVE media, DEMOCRATS on the Federal Election Commission voted in SECRET to PUNISH Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, USING AN OBSCURE LAW to charge the network with helping those on stage.”
Would that not be unlike Lois Lerner and the IRS who complained bitterly that no such thing was done until finally the IRS admitted that precisely that thing was done?
It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threatsagainst conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.
The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action. The vote was posted Thursday and is here.
Imagine the results had Demorats simply owned that board, as Demorats own the state of California on most every level?
CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.
Do not think that the Demorats and Leftists are content to stop there. They absolutely, incontrovertibly, wish to control the entire internet and all its content — particularly if that content is right-leaning in nature.
Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners
by Paul Bedard
Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.
“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”
What is diversity? In the eyes of Leftists, it is a One World Barbeque — that is, all persons saying, writing and thinking the same: a Leftist fashion. Dissension cannot be tolerated. What the FEC and Leftists and Demorats want is the same freedom of speech one now customarily finds on college campuses in America today; that is, little to none.
In this vein I wrote, many years ago in 2010, that I could foresee the time where I as a blogger would require a literal license to blog. To express my opinions and feelings.
Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”
Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.
Of course it’s under threat. Leftists and Demorat want absolute control of speech as well as most every other aspect of your life. With a SCOTUS that leans far left as would occur under the lying and brazenly-corrupt Hillary Clinton, you can quite certainly wave good-bye to your Bill of Rights, with the Second and First Amendments primarily in their PC sights.
“One of the things that is critical for this country is to reassert the value of the First Amendment, the fact that robust discourse, that is sometimes cacophonous, is nonetheless a value, in fact it creates value,” said Pai.
But wait; perhaps you thought I was kidding with the whole “my blog will be involved as will yours” thingie? Read on.
At a CATO Institute discussion on online speech Wednesday night, both said that regulators are eager to issue new rules that could put limits on what people could say on blogs, online news and even YouTube. Washington Examiner reporter Rudy Takala and Cato’s digital manager Kat Murti were also on the panel.
There it is in black and white. Do not for a moment believe that, somehow, miraculously, you will remain unaffected — particularly if you are a Conservative. Or a Libertarian for that matter — John Stossel, I’m looking at you, sir.
Pai, addressing Goodman, added, “The common thread of our experiences I think is this impulse of control, whether it’s the FCC and the impulse of the government to want to control how these networks operate, and the FEC to control the content of the traffic that traverses over those networks, and I think that certainly highlights the importance of the First Amendment.”
Goodman concluded, “We need to be ever mindful and vigilant not to let governmental agencies through 3-2 votes, or 4-2 votes at the FEC take that away from us.”
Let there be no mistake. Leftists and Demorats want control of our lives, complete and utter control of what we do, what we eat, where we live, how we live our lives and ultimately what we write, say and even think.
Leftists and Demorats would truly be pleased with a 1984 environment.
I can see an upheaval coming, ladies and gentlemen, if Demorats and Leftists keep removing our rights and our freedoms.