A phony crew went out and asked liberals to sign a petition banning conservative websites. The amazing thing is that they did it.

I found it at Newsbusters.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The liberals in this country are not that hard to figure out. They are like colonizing insects that take orders from one entity and then carry the same message around. The MSM, the liberal politicians and the liberal base all get talking points from the White House and then they all use the same words like the good little drones they are.

On any given day we can hear the same unique words coming from nearly every liberal media outlet (Limbaugh sometimes compiles montages of these people all saying the same thing around the very same time) and liberal politicians chime in when they all use carefully crafted phrases to present a false picture or mislead the public.

Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts (and Obama buddy) received the memo on new words to use when referring to Republicans. That word is sedition and it was first used a few weeks ago by Joe Klein (a supposed journalist) who accused Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of sedition and then agreed when Rush Limbaugh’s name was added to the list.

Of course, nothing that any of these people have said or done in any way, shape, or form fits the definition of sedition and this is true of the incorrect definition Klein scrawled on his martini napkin. The definition of sedition is; “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”

This definition is the dictionary definition and not the one contained in the United States Code. The USC calls the crime of Seditious conspiracy and defines it as such:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Cornell Law

One will notice that this requires more than words that would incite. You see, the United States has a history of using sedition laws to regulate speech and has done that on 24 different occasions. The Supreme Court ruled that criticism of the government could not be suppressed and “The First Amendment permits punishment of seditious utterances only if they expressly advocate immediate unlawful action and are likely to produce such action imminently (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)).” ⁽¹⁾

Klein’s assertions carry no water but they do not have to. The whole purpose of characterizing what those people say as sedition is to regulate their free speech. This is where Deval Patrick comes in. He recently said that opposition to Barack Obama borders on sedition. I seriously doubt this dim bulb knew the word sedition until he got his marching orders and it is obvious now that he knows the word he does not know what it means.

Opposing what any politician wants CANNOT be seditious. Sedition is an act against a country and the authority of government, not an individual. It is important to keep that point in mind, sedition is an ACT. It requires an act of force. 18 USC (cited above) requires some kind of force to meet the definition of sedition and the definition describes this force used against government, not an individual.

So, it is impossible to be seditious to an individual. As with Klein though, this is not important to those who are working to paint a picture of people planning to use force to overthrow government. This is not the case and even if people were talking about it there would have to be an imminent threat before it could be considered seditious. The purpose of this entire exercise though, is to paint a picture for when the government decides to use sedition as an excuse to stifle the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with the Obama regime and what it is doing to destroy the country.

Patrick was challenged on his assertion and he claimed that it was rhetorical flourish. Once someone explained the definition to him he had a change of heart. But let us be clear. Sedition is not the kind of accusation a person makes as rhetorical flourish. No, sedition is a serious charge especially since our government has used the charge as a way to silence opposition.

This is what the left wants to do. The liberals figure that if they can keep pushing the charge of sedition then perhaps it will be time to silence the dissent as the government has done in the past. The echo chamber of the left will begin to echo the word sedition and many liberal nitwits who do not know the word will be repeating it. This is how the left learns vocabulary. If it were not for the 2000 election most liberals would not know what disenfranchise means. But I digress.

It is not sedition to speak out against government so do not let morons like Klein and Patrick tell you otherwise. They do not know what they are talking about. It is also important to note that anyone who swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic cannot be seditious in doing so. Since our government gets its authority from those governed (us) we cannot be seditious if upholding the Constitution, the document by which we give that authority, no matter what it takes to do so.

The government in this country is We the People and the politicians are forcing their will upon us and changing our nation. They are ignoring our Constitution and forcing us (using FORCE) to get us to comply.

Now look at the definition of sedition and tell me who is being seditious.

But this pattern will continue as the echo chamber of the left continues to parrot the talking points sent out by the propagandist in Chief in the White House.

As for Barack Obama. He wants to fundamentally transform this nation and that transformation looks like his intention is to “to destroy by force the Government of the United States.”

And that my friends, is where the sedition comes in.

References:
⁽¹⁾ Sedition and Domestic Terrorism – Sedition And The First Amendment

Never surrender, never submit.

This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.

Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.

Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.

I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.

I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.

We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.

I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.

Source:
WSJ

In the urge to assume total control of the people and reduce our freedom- loving population to serfdom, while the Bi- coastal “Elites” keep on living their hypocritical lifestyle, complete with their Gulfstream jets, and entourage of SUVs on their way to some red carpet event, the government is seeking to quash any semblance of freedom of speech, because that “freedom” might actually adhere to constitutional law.

In order to cram their bastardized version of “Healthcare” down our throats, Max Baucus and the HHS Secretary Sebelius have throttled the Insurance companies- forbidding them from telling their clients that there will be, under Obama’s plan, drastic cuts in the Medicare Advantage plan, and this might cut some procedures and treatments from their plan- not a good thing if you are a senior.

But somehow, AARP has been granted an exemption- curious, huh? Perhaps it is to buy their support for this betrayal of their members- betrayal is expensive, huh?

“This is American — citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right – a fundamental right – to talk about legislation they favor or oppose in this country,” Mr. McConnell added. “This is the core of the First Amendment’s protection of speech.”

Mr. McConnell also challenged Democrats to explain how Humana’s advocacy around the health care issue was any different than The Washington Post or The New York Times lobbying Congress in favor of a law shielding reporters from prosecution or contempt of court citations for refusing to disclose confidential sources.

“Using the full weight of the federal government’s enforcement powers to stifle free speech should trouble all Americans and all of us even more,” Mr. McConnell told his Senate colleagues.

prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com

The cat’s out of the bag now- that is, if there are any seniors who still read these leftist rags that pass for news organizations these days- the gag order, it would seem, is moot- but the government keeps on plugging on in auto mode.

“This is so clearly an outrage,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the federal government has now issued a gag order on that company, and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up — or else.

“This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with the administration’s health care plan. They’re worried that government agencies which were created to enforce violations even-handedly will instead be used against those who voice a different point of view,” he said.

The investigation was first suggested by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — which officiates over the Medicare program for seniors and Medicare Advantage options — ordered a “cease and desist” order on all of Humana’s health care mailings until the investigation is concluded.

foxnews.com

Yes, Virginia, Liberals are being punitive to anyone who gets in their way- talk about abuses of power- they really push the envelope, and if they aren’t careful, they will overreach. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Corporations are “people” in the eyes of the law, thusly entitled to freedom of speech, which cannot be muzzled by the government. Indeed, these companies have a duty to inform their customers of anything that might adversely affect their relationship with their customers.  And yet, here we are, with the government acting like Chicago union goons. What a pitiful vision they have for our country.

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

washingtonpost.com

The fascist state is beginning- the gagging shall commence- it doesn’t matter to these dregs of humanity that what they are doing is unconstitutional, they just continue to do this as if there was no such thing to prohibit them, even other parts of the government. The Congressional Budget Office has backed up the assertions of Humana, where they said there would be drastic cuts in the benefits if the Baucus plan passed in the Senate.

Obama has insisted that despite planned cuts to Medicare providers, seniors would not see their benefits reduced under a health care overhaul. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf contradicted that Tuesday under questioning by Finance Committee Republicans, saying seniors in the private Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus’ legislation. Proposed changes “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans,” Elmendorf said.

Humana spokesman Jim Turner said Wednesday that the company is cooperating with CMS in its investigation. But, Turner added, “We also believe Medicare Advantage members deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

A Republican aide told FOXNews.com that the investigation is a clear breach of First Amendment rights and said the Republican leader is asking the CMS to provide legal justification for its investigation. The aide said CMS’s investigation follows a pattern of intimidation put forth by the administration for any kind of dissent in the health care debate.

foxnews.com

Yes, it is true- they are clearly ignoring the Constitution, and indeed have been for some time, in several key areas- our freedoms have been and are continuing to be curtailed- this Medicare Advantage dustup is just the latest manifestation of their contempt for the Constitution and their equal contempt for the people they are supposed to govern.

This struggle here is all about power, nothing else- it is about the direction of our country, and the treatment of our citizens. The Liberal Progressives really do not care about our citizens, this is becoming plain to see, as they increasingly tighten their grip, and figure they do not have to act like they care anymore.

Take a real good look at our future with these POSs- is this the change you envisioned? Less of everything? Less opportunity, less money, less healthcare? Because this is the truth here- there is only so much butter for the bread here- instead of getting more butter, they just want to spread it thinner and thinner, until there is just the scent of butter, and little else. That is the “Progressive” way.

Oh, the “elites” will still have plenty of butter- they will justify that their having the butter is “essential” to running the government well- and the Hollywood types will justify their butter because they entertain, and well, they are just so damn handsome that they should have the butter.

Not so much for us- we have to get used to less.

Somehow, this doesn’t seem right to me.

Finally there is a “beginning”, or genesis of a conversation about Mark Lloyd and his racist rants and beliefs. Much like Van Jones, his comments are finally beginning to catch up to this fascist thug who has now become our newest unvetted “Diversity” Czar. Here is a man who believes that “White people” have a disproportionate share of the airwaves, especially when it comes to “Conservative” talk radio. One of the ways he would address this would be to “charge” stations 100% of their Gross Revenue as their licensing fee- in other words, they would have to be willing to work for nothing in order to continue to work at all.

And that is not all- he would then give this money that he extorted from the talk radio stations to “liberal”, or minority” stations, so they could operate without having to make a profit. Mr. Nice Guy, Huh? Finally at least one paper has decided to write some of this warped little man’s comments down, and it is a good thing, because if Mr. Lloyd has his way, every part of the media will be subject to his heavy hand, much like Venezuela which he admires for their censorship of their media. 

President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”

Mark Lloyd’s provocative comments – most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank – are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many “czars” to government positions that don’t require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama’s penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of “green jobs czar” Van Jones.

In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”

washingtontimes.com

Oh yeah, Marky baby loves him some Hugo- but he is wrong in describing the Chavez regime as “democratic”, but then he probably didn’t spend much time with dictionaries and definitions- being too busy thinking of warped scenarios to try out on the American public. Sometimes you have to wonder where these whackos come from- and then you get the sinking feeling in your stomach when you find out they came from teaching our children this perverted crap.

At another conference, Mr. Lloyd spoke about the need to remove white people from powerful positions in the media to give minorities a fairer chance.
“There’s nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions,” he said.

“And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

He added: “There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am.”

washingtontimes.com

Oooohhh- scary- I’ll remember to trot out my Mark Lloyd scarecrow for Halloween this year, if I can remember just where I put it- oh well- scaring children is not uppermost on my mind now. Mr. Lloyd scaring people because of his warped views of the Constitution is.

Apparently, Marky baby just can’t understand market forces, and the capitalist system- if liberal talk radio had an audience, it would succeed, plain and simple- and people who wanted to make money, whatever their color might be, would invest in liberal talk radio. But in truth, we might as well be talking unicorns here- Liberal talk radio is just not interesting- have you heard NPR? It puts die- hard progressives to sleep faster than Ambien.

“At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” Mr. Lloyd wrote. “The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

washingtontimes.com

Free speech or freedom of the press is a “distraction”? The purpose of free speech is “warped”? I don’t think so, Mr. Lloyd- it is your perception of these freedoms that is skewed, biased, and warped beyond belief- and lend credence to the inherent “wrongness” of having unvetted people in positions of policy formation. In short, Mr. Lloyd, you are a nutjob whacko, and I am being polite here.

Seton Motley, communications director for the conservative-leaning Media Research Center and contributing editor to Newsbusters.org who has written critically about Mr. Lloyd on several occasions, said Mr. Lloyd appeared Tuesday at a meeting held by the FCC’s advisory committee on diversity that discussed the need to increase lending and licensing to minority-owned media outlets.

“They say he’s not involved in licensing and he’s involved in researching diversity,” Mr. Motley told the Washington Times, “but he sat in a meeting where licensing is very much part of the deal.”

A meeting agenda posted by the advisory committee says that “national broadband plans recommendations” also were discussed.

washingtontimes.com

Finally, we are at last getting some media to sit up and pay attention to this thug- when you combine him with Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, who also believes that free speech is over rated, you have a possible scenario where today it is the conservatives who are silenced, but tomorrow it might be the liberals who are legislatively gagged.

Because one thing is for certain, and Liberals should take this to heart- 

What goes around, comes around.

Liberals and “progressives”, are trying to co-opt the language so as not to give offense to anyone, including terrorists, I mean “extra-territorial fighters”. No more War on Terror, just the weakly titled “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Talk about mealy- mouthed, wishy- washy, weak- kneed  questionably appropriate responses to what is happening- these people are actually afraid that words hurt in a physical way. 

So, just to make sure that they do not offend someone, they are going into our children’s textbooks, so they can brain wash indoctrinate educate our precious little small pre- teen, adolescent children. First up is the term that has been around for as long as we have had a country, Founding Fathers.  Nope, can’t have that- it has something that indicates a male presence, and that can’t be tolerated, especially from the feminists pit bulls assertive females- Founding persons, indicating an amorphous vague “person”, is Okay.

Chairman is out also- “Chair-Person” is in. Congressman is taboo- “member of Congress” is the term to use. Even the Geico Caveman has that dreaded three letter word- man, so out it goes, and “cave person” enters the lexicon of mushy, weak, cowardly words that liberals are afraid to use.

But this extends to other words- words that you might not think were objectionable. Words like “Able- bodied”- now, you might say, not that- there could be nothing objectionable to that, but apparently there are a LOT of liberals who are not able bodied, as physically able, which might explain why evidently words DO hurt them, apparently A LOT, because they are so busy feeling the emotional impact of these words, and trying, I mean actively TRYING to find words that might, in some bizarro world of their delusional paranoia justifiable worry hurt them. Liberals apparently, wear their nerves on the outside of their body. Can I say that? OK? For now?

The problem, is that these wimps deluded people A$$hats  gentle people think that they should purge delete, gently lift these “objectionable” words from our children’s textbooks. They actually have the gall hubris arrogance right in their minds to do this, but it’s politically correct speech gone wrong on steroids, and will lead to less comprehension than if you had just plain speech that conveyed the gist of the idea concisely.

Now the Socialists Communists Progressives Liberals who ever in the hell they want to call themselves today want to dance around the meanings of words, and that creates a “Tower of Babel” effect, where you end up not quite sure of what someone means, and that gives the speaker “wiggle room” to vacillate like Bill Clinton did with his “Depends on what the definition of “is” is”- what arrogant BS. 

What is wrong with the word “teenagers”? Now people want to use “adolescents” exclusively to describe teens. I, however, see no need to change my speech to suit someone’s very tender feelings. These people need to develop a thicker skin.

In everyday talk, black mark is now verboten, presumably because someone might object to the word “black”- likewise, indian, (excepting Indian cuisine) or any word that even one person finds objectionable. This is so ridiculous that I hardly have the words to describe this phenomenon.

I am sure “niggardly” is on the list, as is “picayune“- even though those words do not mean anything insidious, or derogatory, except as describing someone’s behavior. I guess that is enough in these wimpy times to earn a strike from the wordsmiths on the left.

They need to be careful, however, or soon they will have abandoned or deleted almost all words, except, as I have found out, apparently wingnut and moron are still fair game for them. 

Probably not for us on the right.

I guess we are handicapped verbally constricted in the words we can use.

And that’s a pity- we know how to speak plainly.

A Homeowner’s Association in Dallas wants a Marine veteran to remove the Marine Corps stickers from his vehicle. They claim the stickers are advertisements and therefore violate the Association by-laws.

This is a ridiculous claim. The stickers are signs of pride in his service, a service that resulted in injury. He fought for the right to display the stickers and they should be allowed just as any political sticker should. I wonder if Obama bumper stickers have to come off because they are advertisements for The Won?

Fortunately for Marine Frank Larison, many of his neighbors are on his side.

Source:
My Fox Houston

The silence was deafening, the sound of one hand clapping, as Miss California gave the reply heard around the blogosphere to the question posed by that nobody with a notorious name, Perez Hilton.

Miss California was asked how she felt about Gay marriage, and she gave an honest reply. The trouble is, it was not a politically correct reply. Her reply was that she thought that marriage was between a man and a woman, which was how she had been raised,but it hit a sour note with the woman hating Hilton, who, I am guessing, is gay. Now, he/ she can be a hater all he/ she wants, but Hiltie was a judge in this contest, and says in his/ her videoblog, that that answer is what cost Miss Prejean the crown for Miss America.

It really is such a shame that someone is punished in this country for free and frank (that means Honest, Pervez) speech. Free speech is something you do not have to like, but you DO have to respect, if you want this country to remain a great country.

Now Hilton is free to hate what she said, but as a judge, he shouldn’t have used his/? judgeship as a cudgel against Miss California. Still, this continues a pattern of sexual abuse and verbal battery of women who are not liberals. I was surprised, but only mildly, that none of the women’s groups that seemingly espouse feminine causes said ANYTHING- not one thing.

Indeed, the Miss America officials attempted to have Miss California recant, or at least “dress Up” her remarks, much like Joe Biden has to “clarify” his remarks. There’s a world of difference here, however- Joey misspeaks chronically, while Miss California knew what she was saying, and said it concisely.

Miss California is not the first woman who Womens Groups have hung out to dry, forsaking their false call of “Sisterhood”, for the hypocritical one of “Liberal Sister”- no, Sarah Palin should have been embraced by at least one of these groups. You might think these groups, which lie when they say they are all about the freedom of speech, and “those other pesky rights, (except the one with guns)”, might have at least said that while they do not agree with Governor Palin’s stance on many issues, they welcome the fact that women have come so far that they feel comfortable cursing her as she runs for national office.

These alleged women could not even have the good grace to do that. Instead, they go after Gov. Palin’s daughter, because she committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a pregnant Republican. Just because the parent preaches abstinence, does not ensure that the child will listen. But did these nurturing women forgive Bristol, and give her moral support in her time of need? Did they rally around the flagpole of a shared heritage? Oh hell no- despite the fact that Bristol made a choice, it was not the choice that these women wanted- they wanted, I guess, the blood of a dead baby, probably to sacrifice on the altars of sisterhood. The witches in Macbeth have nothing on these creatures.

This, of course, is the feminist version of their contribution to stifling free speech- if they do not agree with you and the comments you make, you will hear the unearthly screech of the Harpy Platoon descending to verbally rip you to pieces, probably along with the Gay (but not happy) Air Force, and,of course, abetted by every other civilization- splitting minority that feels a grudge coming on, just because you might have an independent thought.

Here’s a revolutionary thought, ladies and ?s- you do not have to like everything I say, but neither do I have to say everything you want to hear. THAT is what is truly free speech- get used to it, because I have run flat out of tact and diplomacy, and from now on, I WILL call a skank a skank. And, Wow-

You sure are unpleasant people.

The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.

I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).

It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?

The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.

Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.

Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.

The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”

Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.

As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.

Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…

Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

The University of Texas had a rule barring students from displaying signs in their dorm windows and that rule has been around a while. Two cousins, Connor and Blake Kincaid, decided that the rules did not apply to them and put an Obama sign in their dorm windows. They were not allowed to register for Spring classes because of their refusal to remove the signs.

The school has decided to suspend the rule and will now allow students to display signs. The school is worried about free speech concerns and the cousins said that this was a basic free speech issue.

NO IT IS NOT.

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.

Schools, workplaces and private establishments may decide what people can display and what they may discuss. Your boss can tell you not to discuss politics at work. The Constitution says that government will not make laws abridging free speech. This is nothing more than people being rewarded for breaking the rules, kind of like the Wall Street bailout. If I were the president of the school they would have removed the signs or been expelled. And before the Obamabots get their panties in a wad, I believe in the rules so if it were a McCain sign I would feel the same way. No signs means no signs.

It is now up to another student to see how much this school is really in tune to free speech. A student needs to put a sign with the Confederate Flag on it in his dorm window.

Anyone want to take wagers as to whether that student’s free speech will be honored?

This must be what Obama meant when he told his followers to get in people’s faces. These kids better be glad Big Dog is not in charge or they would find out real quick what a pucker factor is.

Source:
My Way News