Category Archives: constitution
“This is offensive!”
I hear this all the time from liberals online, usually in response to something true that I’ve posted that sort of punches their worldview in the face.
In Breitbart fashion I respond: So?
Sometimes people in the Ann Coulter tag on tumblr start talking about how someone should “shut that b*tch up” and wondering why she’s “still allowed to talk?”
My response: The First Amendment.
You don’t have a right to not be offended, you don’t have a right to not be insulted, and you really don’t have a right to tell me it’s illegal to criticize your religion, your behavior, or anything else I choose.
For some reason liberals and Muslims both would like the government, in some way, to stop me from saying things that offend them.
(Short post tonight, I’m about to fly out to DC for CPAC. I’ll report back if I see any drones on the way.)
New York City just won a minor victory against the Nanny State when a judge overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s ridiculous attempt to ban sugary beverages over 16oz. in the city that never sleeps, but those civil liberties are still a precious commodity…there and everywhere else.
One, possibly two, drones have been spotted in airspace over New York City. The first was drone was spotted on March 5th and nearly caused a head-on collision between itself and a commercial jet that was coming in for a landing at JFK International.
A second drone was, reportedly, spotted over the city on March 11th. Though this one did not scare the ever-livin’ crap out of an airplane pilot, but it was spotted only about 5 miles from LaGuardia. Not exactly a safe place for an unannounced drone to be flying.
So these drones are flying around the skies of one of our countries biggest cities and I think we’d all like to know what they are doing there?
Are these the drones that the Department of Homeland Security has equipped with technology that CNET has reported will be:
“capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
Or are they just the typical, hellfire missile equipped drones that they use overseas? Either way I’m not liking this much. Even if they aren’t going to fire a bomb and ruin my “cafe experience” as Rand Paul said recently, they are still violating my 4th amendment rights by allowing drones to intercept communications from radios and phones without a warrant and allowing the government to find my location through use of those drones.
Who has given them permission to do this? Well you get what you vote for and this is the Obama administration at work.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Romney.
Just ’cause I said it, it don’t mean that I meant it: AKA Obama Takes Political Advice from an Adele Song
“I’m not a dictator”
Obama said that only days ago.
I have news for you, saying something doesn’t make it so, actions do. Obama’s actions recently, and those his administration, are not those of a man who thinks that he has checks and balances working against him, or a constitution and bill of rights to uphold. If it walks like a dictator, talks like a dictator, and legislates like a dictator…it’s a dictator. At the very least a fledgling one.
Who cares about the war on women when our current administration waging a war on the bill of rights. They are stomping on the 1st amendment by harassing journalists who try to ask them tough questions and hold them accountable, starting an overt war on the 2nd amendment, and haven’t given a damn about the 10th amendment (except when convenient) since Obama was sworn in.
And now the 4th and 5th amendment are taking the brunt of this administration’s disrespect to American principles.
The president has taken to pretending that amendments 2, 5 and 10 do not exist. I think I should expect to start quartering soldiers any day now.
Not only that, but Obama and Al Gore have both been whining so much about people exercising their 1st amendment rights, that even CNN has taken a notice and asked them to please shut up.
Also Obama thought that we would just roll over and play dead just because he asked us not to photoshop a picture of him.
Let me think about that.
Nope, not gonna happen.
I have the sinking feeling that all of Obama’s whining about the “right wing media” is just his way of putting the 1st amendment on notice.
Ronald Reagan once said “Man is not free unless government is limited” and this has never been shown more easily than by this memo from the Justice Department (the same one that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, yay!), uncovered by NBC news.
When I interact on social media sites like twitter or tumblr, I see people of my generation and the generations that will follow me into becoming the leaders of this country.
Often I am inspired by genuinely intellectual young people who are intelligent, well-spoken, and share a love of freedom with myself and an understanding of the fact that the style of governance our founding fathers gave us is the key to that freedom, not this false “equality” that liberals want to sell us.
But very often I am brought face to face with an element of our future generation of leaders that depresses me. These are the people who have bought into the idea of “equality of outcome”, “wealth redistribution”, “anything goes moral relativity”, and the idea that everything bad that happens to them and every bad decision that they make, is a product of society “oppressing” them. They want the government to even things out, make sure they succeed, and hand them everything on a shiny silver platter.
Sometimes I get very passionate about a topic and just can’t stop writing about it.
DS&P Magazine found this out the hard way when I wrote these two posts in the last two days.
Do I despise Westboro Baptist Church? I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t, honestly, but that doesn’t make what Anonymous is doing right. Which is, sadly, something I’ve seen conservatives saying since Anonymous announced their intentions toward WBC. Not only that, but they want to exclude Westboro from the first amendment because they “intentionally cause emotional distress.”
You are doing the first amendment wrong here and you can’t claim to support it, while cheering on people that are illegally curtailing someone’s freedom to speak their mind, posting their names and addresses and encouraging death threats, hacking their website, shutting down their social networks; and while you advocate for restrictions of free speech.
I don’t always agree with the Supreme Court, that is obvious, but one decision I have agreed with from the very beginning was the 8 to 1 decision in favor of Westboro Baptist in the Snyder v. Phelps case.
It was a victory for free speech of every kind.
Nor do you forget your support of the first amendment just because you don’t like the person who is being suppressed, by legal or illegal means. Unfortunately that is not what I’m hearing from conservatives who are saying “well Anonymous sucks, but they got it right this time.”
It’s technological thuggery and terrorism and becoming a moral relativist suddenly, just because Anonymous is attacking someone you don’t like, is not right.
I received this question on tumblr yesterday.
And I realized, much to my dismay, that people really don’t understand this process. Here is my answer and I wanted to share it here as well, in the hopes that more people will understand this process.
And hopefully understand why this argument that “You shouldn’t vote for Romney or he will outright ban gay marriage, abortion, and birth control” is completely false, not just because he believes in state’s rights, but because that simply isn’t within his power.
Banning any of those things would be unconstitutional.
Now you may bring up DOMA here, but DOMA, while there is an argument about whether it is constitutional or not, was not a ban. DOMA basically meant that divorces and marriages did not have to be recognized across state lines, if a same-sex married couple moved from a state where their marriage was recognized to a state that did not have same-sex marriage.
So to ban something like that would take a constitutional amendment so that it wouldn’t be a unconstitutional. You following so far?
An amendment on one of those things would never happen. Here is why.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The amendment on those topics would never be proposed by 2/3s of the House and Senate or by 2/3s of the states.
And even if one was proposed, it wouldn’t be passed because:
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Do you really think 38 states would agree to such an amendment? Not likely.