I remember when I first started my radio program in 2007 Online, one of my regular listeners was a hard left liberal that went by the name of Mudkitty. She was your typical leftist with the usual progressive talking points, and the usual failed rhetoric. I learned a lot on how to debate liberal progressive commie nutcakes dealing with her, and she was a listener until one day I finally hurt her feelings, calling her a "train wreck."
How easily the leftists are offended.
One of the things Mudkitty used to say, and this was pretty universal regarding a large segment of leftists before Obama came on the scene, was that she may disagree with me, but she would shout from the highest mountain to defend my right to say it.
The owner of the radio station I am now broadcasting on, KCAA, is also a democrat, but he, too, has this funny thing about defending the First Amendment. He tells me he disagrees with me 90% of the time, but he also defends my right to say it.
In America we have something called "Freedom of Speech." Along with that, in the First Amendment, the founders articulated four other rights. Religious Freedom, Freedom of the Press, The right to Peaceably Assemble, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In line with the principles of our founding documents, and the Saxon system in England which birthed the Magna Carta, and the English Bill of Rights, nobody is above the law, including government. We have a right to political speech, and if the government is out of control, we also have the right to petition it for a redress of grievances.
Our rights regarding government actually even goes beyond that. If you are willing to read the first couple paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, you also find that the Founding Fathers believed not only that government leaders are not above the law, but that as citizens we have the right to "alter or abolish" our government, should it become a tyranny.
That's kind of the reason for the Second Amendment.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
While George W. Bush was president, and I admit he had his flaws, he was accused of being a tyrant. The democrats claimed he was a lawless president, wanting to take away our rights, and use the military against the people. And amazingly enough, people bought into that crap. Hell, they even thought he was going to illegally seek a third term.
Then, Barack Obama became President, and he campaigned on all of those conspiratorial fears the democrats had drummed up, and the uninformed voters blindly believed.
Then, Obama became what the democrats had accused Bush of being.
In fact, it hasn't been just Obama. The entire Democrat Party has gone completely insane. They have become open about targeting our rights, wishing to censor those that dare disagree with them, and use fear tactics to silence their opposition, and eventually eliminate their opposition.
They are no longer willing to scream from the mountaintops to defend our rights. Now, they are targeting our rights, and are working to take them away. The following list of stories confirms my fears:
Stuart Smalley v. the First Amendment - Net Right Daily
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, led by Saturday Night Live comedian turned politician Al Franken, voted unanimously against the exact language contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This marks perhaps the first time elected officials have officially voted against the basic freedoms that have been the backbone of our individual liberties for more than 225 years.
The Subcommittee’s website claims that their jurisdiction is: “(1) Constitutional amendments; (2) Enforcement and protection of constitutional rights; (3) Statutory guarantees of civil rights and civil liberties; (4) Separation of powers; (5) Federal-State relations; (6) Interstate compacts; (7) Human rights laws and practices; (8) Enforcement and implementation of human rights laws.”
Texas: Man told to take down his US flag, as it’s “a threat towards the Muslim community” - Jihad Watch
A Webster man says his apartment complex manager told him his American flag was a “threat to the Muslim community,” and that he has to take it down. But he’s not giving up without a fight.
Stepping onto Duy Tran’s balcony in Webster, one thing is clear: “It means a lot to me,” he said.
He’s talking about his American flag that he proudly put up when he moved in just a few days ago. But then an apartment manager at the Lodge on El Dorado told him he had to take it down.
“What really stunned me is that she said it’s a threat towards the Muslim community,” said Tran. “I’m not a threat toward anybody.”
We tried to ask a manager if that’s exactly what was said, but she just handed us a statement, refused to answer any questions, and called an officer to escort us off the property, before we could press any further.
Progressive Democrat Senators Want to Ban Books and Movies - Tea Party News Network
Sen. Ted Cruz gives Democrat Senators every opportunity to come clean and say that they would not ban books and/or movies in their vile, anti-American attack against the First Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19 (MUST WATCH VIDEO BELOW).
“Under the text of this amendment [Senate Joint Resolution 19], could Congress ban political movies; could Congress ban books, and would it be constitutionally permissible for Congress to prohibit the NAACP from speaking about politics,” Senator Cruz asked Democrat Senators Al Franken and Dick Durbin in Wednesday.
One would think that if the Democrat senators were truly for free speech and protecting the First Amendment, they’d jump out of their collective seats shouting, “Hell no!” with no ambiguity.
But instead, Democrat Dick Durbin, senator from Illinois, who last year attended a rally with communists and defended it, gives this obscure and deflective answer, refusing to say that he would be against government banning books and/or movies:
“I would say to the senator what I’ve said earlier. What we’re talking about is reasonable content neutral regulation. What the senator has suggested in his parade of horribles, going back to your logic course reduction ad adsurdum, is not going to carry the day in this debate, nor with the American people.”Are you willing to answer any of those questions, ‘yes or no?’ Cruz then asked Durbin. “Should we be able ban to movies, yes or no? What’s absurd about asking that question?”
Cruz stated that if he was asked that clear question, the answer would be a direct “no.”
“There’s nothing in this amendment about banning movies,” Durbin contended, avoiding Cruz’s simply and direct question. “The subcommittee stands adjourned.”
In other words, your First Amendment is under attack. Remember when the Left was supposedly against censorship?
Hilarious: Watch Pelosi’s Awkward, Painful Response to High School Student Asking About the NSA - Tea Party News Network
In a recent meeting with high school students, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was stumped by a routine question from a visiting student, prompting the tenured Democrat to offer a stuttering, barely-coherent response regarding NSA violations of our Fourth Amendment rights.
For years, the NSA has been monitoring the phone usage of hundreds of millions of Americans, collecting information about the phone calls called metadata. This data, the Obama Administration claims, is useful for tracking terrorists but critics have claimed that the Obama Administration’s approach- targeting hundreds of millions of Americans who are, presumably, innocent and not suspected of a crime- is too broad and unconstitutional.
Andrew Demeter, a self-described investigative journalist, asked Rep. Pelosi, “Why do you support the NSA’s illegal and ubiquitous data collection?”
Pelosi began stammering and slowly offered, ““Well I, I do not, I have questions about the metadata collection that they were, uh, collecting.”
Pelosi noted that she “didn’t support Amash,” a reference to the failed amendment offered by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and backed by many Democrats. The amendment would have mandated that the NSA could only monitor the electronic communications of those actually suspected of a crime, not broadly target hundreds of millions of Americans in the hopes of rooting out illegal behavior.
Pelosi claimed she has fought the NSA, but Demeter pointed out, “You did vote for a bill to continue funding for the NSA, though.” Pelosi answered, “Yeah, of course.”
The top Democrat in the House appeared easily stumped by a routine question from a high school student who simply wanted to know why she had supported such rampant violations of our constitutional protections.
For years, the NSA has been monitoring the phone usage of hundreds of millions of Americans, collecting information about the phone calls called metadata. This data, the Obama Administration claims, is useful for tracking terrorists but critics have claimed that the Obama Administration’s approach- targeting hundreds of millions of Americans who are, presumably, innocent and not suspected of a crime- is too broad and unconstitutional.
Andrew Demeter, a self-described investigative journalist, asked Rep. Pelosi, “Why do you support the NSA’s illegal and ubiquitous data collection?”
Pelosi began stammering and slowly offered, ““Well I, I do not, I have questions about the metadata collection that they were, uh, collecting.”
Pelosi noted that she “didn’t support Amash,” a reference to the failed amendment offered by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and backed by many Democrats. The amendment would have mandated that the NSA could only monitor the electronic communications of those actually suspected of a crime, not broadly target hundreds of millions of Americans in the hopes of rooting out illegal behavior.
Pelosi claimed she has fought the NSA, but Demeter pointed out, “You did vote for a bill to continue funding for the NSA, though.” Pelosi answered, “Yeah, of course.”
The top Democrat in the House appeared easily stumped by a routine question from a high school student who simply wanted to know why she had supported such rampant violations of our constitutional protections.
VIDEO: Hillary Clinton – You Are Not Allowed to Support Gun Rights; If You Do, You’re a Terrorist - Tea Party News Network
When a person is sworn into the Office of the Presidency, they take an oath of office. With their hand rested on a bible, the individual says these words.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has aspirations of being in the White House again. But this time, she does not want to be a First Lady having to deal with her philandering husband’s abuse of the presidency to fulfill his sexual desires. Hillary Clinton wants to be president. Although she has not officially declared her candidacy, her actions and posturing points to that distinct possibility.
Hillary, like the rest of America, has already witnessed a president, her fellow Saul Alinskyite, Progressive Democrat Barack Obama, who tramples over the Constitution on a daily basis. In fact, Obama has even gone so far as to say that the Constitution is a flawed document that simply gets in his way. So, perhaps that is why she was so bold as to attack not just gun rights during a recent CNN Town Hall, but to also attack those people who stand up for the Second Amendment as terrorists. (Watch Video Below)
During this town hall, a questioner asks Hillary if she thinks that reinstating the assault weapons ban and banning high capacity magazines would help in regards to school shootings. Before the woman can finish asking her question, Hillary answers, “Yes. Yes, I do.”
Using that as a moment to subliminally tout her book, Hillary added, “We make ‘hard choices’ and we balance competing values all the time.” She expressed her disappointment in Congress not passing universal background checks after Sandy Hook. The questioner then chimes in with the bogus and already debunked Everytown for Gun Safety statistic saying, ’Seventy-four more’. No one, not Clinton nor the CNN host, corrected the woman on the false statistic, even though CNN itself debunked the claim nearly one week ago presenting the fact that the actual number by their analysis is 15, not 74.
“I don’t think any parent, any person, should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reasons — psychological, emotional, political, ideological, whatever it means — could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers.”
Then, she who wants to be president, after accusing those who hold differing political views of desiring to demonstrate those views through a school shooting, continues by attacking those people who believe in, support, and defend the Second Amendment, of being terrorists and ‘in the minority’.
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
So, she who wants to be president not only wants to selectively apply the Second Amendment, she says those who support it are not even allowed to hold that viewpoint because doing so makes them terrorists.
Liberals Furious Over SC Law to Teach the Constitution in Schools - Breitbart
The Republican controlled legislature in South Carolina recently infuriated liberal groups by insisting that state universities teach students about the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents.
The SC House of Representatives had recently cut funding for two state universities that had required students to read homosexual-themed books. This month, a revised budget restored the funding.
But the renewed funding had strings attached. The new budget stipulated that the money was to be used "for instruction in the provisions and principles of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, including the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals."
The debate began in March when Rep. Gary Smith (R-Simpsonville) introduced the legislation to deduct $52,000 from the budget of the College of Charleston and $17,142 University of South Carolina over the two school's reading requirements.
"The College of Charleston assigned a book called Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, which is about a lesbian woman and her relationship with her father who she one day learns is gay too," the University Herald website reported in March. "South Carolina Upstate assigned a freshmen course to read "Out Loud: the Best of Rainbow Radio, which is a collection of stories from the state's first radio show targeted for a homosexual audience."
Critics of the legislation said that Republicans were attacking academic freedom.
The Republican controlled legislature in South Carolina recently infuriated liberal groups by insisting that state universities teach students about the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents.
The SC House of Representatives had recently cut funding for two state universities that had required students to read homosexual-themed books. This month, a revised budget restored the funding.
But the renewed funding had strings attached. The new budget stipulated that the money was to be used "for instruction in the provisions and principles of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, including the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals."
The debate began in March when Rep. Gary Smith (R-Simpsonville) introduced the legislation to deduct $52,000 from the budget of the College of Charleston and $17,142 University of South Carolina over the two school's reading requirements.
"The College of Charleston assigned a book called Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, which is about a lesbian woman and her relationship with her father who she one day learns is gay too," the University Herald website reported in March. "South Carolina Upstate assigned a freshmen course to read "Out Loud: the Best of Rainbow Radio, which is a collection of stories from the state's first radio show targeted for a homosexual audience."
Critics of the legislation said that Republicans were attacking academic freedom.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment