The First Amendment - Part Three

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"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."

The third and final part of the First Amendment is the freedom to assemble.

"Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the… right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The freedom to peaceably assemble has been openly exercised throughout the history of this nation. Since Labor Day is one of the left's favorite holidays, is it worthy to note that most legislation that offered protection for unions and for striking workers has been inextricably tied to the First Amendment. It was recognized by the courts that the union busting tactics used by employers and local law enforcement during the height of the industrial revolution denied striking workers their constitutional right to assemble; therefore it was the obligation of government to enact legislation that would prevent these violent reprisals against striking workers.

Prior to the inception of the United States, people still gathered to air grievances, usually with catastrophic consequences. Without the right to assemble most would grumble quietly to themselves until things had become so unbearable that the consequences for public dissent were all but meaningless. We have all seen the images in old movies that show the town folk marching through the night carrying pitch forks and burning torches to protest one thing or another. We also saw that those protests were usually met with armed reprisal by whatever authority existed in that time period. The clash resulted in the deaths of the protestors and within a short period of time, the protests would turn to open and violent insurrection with towns and cities burned to the ground by enraged citizens.

The Boston Massacre was another instance of a protest quelled by the Kings soldiers. That massacre was still fresh in the memories of the colonists when the Constitution was drafted. Since the United States was a government formed by free people, they naturally held their God given rights as paramount over the authority of government. I’m sure people are tired if hearing this from me at this point but it is a critical philosophy if one is to understand the Constitution. The founding fathers recognized that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The States and the people wanted a Federal government that would unite the States and would govern maters of commerce and law between the States; a government that would insure that all would provide for the common defense of the Union in the event that any one of the sister States were assaulted by an outside force. What they did not want was to give unbridled power to that same Federal government or allow it the ability to seize power from the States or the people.

The colonies had just fought a bloody war against the British Crown to obtain their liberty and they were not about to surrender that liberty to a centralized government. With that in mind they established strong constraints over the power the Federal government would be allowed to wield. The bill of rights are the chains that prevent the Federal government from becoming oppressive. After freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the freedom to peacefully assemble is the logical next step to secure the ideals of a democratic republic. After all, if Congress is pledged to represent the will of the people then there had better be a mechanism in place for the people to make themselves heard when they feel their representatives are not adequately addressing their concerns.

Every major event in American history is punctuated by the marches and protests that shook government into action. Unfortunately, the history of this nation says that our government doesn’t act until the protests are large enough and loud enough so that the voice of the people can be heard through the thick walls of the Capitol building not to mention the equally thick skulls of the occupants of that building.

We don’t like to be ignored, especially by our government. We recently saw proof of this at the recent town hall meetings. Once again, the Congress wants to pass legislation that will explode the National Debt and eventually, implode our economy. The American people are already frustrated that the Federal government has accrued a national debt of 12 trillion dollars. Americans want that debt paid and the spending deficits turned into a surplus before we will even consider establishing more spending to grease the so-called social consciousness of the liberal arm of Congress. We are angry and we are obviously not being heard. Since they are not reaching out to us, we are once again using our guaranteed right under the first amendment to bring the message to them.

The people that shouted out their concerns at the town hall meetings were denigrated by the press and by the Congressmen they met with. The protestors were called manufactured and fraudulent and the concerns they brought with them were swept away as these Representatives, Senators and journalists turned the discussion away from the message and instead made it about the people that brought the message to them. How foolish.

Unlike the left that uses bricks, bottles and fire to make their point, teabags were being used to punctuate these protests and the “tea parties” that took place on September 12, 2009, with the largest happening in Washington DC. Even though the protests were peaceful, Congress, Democratic organizations and special interests started up their machines to drown out the voice of these people by calling them “tea baggers” and Nazis” in an attempt to make them seem vile and dangerous. Have they forgotten the lessons that for every person that actually makes the time to protest that there are a hundred more that believe the same thing?

The message is clear and sensible. No more massive spending bills, no government control of healthcare and we do not want a climate bill that will decimate what is left of our economy. This nation is in a recession with more that 200,000 additional jobs being lost every month. Thanks to the spending practices of Congress we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and that equals over $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bailout programs and stimulus plan will add another $80,000 a piece to that and the unfunded liabilities of the social programs given to us by Roosevelt and Johnson mean that we are all pledged to cover the future debt associated with those programs to the tune of an additional $190,000 a piece. To put it simply, the reckless spending of Congress has seen to it that every child born into this nation already owes more than $350,000 in nationally accrued debt before the umbilical cord is even cut.

I hope Congress stops this foolish practice of dismissing the American people. Let’s face it, the colonists revolted and engaged the British in a bloody war because Parliament placed a 2% tax on their breakfast drink. We are the descendents of those brave men and women and we possess the same intolerance of government abuse. We have already passed the point where taxation has become oppressive and burdensome. We were told that there is a healthcare crisis and something had to be done. Once again, the only portion of the healthcare system that is in crisis was the portion that the Federal government already controlled before this disasterous healthcare bill passed.

The climate bill is nothing more than a cleverly disguised energy tax that will yield no benefit to the environment and most Americans know that the Federal government is simply incapable of managing the healthcare system without turning it into an unholy mess. The proof lies in their gross mismanagement of the government social programs that are already bankrupting this nation. Congress must not ignore the cries of the American people. If history has taught us anything it should be that once the words of the governed fail to persuade the leaders of government, it won’t be long before the pitchforks and torches are taken out of storage again.

Join me tomorrow for the guardian of the First Amendment: The Second Amendment.

Paul

The First Amendment - Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly

Paul

Healthcare Reform and the Constitution

About the only thing that the Democrats and the President have said about the Healthcare Bill that isn’t an outright lie is that it is comprehensive. In fact, that is probably understated since this will give our Federal government unprecedented control over every facet of health, including some very personal decisions.

The bill contains a tax on sugary beverages since sugary beverages have been deemed bad for you. Anything bad for you will raise healthcare costs and this bill gives the government the authority to regulate anything that will affect your health. When government began its crusade to steer behavior under what is widely known know as a “sin” tax on cigarettes, I warned that this was only the beginning. No one argues that cigarettes are bad for one’s health but the same argument can be made for nearly the entire fast food industry. As cigarette taxes climb and people quit smoking, the number of cigarette related illnesses will also decline. When illness related to obesity ranks as the number one cause of death in the United States, the same argument will be used to regulate that behavior too.

We all know the number play in Washington. We saw it all through the debate as some figures were issued in real numbers and some were issued as percentages, whichever made the case for healthcare reform stronger. The industry profits for healthcare insurance were given in real dollars since the amount appeared staggering. Even though the industry-wide profits were stated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the fact is it represented an industry profit of only two percent. See how that works? Two percent wouldn’t make the people paying high insurance premiums angry but hundreds of billions of dollars would.

Choosing the right set of numbers, the Liberal think tanks can now establish a cause to intervene in our lives. The hundreds of billions of dollars that cheeseburger and fries sap from the health insurance industry is certainly enough to warrant government regulation and that regulation will come in the form of an additional tax. Part of the healthcare bill also requires restaurants to list the caloric content of their meal items. How convenient! That would give us an easy factor by which we can calculate a “progressive” tax on foods that cause obesity. Of course, like any tax it will probably start with some thing barely noticeable as in the sugary beverage tax which was to be one penny per ounce, the last time I looked. But as the paradigm shifts and obesity overtakes cigarettes as the number one killer in the US, they will just have to raise unhealthy food taxes in order to save lives.

Why there are all sorts of things that contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs; things that progressives would love to eliminate but that the Constitution has prevented until now. Several cities have an incredible amount of healthcare money devoted to treating the victims of weapons related crimes. Using the EPA’s recent announcement that they will being regulating CO2 emissions without Congressional approval using the existing Clean Air Act as a guide, is it really beyond the scope of possibility that our Second Amendment Rights could vanish as a regulatory casualty of controlling healthcare costs? Of course the number crunchers would site the dollar and cents cost for that care as the justification and just ignore the facts that gun related crime is the highest in cities that already possess the harshest gun laws in the nation or that crimes committed with lawfully obtained and owned weapons is less than one half of one percent of all weapons related crimes.

What other rights could be swept away by this bill? Well, we didn’t have to wait for the passage of the bill for our right to free speech to be assaulted. Humana advised its customers about the potential loss of Medicare Advantage under the Healthcare Bill and the White House immediately attacked, threatening legal action even though Medicare advantage was indeed, on the chopping block. Where Humana is concerned, the White House acted with total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are considered individuals where Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to Free Speech is concerned. If that wasn't enough, the White House went as far as to establish an Orwellian e-mail account so individuals could report anyone that was spreading lies (opposing information) about the healthcare bill. The apparent message was that Big Brother is indeed watching. Of course that site was dismantled when there was an outcry over this clear abuse of power and the danger it represented.

How about our right to privacy? The administration claims that medical records will be specially secured and kept from prying eyes; really? When Social Security was enacted opponents railed against the loss of privacy and again, the government issued assurances that our privacy would be protected. Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used as a means of identification and the original cards were issued with the statement “For Social Security Purposes, Not for Identification” printed on the face of the card to allay those fears.

So what do we have now? Our Social Security number became our primary form of identification and is needed to secure employment, pay taxes and even to open a bank account. It is the only piece of identity needed in conjunction with your name to get a comprehensive credit report containing all of your financial dealings and as such, has become the primary instrument used by thieves to steal your identity and do irreparable harm to your credit and good name. Considering that the Federal government, with all of the technology and computerization available to them today, could not accurately track the stimulus expenditures with even a modest degree of accuracy, how could we believe that they can secure our medical records any better than they did our Social Security information?

The privacy issue may be further impinged if the final bill contains the same provisions for community based services that were in the House Bill. Under that, community base health providers would come to your home to offer solutions and advice on everything from child rearing to care for the elderly. We already know from past experience that once the government gets a toe in the door, it isn’t long before the whole proverbial 600 lb gorilla is in the living room.

Progressives may be for the most part, a Godless bunch while some Democrats like Ben Nelson are comfortable with placing their religious beliefs and morals on the same auction block with their votes; but American’s are a faithful people with 85% professing belief in one religion or another. The use of public funds for abortion, for many of these people, places them at odds with their faith. Intellectually, there is no difference in using their taxes to pay for abortion as it would be for them to pay for it themselves and that is something their conscience will not allow. Even soldiers have the ability to opt out of fighting in a war if they have a strong and historically verifiable religious objection. Those that object to abortion on religious grounds have no such “opt-out” provision available to them where taxes are concerned. Since tax money all goes into the same pot, if abortion is funded by any provision of the bill no one can offer a reasonable assurance that their money will not eventually end up funding abortion.

Let’s not forget that this is the first time the Federal government has levied a tax on us just because we are alive. The mandate that we purchase health care insurance or else, is as unconstitutional as it gets. There are those that say it’s no different than the mandate to have car insurance, but that mandate only applies if you choose to drive a car. Those that do not own a car are not required to have auto insurance to drive the costs down for those that do. Also, this healthcare bill is not actually insurance, but rather a whole life, cradle to grave intrusion on your life and liberty. It is pre-paid medical care and that is where the outrageous expense comes from. Do you file an insurance claim at every oil change or fill up? Does your auto insurance cover consumable items like brake pads and wiper blades? Does auto insurance cover pre-existent conditions or allow high risk drivers to purchase a low cost policy? No, the comparison to auto insurance is idiotic at best and only confirms the irrational lengths at which these people will go to sell you on this miserable idea.

Paul

It's beginning to look a lot like a secular winter holiday season.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas; everywhere you go….that is, unless that everywhere is public school where it’s beginning to look like a random winter festival devoid of any meaning. Every December we are cursed with another flurry of moronic edicts from school districts to prove that once again, the anti-religious groups, the ACLU and the courts have little or no understanding of the Constitution.

Our nation was founded on the principal of the free and unfettered worship of God. The Constitutional separation of Church and State was designed to prevent the government from adopting a State religion to the exclusion of all others and was meant to be a guarantee that all people could worship in the religion of their choice without interference. What we have today is a defective interpretation of the First Amendment that has transmuted the Separation of Church and State into the Separation of Church from State resulting in State suppression of religious freedom.

During the adoption of the Constitution some were afraid that the First Amendment Separation of Church and State as written might be misconstrued in exactly this way. August 15, 1789. Peter Sylvester of New York had his doubts...He feared the First Amendment might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." James Madison of Virginia said he understood the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."

The founding fathers were overtly religious and recognized the importance of religion in a truly free society. Moral convictions could allow America to enjoy unparalleled freedoms without descending into anarchy or without the need for draconian rule to maintain order. It was really the spread of Marxist ideology that sewed the seeds of religious oppression. After all, European monarchs all claimed to have derived their power directly from God so if those governments were to fall in favor of Socialist or Communist rule, then God would necessarily have to fall as well. Lenin described religion as “the opiate of the masses” in that religious doctrine placated the general population and kept them from seizing control of their own destiny.

Communism required loyal followers and the ruling party had no intention of sharing that loyalty with an unseen God. Later, the Socialist assault on God became part of their doctrine of demoralization. As long as man would fight for “God and Country”, the prospects for Communist victory remained elusive. Soviet influences began to chip away at the fabric of the American faith structure. The “useful idiots” as Lenin called them, began the process of using our laws against us and once the courts had a sufficient number of progressive, activist judges in place; the legal battles that would redefine the First Amendment began to yield results.

Atheists such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair led the charge in the United States. After receiving a Bachelors Degree from Ashland University, O’Hair attended law school at the South Texas College of Law. She completed her law degree in 1952 but failed the bar exam and subsequently, never practiced law. She is reported to have attended meetings of the Socialist Workers Party while living in Baltimore in 1957. In 1959, O’Hair applied for Soviet Citizenship and after receiving no reply, traveled to Europe by ship with her children with the intention of defecting through the Soviet Embassy in Paris. To her surprise, the Soviet Embassy denied her entry. Soviet Communists may have been Godless thugs, but even they recognized a screw-ball when they saw one. In the end, O’Hair would return to the United States to embrace her new calling of disrupting the American way of life.

In 1960, O’Hair filed a law suit against the Baltimore School District on behalf of her son, William O’Hair claiming that he was forced to participate in religious exercises and that teachers at the school ridiculed William for resisting. The law suit was consolidated with a similar action (Abington School District vs. Schempp) and invariably led to a Supreme Court decision that proclaimed that school prayer and the reading of religious materials in public schools were unconstitutional under the First Amendment separation of Church and State and that all such practices should be banned from public schools.

In 1963, Madalyn Murray O’Hair founded the American Atheists, a group dedicated to Atheist ideals (or lack of ideals) and began a systematic assault on religious freedom through the American courts. Curiously, her son William was baptized at a Baptist Church in 1980 and took up work as a preacher. This enraged Madalyn which led to a permanent estrangement between William and his mother. Commenting on her son’s religious awakening she said “One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness."

That tells me O’Hair’s 1960 law suit actually had little to do with her son and everything to do with her own twisted views on religion and politics. Madalyn O’Hair also claimed to be a “sexual libertarian”; openly stating her beliefs that children in sixth grade should be given sexual education and that people should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse as soon as nature intended and not according to the age restraints of existing law.

O’Hair remained at the helm of the American Atheists until her death in 1995 at age 76. Curiously, Madalyn O’Hair, her son Jon and her granddaughter Robin were kidnapped, murdered and dismembered by an employee of the American Atheist group she had founded. Some claimed that she received her just due and this was God’s retribution for a lifetime of work against religion. I don’t believe in a vengeful God. I believe that God has given us free will and that we follow because our faith compels us to do so and not because of the threat of divine vengeance. No, Madalyn and her family did not die because of an angry God; they died because she had surrounded herself with people as devoid of moral constraints as she was. After all, murder may be against the law but the only thing that makes it morally reprehensible is faith in the word of God and belief in the divinity of the Ten Commandments.

The most fitting eulogy for Madalyn Murray O’Hair was delivered by her son William, the Baptist Preacher. He said "My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company....Regardless of how evil and lawless my mother was she did not deserve to die in the manner she did."

I am sure it pained him to have to say that about his mother and as a preacher, I am sure he spent many hours on his knees praying for her salvation because that is what the faithful do. In the end, it is only Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s legacy that lives on. The landmark lawsuit she brought had lasting implications and has been the basis for many subsequent law suits against any public display of religion in America. Today, schools have gone as far as banning music for their “winter festivals” that have any religious connotations, even if it is just played as an instrumental piece.

Anyone with children in public school is familiar with school fund raising events, one of which is (or was) the Christmas sale. The Christmas sale displays items donated by parents and then allows the children to buy those odds and ends for their parent’s Christmas gifts. Not only is the name of “Christmas” barred from the event but one school district in New Jersey has gone as far as sending a list home to the parents to tell them what is and is not acceptable. Items with a religious theme are banned and they have even prohibited red and green tissue paper because some modern day Madalyn O’Hair might make the connection between those colors and the observance of Christmas.

It is time we ask for an honest interpretation of the First Amendment based on the known intent of the crafters of our Constitution and not some lawyer’s twisting of the English language. Our First Amendment right to embrace our beliefs openly and without harassment has been diluted and it is now the religious equivalent of “don’t ask-don’t tell”. So you tell me….what is more dangerous; religious displays or Atheism? I would ask Madalyn O’Hair but she was murdered by a fellow Atheist.

Paul

The First Amendement, Part Three

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

The third and final part of the First Amendment is the freedom to assemble.

“Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the… right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The freedom to peaceably assemble has been openly exercised throughout the history of this nation. Since we just celebrated Labor Day yesterday, is it worthy to note that the legislation that offered protection for unions and for striking workers is inextricably tied to the First Amendment. It was recognized by the courts that the union busting tactics used by employers and local law enforcement during the height of the industrial revolution denied striking workers their constitutional right to assemble; therefore it was the obligation of government to enact legislation that would prevent these violent reprisals against striking workers.

Prior to the inception of the United States, people still gathered to air grievances, usually with catastrophic consequences. Without the right to assemble most would grumble quietly to themselves until things had become so unbearable that the consequences for public dissent were all but meaningless. We have all seen the images in old movies that show the town folk marching through the night carrying pitch forks and burning torches to protest one thing or another. We also saw that those protests were usually met with armed reprisal by whatever authority existed in that time period. The clash resulted in the deaths of the protestors and within a short period of time, the protests would turn to open and violent insurrection with towns and cities burned to the ground by enraged citizens.

The Boston Massacre was another instance of a protest quelled by the Kings soldiers. That massacre was still fresh in the memories of the colonists when the Constitution was drafted. Since the United States was a government formed by free people, they naturally held their God given rights as paramount over the authority of government. I’m sure people are tired if hearing this from me at this point but it is a critical philosophy if one is to understand the Constitution. The founding fathers recognized that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The States and the people wanted a Federal government that would unite the States and would govern maters of commerce and law between the States; a government that would insure that all would provide for the common defense of the Union in the event that any one of the sister States were assaulted by an outside force. What they did not want was to give unbridled power to that same Federal government or allow it the ability to seize power from the States or the people.

The colonies had just fought a bloody war against the British Crown to obtain their liberty and they were not about to surrender that liberty to a centralized government. With that in mind they established strong constraints over the power the Federal government would be allowed to wield. The bill of rights are the chains that prevent the Federal government from becoming oppressive. After freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the freedom to peacefully assemble is the logical next step to secure the ideals of a democratic republic. After all, if Congress is pledged to represent the will of the people then there had better be a mechanism in place for the people to make themselves heard when they feel their representatives are not adequately addressing their concerns.

Every major event in American history is punctuated by the marches and protests that shook government into action. Unfortunately, the history of this nation says that our government doesn’t act until the protests are large enough and loud enough so that the voice of the people can be heard through the thick walls of the Capitol building not to mention the equally thick skulls of the occupants of that building.

We are Americans. We don’t like to be ignored, especially by our government. We recently saw proof of this at the recent town hall meetings. Once again, the Congress wants to pass legislation that will explode the National Debt and eventually, implode our economy. The American people are already frustrated that the Federal government has accrued a national debt of 12 trillion dollars. Americans want that debt paid and the spending deficits turned into a surplus before we will even consider establishing more spending to grease the so-called social consciousness of the liberal arm of Congress. We are angry and we are obviously not being heard. Since they are not reaching out to us, we are once again using our guaranteed right under the first amendment to bring the message to them.

The people that shouted out their concerns at the town hall meetings were denigrated by the press and by the Congressmen they met with. The protestors were called manufactured and fraudulent and the concerns they brought with them were swept away as these Representatives, Senators and journalists turned the discussion away from the message and instead made it about the people that brought the message to them. How foolish.

Fortunately, teabags are being used to punctuate these protests and the next “tea party” is scheduled for September 12, 2009, with the largest to take place in Washington DC. I already hear the Congress and special interests starting up the machines that will once again drown out the voice of these people by calling them “tea baggers” in an attempt to make them seem silly and unimportant. Have they forgotten the lessons that for every person that actually makes the time to protest that there are a hundred more that believe the same thing?

The message is clear and sensible. No more massive spending bills, no government control of healthcare and we do not want a climate bill that will decimate what is left of our economy. This nation is in a recession with more that 200,000 additional jobs being lost every month. Thanks to the spending practices of Congress we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and that equals over $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bailout programs and stimulus plan will add another $80,000 a piece to that and the unfunded liabilities of the social programs given to us by Roosevelt and Johnson mean that we are all pledged to cover the future debt associated with those programs to the tune of an additional $190,000 a piece. To put it simply, the reckless spending of Congress has seen to it that every child born into this nation already owes more than $350,000 in nationally accrued debt before the umbilical cord is even cut.

I hope Congress stops this foolish practice of dismissing the American people. Let’s face it, the colonists revolted and engaged the British in a bloody war because Parliament placed a 2% tax on their breakfast drink. We are the descendents of those brave men and women and we possess the same intolerance of government abuse. We have already passed the point where taxation has become oppressive and burdensome. We are being told that there is a healthcare crisis and something must be done. Once again, the only portion of the healthcare system that is in crisis is the portion that the Federal government already controls.

The climate bill is nothing more than a cleverly disguised energy tax that will yield no benefit to the environment and most Americans know that the Federal government is simply incapable of managing the healthcare system without turning it into an unholy mess. The proof lies in their gross mismanagement of the government social programs that are already bankrupting this nation. Congress must not ignore the cries of the American people. If history has taught us anything it should be that once the words of the governed fail to persuade the leaders of government, it won’t be long before the pitchforks and torches are taken out of storage again.

Join me tomorrow for the guardian of the First Amendment: The Second Amendment

Paul

The First Amendment, Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…

“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly


Paul

The First Amendement, Part One

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Central to the principals of American Freedom is allegiance to the Constitution. Our elected officials must, to assume office, fulfill a requirement to swear an oath to defend and support the Constitution. Our trust as a nation is placed in the word of law and not the word of a leader. Even the military, under direct orders from the President, have sworn to defend the Constitution as their primary mission and to obey the orders of the President only if his orders do not conflict with that.

The founding fathers added the amendments in order of their importance to the cause of liberty. Therefore, the first amendment must possess the highest degree of importance for the well being of the Republic. This amendment covers a wide area of freedoms that had historically been denied to the common citizen and governmental retribution for the infraction of laws surrounding religion, speech and free assembly had been traditionally, swift and brutal. It was critical to secure the high ideals that this new nation was to represent, that these rights were guarded as aggressively as they had previously been denied. Given the importance of this amendment, we will address each of the clauses individually over the next three days.

The most misunderstood of these principals is the first. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The modern incarnation of this passage is the separation of Church and State. The men who founded our nation were statesmen, lawyers, businessmen, land owners and tradesmen. They were also openly religious and sought to secure the blessings of God on this nation by recognizing his divine word that man was and ought to be, free.

Many of the early settlers to this new continent came here to seek the freedom of religious expression; a freedom denied to them by the Church of England. The founding fathers celebrated their beliefs openly but recognized that belief assumes many forms. That all men should have the comfort of worshiping in the faith of their choice, free from coercion, free from ridicule and free from reprisal. To that end, they established language in the form of a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the United States from establishing a “State Religion” similar to the Church of England.

That was meant to allow all citizens to worship in their own way. Unfortunately, modern man brings modern thought into the discussion. Public schools once began each day with a prayer. Atheists saw this as the establishment of religion and bombarded the courts with suits claiming that the freedom of religion, or non-religion, was being trampled on by this practice. Reading the letter of the law, the courts had no alternative but to agree and remove the mandates of prayer from public schools. However, the courts, as usual, went too far and the separation of “Church and State” slowly became the separation of “Church from State”, prohibiting any public display of religion. In essence, it has been mutated to say “freedom from religion” instead of the word of law which is “freedom of religion”.

Remember that the intention was to allow the free worship of God, each in his own way. Now we have adopted a policy where school children that choose to pray are prohibited from doing so in public places. That any public display that acknowledges the faith of the American people is abolished and that public monies can not be used to assist charities and community organizations that are operated by religious organizations. This was never the intent of the First Amendment. I do not believe that the government should endorse one religion over another but it has the obligation to recognize the faith of all of its citizens. It should not lead a school in prayer but neither should it prevent those that wish to pray from doing so. It should not celebrate one religious event over another but it should celebrate the freedom with which American’s celebrate these events for themselves.

I could go to the extreme and point out that by the definition posted in the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary that progressivism meets three of the four definitions given to describe religion and is therefore logically, a religion itself. While progressivism is primarily a political frame of mind the believers in this ideology also eagerly point out the morality of the goals in their political aims. It is dangerous for one to assume that their morality is superior to all others, just as it is dangerous to claim that one religion is superior over another.

Following the logic of the modern Supreme Court and all of the opponents of public displays of religion I would submit that the endorsement and display of progressive ideology be equally expunged from all public venues. That the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be disbanded and a full accounting of the public funds used to support it be made known to the American people and that progressive organizations should also be prohibited from receiving public funding.

We can go down the list of the groups and ideologies, both left and right, that have had a strangle hold on the governmental process and apply this equally among them. In the end, once we weed out the political groups that pursue their aims with “religious” fervor, we will eventually end up with public support for only a small group of individuals that look very much like the men that founded this country; those that would seek justice for all and posses a keen recognition of individual liberties and freedoms.

Hmmm….Sounds like a great idea! Let’s found a nation based on those principals!

Tomorrow: Part two of the First Amendment. Freedom speech and freedom of the press.”

Paul