Posts Tagged ‘first amendment’

Joe Biden’s upcoming war on the First and Second Amendments

Posted: June 17, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The Biden regime is working overtime on schemes to deprive us Americans of some of our most important God=given Natural Rights, the right of freedom of speech and our right to bear arms. 

The Capitol Hill Riot on January 6th is providing the justification for an all out assault on the First Amendment by Joe Biden and the rest of the Progressives in Washington DC. That is why they have blown that one incident completely out of proportion.  This NBC News article discusses the latest deeply troubling proposal  White House unveils new strategy to counter domestic terrorisme’laser-focused on violence’

The strategy and an accompanying White House fact sheet call for more scrutiny of public social media posts and better coordination among security agencies. 

This entire effort would be a gross violation of the First Amendment which prevents the federal government from interfering with the free speech of all Americans.

The Biden administration’s review of its domestic counterterrorism strategy began with that intelligence assessment. The unclassified version, released in March, concluded that the two most lethal elements of U.S. domestic terrorism are racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race and anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, such as violent militia extremists.

Unfortunately Joe Biden and progressives consider any speech or writing that conflicts with progressive dogma to be hate speech and violence.  Any individual who is from the right side of the political spectrum is considered a violent extremist.  Leftists are constantly and erroneously calling those who disagree with them white supremacists.  The founding principles of the United States are very much anti government and anti authority.  This is an attempt to criminalize them.

The Biden strategy is based on what it calls four pillars, designed to understand, prevent, disrupt and address long-term drivers of domestic terrorism. Although it involves new government scrutiny of what Americans say on social media, officials say they have been careful to avoid any move that infringes on political speech.

Any scrutiny of what Americans say or write by the federal government is a gross violation of the First Amendment and I believe with 100 percent certainty that the Biden Regime will most definitely infringe on the political speech of those of us who are conservatives and libertarians.

“We are not targeting speech. We are not attacking speech,” Mayorkas said. “We are working with the social media companies to be able to better identify the false narratives, to be able to identify disinformation and misinformation and really educate the American public.”

I call BS on the entire statement by Mayorkas.  The Frist Amendment prevents the federal government from playing any role identifying false narratives or disinformation, Progressives consider anything that conflicts with their beliefs to be false narratives or disinformation.  The statement about educating the American public brings images of political reeducation camps to mind quite clearly.

This Townhall article The Largest Gun Registration and Confiscation Scheme Is Being Planned By the Biden Administration is a clear warning that the Biden Regime will attempt to use executive orders, federal regulations, and federal agencies to disarm the American people.

A new rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) at the request of President Joe Biden would make most firearms with stabilizing pistol braces illegal. Owners would have to register, turn in, or disassemble the guns to avoid federal felony charges. One government estimate found as many as 40 million guns could be affected.

“It will be the largest gun registration, destruction, and confiscation scheme in American history,” Alex Bosco, who invented the stabilizing brace and founded the biggest manufacturer of them, told The Reload.

Today’s proposed rulemaking on pistol-braced firearms represents a gross abuse of executive authority,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, in a statement.

Bosco said the rule would outlaw the vast majority of braces on the market and read like it was “reverse-engineered to make braces illegal.” He called it “arbitrary and capricious.”

I firmly believe that any attempt by the Biden regime to disarm the American people will have very grave consequences. It is best that they do not try.

Joe Biden made a very dangerous and foolish statement about Constitutional Amendments

Posted: April 15, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

When I saw articles such as this my blood began to boil Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute’.  The level of constitutional ignorance demonstrated by Joe Biden when he made this statement is quite staggering.  The fact that he is currently inhabiting the Oval Office and intends to govern by executive order made this statement exceedingly dangerous.

No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

That statement is made up of several complete mistruths and a couple of half truths about the Second Amendment in particular and constitutional amendments in general.  A careful examination of the transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of  Rights in House of Representatives will prove just how wrong he is.. 

This  quote from June 8 of 1789 explains the general purpose of the Bill of Rights.  As you can see the Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the most important rights of the people by denying the federal government the power and authority to regulate them in any way at all.  That prohibition on the federal government was in fact absolute.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. 

This quote from the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Congress of the United States which was begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789 explains that several states demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the US Constitution to protect our most important rights by chaining the hands of the federal government

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;–

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,–

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.   A standing Army was believed by the drafters of the Constitution to be very much a threat to the liberty of the people.  Defense of the United States and the individual states was to be maintained by unorganized state militias made up of the people of the states. That can only be achieved if we the people have military weapons.  When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified all weapons held by the people were military weapons.

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It has been maintained by many revisionist historians, college professors, and liberal politicians that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was a formal military unit, the same as the modern National Guard.  George Mason put the kibosh to that mistruth during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Richard Henry Lee echoes this in Federal Farmer 18. The National Guard would be considered by Mr. Lee and the rest of the founding fathers to be a select militia rather than one made up of all of the people.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature,

The creation of the modern National Guard did not begin until the passing of the Militia Act of 1903.  At that time the National Gard was created as a select militia.  That is completely different from the unorganized militia that existed here well before the formal beginning of the United States.  The modern National Guard is the exact type of select militia that was warned against by Richard Henry Lee and the rest of the founding fathers.

No article or Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the states from regulating or interfering with our rights. Every state does however have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people living in the state,  I believe every state’s Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms.  Here are the two articles of the Massachusetts Constitution that protect the right to bear arms of the inhabitants of this state.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolutely then the clause protecting us from double jeopardy can be taken away from us at the whim of the federal government along with trial by jury, and due process.  Slavery could be reinstated if the Thirteenth Amendment is not absolute.  That is extremely scary.

The Equality Act will establish Progressivism as the national religion of the United States

Posted: March 4, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The Equality Act of 2021 perfectly illustrates many fundamental differences between the political left and the political right.  The most fundamental difference being that the political left insists on forcing their beliefs on everyone else while the political right is perfectly fine with everyone believing what they want to believe. 

The political left is hell bent on destroying all traditional norms that have allowed society to properly function.  These norms are moral, cultural, and scientific.  The Equality Act is a perfect vehicle for destroying these norms.

The political left has a great disdain for the United States Constitution.  Those on the left elected to political office do not see themselves to be restrained by that document in any way. Every aspect of the Equality Acts violates the Constitution.  Most notably that act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  If passed progressivism would be established as the official national religion of the United States and no other religion would be tolerated.   The free exercise of religion clause would be demolished by that despicable act.

The type of government framework created by our Constitution is a bottom up federal republic not a top down totalitarian democracy.  For many decades progressives have been working very hard to turn this country into a totalitarian democracy where every aspect of our lives is dictated by the federal government.  The Equality Act is a perfect example of this.

Biological sex is the one true dividing characteristic defining the human species.  It is a fundamental truth that humans are either born male or female. There is a very small percentage of those born that have chromosomal abnormalities.  As you can see here, millennia of recognizing biologic sex will be thrown out the window by the Equaliy act. House Passes ‘Equality Act’ to End Legal Recognition of Biological Sex (breitbart.com)

The House passed House Passes Equality Act to End Legal Recognition of Biological Sex Equality Act Thursday, which would eliminate the legal definition of biological sex, cater to gender ideology, and designate protection for the unborn as “pregnancy” discrimination.

Gender identity is an artificial construct.  I believe everyone is free to identify as they wish but also everyone is free to disregard whatever someone identifies as.  You cannot force anyone to behave in a manner they do not wish to behave in or to believe what they do not wish to believe in.   This is enshrined in the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  The Equality Act forces everyone to follow progressive beliefs on so many fundamental issues.  11 Myths About H.R. 5, the Equality Act of 2021 | The Heritage Foundation

The Equality Act—introduced as H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2021—makes mainstream beliefs about marriage, as well as basic biological facts about sex differences, punishable under the law. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect and no one should face discrimination. But the Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties.

The Catholic Church in America is rightly outraged and deeply concerned by the Equality Act.  Here is a Letter_to_Congress_on_Equality_Act_Feb_23_2021 chairmen of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The remaining quotes in this article are from that letter.

Human dignity is central to what Catholics believe because every person is made in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, with respect and compassion. This commitment is reflected in the Church’s charitable service to all people, without regard to race, religion, or any other characteristic. It means we need to honor every person’s right to gainful employment free of unjust discrimination or harassment, and to the basic goods that they need to live and thrive. It also means that people of differing beliefs should be respected. In this, we whole-heartedly support nondiscrimination principles to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.

The Equality Act purports to protect people experiencing same-sex attraction or gender discordance from discrimination. But instead, the bill represents the imposition by Congress of novel and divisive viewpoints regarding “gender” on individuals and organizations. This includes dismissing sexual difference and falsely presenting “gender” as only a social construct.  As Pope Francis has reflected, however, “‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.’ … It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality.”1Tragically, thisActcan alsobe construed to include an abortion mandate, a violation of preciousr ights to life and conscience.

Rather than affirm human dignity in ways that meaningfully exceed existing practical protections, the Equality Act would discriminate against people of faith. It would also inflict numerous legal and social harms on Americans of any faith or none.

The letter goes on to list different ways the Equality Act will negatively impact Catholics. Each of which gravely violate the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

punish faith-based charities such as shelters and foster care agencies, and in turn their thousands of beneficiaries, simply because of their beliefs on marriage and sexuality (§§ 3, 6)

force both people and organizations in many everyday life and work settings to speak or act in support of “gender transitions,” including health care workers and licensed counselors, even when it’s against their professional judgment (§§ 3, 6, 7)

risk mandating taxpayers to pay for abortions, and health care workers with conscience objections to perform them, ultimately ending more human lives (§§ 3, 6, 9)

force girls and women to compete against boys and men for limited opportunities in school sports, and to share locker rooms and shower spaces with biological males who claim to identify as women (§§ 6, 9)

expand the government’s definition of public places into numerous settings, even forcing religiously operated spaces, such as some church halls and equivalent facilities owned by synagogues or mosques, to either host functions that violate their beliefs or close their doors to their broader communities (§ 3)

exclude people from the careers and livelihoods that they love, just for maintaining the truth of their beliefs on marriage and sexuality (§ 3)

discriminate against individuals and religious organizations based on their different beliefs by partially repealing the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, an unprecedented departure from that law and one of America’s founding principles (§ 9)

I’m no expert on bathroom lore but I believe the segregation of public restrooms, showers, and locker rooms into biologic male and biologic female was first done by local custom, then it was codified into local and state law.  It was first a voluntary arrangement that was codified into law.  It was done to protect the safety, privacy, and modesty of both sexes, but especially females.   It is a societal arrangement that has worked extremely well perhaps many hundreds of years.  The Equality Act will destroy that putting females young and old in danger.  It will also have devastating psychological impacts on women and girls.  The decisions involving these facilities should be made on the local level by those living in the community.  The federal government should not play any role in these decisions and is not granted the authority by the Constitution.

The extremely negative impacts the Equality Act will have on women’s sports has been well documented.

The presidents and the press

Posted: September 1, 2020 by chrisharper in media
Tags: ,

By Christopher Harper

President Trump probably wouldn’t rank in the top five opponents of the media among U.S. presidents.

That’s the verdict of The New York Times in a review of a recent book, “The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media — From the Founding Fathers to Fake News” by Harold Holzer. 

Yes, that assessment appeared in DaTimes, albeit from Jack Shafer, the media analyst of Politico.

The book’s author is no fan of President Trump. Holzer worked for U.S. Rep. Bella Abzug and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. 

John Adams signed sedition acts into law and used them against his critics in the media. George Washington even supported Adams’ anti-media tendencies. In his post-presidential years, Adams lamented that people read only Federalist or Republican newspapers—not both—leaving them with a one-sided view of the government in power. Sounds like a prelude to Fox and MSNBC.

Abraham Lincoln, arguably the best president in the nation’s history, imprisoned editors during the Civil War, banned newspapers from using the mail, and even confiscated printing presses. “Altogether, nearly 200 papers would face federally initiated subjugation during the Civil War,” Holzer writes. 

The Roosevelts enjoyed some of the best press among the presidents. But even they took aim at recalcitrant reporters. Theodore Roosevelt rebuked investigative journalists as “muckrakers,” or those who could only look down into the muck. He also filed a libel suit against Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World, which finally was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt ordered massive censorship of news organizations, including a government Office of the Censor. His administration also penalized any news organization that reported about his paralysis or his ill health in his final years.

President Woodrow Wilson imposed censorship during World War I in a heavy-handed manner, and his Espionage Act still stands as a repressive law against whistleblowers. 

The battle between President Richard Nixon and his press critics is well documented here—as it has been elsewhere. 

Although Holzer batters Trump for his attacks on the press, the author doesn’t hold back on Barack Obama. Holzer recalls the analysis of former Washington Post managing editor Leonard Downie Jr. that Obama’s “war on leaks and other efforts to control information” were the worst Washington had seen since Nixon.

All told, the book analyzes the 18 of the 45 presidents, with many nuggets about the various administrations.

For example, one journalist confides that the press was as much responsible for the New Deal as was FDR because of the glowing media coverage. That sounds about right!

Moreover, the press ignored JFK’s extra-marital affairs because journalists didn’t think the private doings affected public business. That, of course, ignored at least one affair that straddled a mistress and the Mob. One reporter referred to the president as the “swashbuckler in chief.”

Despite JFK’s tryst with the media, he targeted some enemies, including Henry Luce of Time and David Halberstam of DaTimes.

Although I’ve never been a fan of Lyndon Johnson, the saddest tales come from his administration. LBJ had a massive mandate from the voters in 1964–more than 61 percent–and an excellent rapport with the press. He managed to lose both public and the media’s support by misleading them about the war in Vietnam in what became known as the government’s credibility gap.

Older Entries
Newer Entries