Posts Tagged ‘original intent’

Busting Some Freedom of Speech Myths

Posted: March 14, 2024 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

It is excruciatingly obvious that very few individuals living in the United States truly understand freedom of speech.  Those on the political left are not only clueless about this most fundamental right, they openly despise the very concept of it.  Thanks to our criminally atrocious educational system the younger generations are also clueless and also openly hostile to the concept of freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, those of us on the political right sometimes demonstrate a lack of understanding when it comes to freedom of speech.  It is now time to dispel the most common misconceptions about freedom of speech that I’ve encountered.

There is no hate speech exception to freedom of speech.

Someone asked me if I support the right of the KKK to hold rallies in public. My answer is: Even though I find the KKK absolutely reprehensible and I am completely disgusted by everything they stand for I support their right to say it in public. If I found out there was a KKK rally planned in my area I would work tirelessly to organize a PEACEFUL protest and I would make sure my protest would completely dwarf the KKK rally. That is the essence of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. No one has a right to silence others, no matter how much they disagree with what others have to say. No one has a right to prevent another person, or group, from holding an event, or to interfere with that event in any way. Everyone has a right to peacefully protest anytime they want.

Even the most reprehensible individuals have a right to say the most reprehensible things. 

Far too often those on the political left label speech that contradicts leftist orthodoxy as hate speech.  They then use the declaration of hate speech as a weapon to silence that speech they disagree with.

There is no misinformation exception to freedom of speech.

Each and every individual has a right to spread whatever lies they wish to spread, on whatever medium they wish to use.  Outright spreading of misinformation and disinformation is most definitely protected by freedom of speech. 

Labeling speech that contradicts the progressive narrative as misinformation, and then censoring that speech is a favorite tactic of the Marxists who masquerade as Democrats.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from policing speech.

Each and every attempt at regulating speech by the federal government is a direct violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  That includes so called hate speech and misinformation.  The federal government has zero authority to define those concepts, and zero authority to classify speech according to those criteria.  The federal government has absolutely no authority to ban any speech at all.

Every state has a Bill of Rights that protects the rights of those living there from the tyranny of the state government and the local governments.  That includes freedom of speech.

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights.

All rights are granted to each and every individual directly by God.  The Bill of Rights is merely a restraining order that prohibits the federal government from infringing on, or regulating, our most fundamental rights in any way.  There is no such thing as a First Amendment Right, only God-given Natural Rights.

Governments most definitely do not grant rights.

This Christian Nationalism slur is dangerous

Posted: February 29, 2024 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Well over a century ago Progressives began a systematic dismantling of the United States   These Marxists chose to operate slowly, by stealth and subterfuge to accomplish their fundamental transformation of our Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Democracy.  To accomplish this progressives have incrementally weakened all of the pillars supporting this great nation.  The founding principles, the Constitution, and the Christian heritage of the United States have particularly drawn the ire of the American political left.  With one video Heidi Przybyla of Politico demonstrated remarkable ignorance in her attempt to denigrate all three of these fundamental pillars.

HEIDI PRZYBYLA: I talked with a lot of experts on this and I have seen it with my reporting, Michael, which is that the base of the Republican Party has shifted. Remember when Trump ran in 2016, a lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced real estate mogul who cheated on his wife with a porn star, and all of that.

So what happened was that he was surrounded by this more extremist element. We are going to hear words like Christian nationalism, like the “new apostolic reformation.” These are groups that you should get very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump’s circle. And the one thing that unites all of them because there’s many different groups orbiting Trump.

But the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them. In the past, that so-called “natural law,” it is a pillar of catholicism for instance, it has been used for good in social justice campaigns. Martin Luther King evoked it in talking about civil rights.

But now you have an extremist element of conservative Christians, who say that this applies specifically to issues including abortion, gay marriage, and it is going much further than that as you see, for instance, with the ruling in Alabama, this week that judges connected to the dominionist faction, and talking about a lot of other issues including surrogacy, IVF, sex education in schools, there’s a lot in addition.

Heidi Przybyla must not have been paying attention in history class when they discussed the Declaration of Independence.  Considering the abysmal state of our educational system it is also likely that that document was never discussed in any school she attended.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Thomas Jefferson openly borrowed from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, which was written in 1689.

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Heidi Przybyla’s Christian Nationalism slur is particularly dangerous because it is meant to undermine one of our Constitution’s most important pillars, that of God-given Natural Rights. Heidi Przybyla is far from alone in her use of the Christian Nationalism slur. It has become all the rage on progressive faux news sites in an attempt to intimidate lovers of liberty into silence.

It is well past time for the States to tell the Federal Government to pound sand

Posted: January 25, 2024 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

The relationship between the States and the Federal Government today is vastly different from the relationship created by the Constitution.  The relationship has been completely turned on its head.  Today the States are mere administrative districts, almost completely subservient to a tyrannical and consolidated National Government. The relationship actually created by the Constitution is a loose republic of mostly independent States tied together by a weak Federal Government. 

The States transferred only a tiny fraction of their government powers to the Federal Government, while retaining the vast majority of possible powers.  This is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article1 Section 8 is a complete list, or enumeration, of the powers transferred to the Federal Government by the States.  Article 1 Section 10 is a complete list of all powers prohibited to the States.

For over a hundred years the Federal Government has operated under three delusions.  The first delusion being that all federal laws, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions are the Supreme Law of the Land.  Second, only the Supreme Court can judge whether a law is constitutional or not.  Lastly, the Federal Government has complete control of the States. 

As you can see from Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution, only laws pertaining to enumerated powers are the Supreme Law of the Land.

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 Supreme Court decisions are most definitely not the Supreme Law of the Land because they are not listed in the Supremacy Clause.  They are only the opinions of Supreme Court Justices, who are too often partisan hacks.

As you can see from this passage from the Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all things constitutional; and the Federal Government does not have complete control over the States:

1. _Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Also from the Kentucky Resolutions it is clear that the States can easily set aside, or nullify, all unconstitutional federal laws:

8th. _Resolved_…that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited,

The disgraceful Supreme Court decision discussed in this article, ‘Conservative’ Supreme Court justices side with leftists to keep the border open – American Thinker, is a perfect example of everything wrong with the Federal Government.

Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution states quite clearly that the Federal Government is constitutionally bound to protect all States from the invasion at the southern border.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

From Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, you can see that the Federal Government is responsible for the common defense of the United States, not the internal defense of the individual States.

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

Texas has every constitutional right to defend itself.  So far Governor Abbott is doing the right thing by nullifying this atrocious decision: HOLDING THE LINE: More Razor Wire is Going Up in Eagle Pass, Texas [SEE IT] (hannity.com)

Celebrating Constitution Day by busting some Progressive myths about the Constitution

Posted: September 21, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

This past Sunday marked the 236th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.  Most unfortunately for everyone living in the United States, the Federal Government has not followed the original meaning of the Constitution for many decades.  This has caused tremendous harm to the freedom and prosperity of every American. 

Few Americans understand just how far the Federal Government has strayed from the original understanding of the Constitution because they have been inundated with a mountain of misinformation about that particular document.  This is quite dangerous because the American people are the ultimate final barrier that is supposed to ensure that the Federal Government lives under the restraints placed on it by the Constitution.  The only way to reestablish the restraints is to bust the progressives myths that have kept the American people ignorant of true meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

Myth number 1 – The Constitution is a living document who’s meaning changes with the political and cultural climate.

This myth is very much false.  These three quotes are proof of just how wrong that point of view really is.

The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me (as President) according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption – a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” – Thomas Jefferson Letter to Messrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith, March 27, 1801

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, let us recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.    From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.     From James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824

Myth 2 and 3– The Federal Government was granted complete control over the States and The Supreme Court is the only and final absolute arbiter of all things constitutional.

Thomas Jefferson set the record straight on both of these myths when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Myth 4—The Constitution granted the Federal Government unlimited powers to regulate all aspects of life inside the borders of the States.

As you can see from this quote from Federalist 45 by James Madison, that myth is false.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Older Entries