Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the First Amendment category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Wednesday morning, Chris Cuomo essentially bragged about threatening a Reddit user with violence if this Reddit user didn’t apologize to CNN. Forget about Big Brother chilling speech. Now, big multi-national corporations are getting into the act. I’m not here to defend the man who created the now-infamous Gif of President Trump clotheslining CNN at a WWE event. I’m here to criticize big corporations who use their position to bully people that mock them. I’m also here to criticize them for not being smart journalists.

Friends know I’m not a Bill O’Reilly fan. Still, I agree with pretty much everything in this op-ed. That’s especially true of when O’Reilly said “On live TV during the campaign, Donald Trump told me I should see a psychiatrist because I was too “negative.” So what? I continued to cover him fairly and retained access, even though I criticized him when I felt it necessary. But I based my analysis on facts, did not cheap-shot him, and did not quote anonymous sources that made him look bad. I was straight with Trump and, in return, he was straight with me.”

Let’s be clear about this. CNN hasn’t been straight with President Trump. In fact, they haven’t tried to be straight with him. They’ve seemingly tried to undercut him at each time they’ve had the opportunity. They aren’t a news network when it comes to President Trump. They’ve looked like the DNC Network most of the time.

PS- Their chief anchors aren’t too bright, either. Check this video out as proof:

Hint to Chris Cuomo: Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Popular speech doesn’t need to be protected.

Finally, on a serious note, it’s worth asking whether CNN is capable of setting aside their Trump hatred and report the news on a consistent basis. At this point, it doesn’t seem possible. As long as they have Chris Cuomo as an anchor, it’s difficult to take them seriously.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s time for the Democrats’ Resistance Movement to die. It’s time for the Evergreen College intolerance to stop. Both movements are built on intolerance and hostility. Bret Weinstein, the professor at the heart of the Evergreen protests, was reviled for telling Tucker Carlson “They imagine that I am a racist and that I am teaching racism in the classroom. And that has caused them to imagine that I have no right to speak, and that I am harming students by the very act of teaching them.”

The truth is that it’s time to set aside disagreements while elevating the debate on both sides. This is a teaching moment for both political parties. For instance, Republicans need to learn when to accept three-fourths of a loaf in negotiations rather than insisting on the entire loaf.

The Democrats have a tougher task. They’ve lost the ability to make rational policy arguments. The other problem that the Democratic Party has is that their most amped-up activists think people who don’t agree with them essentially as infidels. They don’t see conservatives as just wrong on policy. The hard left that James T. Hodgkinson was part of thinks of conservatives as evil. Hodgkinson himself was part of a far left organization that called for violence against Republicans, including President Trump.

These speeches, by Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi need to be the starting point in changing the culture in DC:

This has to stop, too:

An upstate New York congresswoman already in shock at the shooting of her colleagues at a baseball practice also received a chilling email entitled “One down, 216 to go.” Claudia Tenney, a freshman representative from the Utica area, received the message Wednesday in the hours after her fellow House Republican Steve Scalise, from Louisiana, was shot in Alexandria, Va.

It’s time to declare a zero-tolerance policy on speech advocating violence. (Think hollering fire in a crowded theater.)

By now, tons of ink has been spilled talking about the riot that happened prior to Milo Yiannopoulos’s performance at UC-Berkeley. Hopefully, this post will talk about something that hasn’t been talked about. I hope this takes a bit more of an historic perspective than those other articles. I hope this article exposes the wimpiness of the anarchist/Soros/progressive movement.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, UC-Berkeley gained notoriety for celebrating some of the greatest debates imaginable. The exchanges were testament to the intellectual heft of the students and personalities that participated in those debates. Today’s reporters, by contrast, talk about the students’ First Amendment rights to protest. Shame on them for that wimpy, obvious drivel. Nobody’s disputing the fact that students have the right to protest. That ‘reporting’ is missing the point, though.

The anarchists that inflict bodily harm on other students are the point that the MSM is missing. The point is that these anarchists aren’t interested in putting together a coherent argument, much less win a substantive debate. These rioters’ first instinct is to injure defenseless people. This is a perfect example of that:

People that pepper spray a student like that should be arrested, convicted and thrown in prison for lots of years. Period. That rioter’s intent was to harm and/or terrorize that young lady. There’s no justification for that.

BONUS QUESTIONS: Q1: Why do the anarchists show up wherever the Soros-funded protesters protest? Q2: Is Soros funding both operations?

Keeping the protesters and the rioters separate is important because the protesters, aka snowflakes, are intellectual wimps. They’re also fascists without knowing it. The snowflakes and anarchists don’t vote for Republicans. That word sets them off. If the Democratic Party wants to rebuild itself, they need to utterly repudiate these fascists’ actions. Otherwise, Democrats will become known as the party that won’t stand up to fascist or stand for the rule of law.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t hit a home run. Metaphorically speaking, he hit a grand slam in his first major league at-bat. It’s apparent that it’s a grand slam when the NY Times publishes an op-ed gushing about Judge Gorsuch.

Neal Katyal’s op-ed isn’t something that you’d expect to find on the NY Times’ op-ed page. The fourth paragraph of Katyal’s op-ed is gushy, saying “I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the editors at National Review wrote “Originalism has faced resistance in modern times mostly because liberals would rather not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution in order to edit it to their liking, removing its structural limits on governmental power and putting their preferred policies beyond democratic review. Gorsuch’s record gives us cause to believe that he would use his vote and his voice to side with the actual Constitution.”

President Trump looked totally confident when he announced his pick:

President Trump explained why he picked Judge Gorsuch. He outlined the lengthy, impressive list of qualities Judge Gorsuch possesses. After President Trump finished his presentation, he turned the microphone over to Judge Gorsuch.

One thing that seemed to jump out at everyone was when Judge Gorsuch said that a judge that agrees with every ruling he’s made “is probably a bad judge.” The clear intent of that statement is that judges that agree with their rulings are most likely substituting their policy preferences for the text on the page. For instance, a judge that bans flag-burning isn’t doing his/her job. Few people think that burning the flag is the right thing to do. Most people would criticize it. The First Amendment, though, says that “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.” It doesn’t prohibit people from saying things we find hateful.

Based on what’s out there, Judge Gorsuch understands that perfectly. That’s why we should think he’s the best possible pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

It isn’t a secret that CAIR isn’t a legitimate civil rights organization. They’ve supported terrorist groups like Hamas. They were funded by Hamas. Thursday night, Hassan Shibly, the “chief executive director of CAIR-Florida’s chapter, attempted to shame Carl Higbie, a former Navy Seal and the spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC. Wednesday night, Higbie was on Megyn Kelly’s show when Higbie talked about a registry of immigrants from Muslim countries. Higbie said “To be perfectly honest, it’s legal. It’ll hold constitutional muster. I know the ACLU will challenge it but I think it’ll pass. We did it with Iran back a while ago. We did it during WW II with the Japanese.”

Thursday night, Higbie was Megyn’s guest again. This time, he expanded on his statement of Wednesday night, saying “It was strictly a reference to the scrutiny of immigrants and registration of immigrants coming from places like Japan, Germany and Italy and places like that.”

When it was Shibly’s turn to speak, he immediately said to Higbie “To Carl, I say ‘have you no sense of decency? Sir, America is a country based on freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle that I have taken an oath and I’m sure that you have taken an oath to protect. It is ineffective to target people based solely on religion. Let’s target criminals. Let’s target terrorists…”
Here’s the video of Thursday night’s interview:

It isn’t that religious freedom isn’t a fundamental right in the United States. It’s that protecting its citizens from Islamic terrorists is one of the federal government’s primary responsibilities, too. There’s judicial precedent stating that forcing people coming from terrorist nations to sign into a register before entering our nation is a reasonable thing. It’s interesting that CAIR is ok with registering guns in the name of preventing attacks but it’s protesting against registering people who might be violent terrorists.

It’s foolish to think that sovereign nations don’t have the right to protect its citizens from potentially violent immigrants. In fact, as commander-in-chief and as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the president has an affirmative responsibility to protect his citizens from violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that this Aaron Sorkin op-ed sounds like a liberal that’s unhinged is understatement.

Sorkin’s op-ed starts by saying “Sorkin Girls, Well the world changed late last night in a way I couldn’t protect us from. That’s a terrible feeling for a father. I won’t sugarcoat it—this is truly horrible. It’s hardly the first time my candidate didn’t win (in fact it’s the sixth time) but it is the first time that a thoroughly incompetent pig with dangerous ideas, a serious psychiatric disorder, no knowledge of the world and no curiosity to learn has.”

It’s hard to read that, then think it gets more unhinged after that. That’s what happens, though. Sorkin continues, saying “And it wasn’t just Donald Trump who won last night—it was his supporters too. The Klan won last night. White nationalists. Sexists, racists and buffoons. Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate.”

I won’t pretend that I think Mr. Trump is a policy wonk. Clearly, that isn’t fact. Further, it’s indisputable that the KKK endorsed Mr. Trump. That doesn’t mean Trump is a bigot.

Apparently, Sorkin didn’t have a problem voting for a corrupt woman who lied repeatedly to Congress and to various judges.

Mr. Sorkin has the constitution right to make these statements. He should consider, though, that it’s Trump voters’ rights to ridicule him for being this unhinged. It’s also within the Trump voters’ constitutional rights to boycott his products.

I won’t pretend that Zach Dorholt loves the Constitution. He doesn’t. That isn’t surprising considering the fact that he’s a progressive. Progressives, whether we’re talking about President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Rick Nolan or Zach Dorholt, prefer limiting speech. Specifically, they prefer limiting speech that’s critical of them. This LTE highlights the DFL’s pathetic arguments for limiting political speech.

The LTE starts by saying “Are you as sick of all of the campaign ads in our mailboxes and airwaves as I am? Something needs to change. But it will only happen if we elect legislators who are prepared to take tough votes to get big money out of politics. That’s why I support Zach Dorholt. Zach supports campaign finance reform that would get dark money out of politics. He supports legislation that would make every special interests group – whether they support Democrats or Republicans — disclose to voters who is paying for the ads.”

My initial reaction is that the fascist that wrote this LTE is a whiny liberal who can’t take criticism. I get as many mailers as anyone in St. Cloud. I’ll admit that they’re annoying at times. I’ll argue, though, that I prefer getting annoyed vs. the thought of other people’s opinions not getting expressed.

IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY: I’ll fight for everyone’s right to express their opinions, even if I vehemently disagree with their opinions.

This LTE, much like Mr. Dorholt, puts a high priority on limiting free speech, not on funding the basic functions of government. What’s appalling is that Dorholt’s campaign website’s priorities page doesn’t mention his solution for fixing Minnesota’s highways. Dorholt’s priorities page specializes in talking in circles:

Minnesota needs an economy…
where businesses are competitive and innovation is encouraged.
where the permitting process is streamlined and compliance review is straightforward.
where workers are protected in and out of the workplace and receive livable wages.
where companies are rewarded for keeping jobs from going overseas.

Mr. Dorholt, how can you be for streamlining the permitting process for PolyMet, then say that we need more regulations to protect workers and mandate “livable wages”?

The DFL has an agenda. It’s an agenda of killing middle class jobs, raising taxes on everyone via the gas tax and funding the Southwest Light Rail project that does nothing to reduce congestion on Twin Cities highways. They just can’t talk about that agenda. That’s why they’re stuck talking about limiting people’s First Amendment rights and violating our constitutional rights.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Is it possible that Betsy Hodges is the biggest airhead liberal big city mayor in the United States? It appears so. After the violent protests at last Friday’s Trump fundraiser, Keith Downey sent Mayor Hodges a letter, which I wrote about here. In response, Mayor Hodges replied “I expect everyone in Minneapolis to behave with civility and respect. Minneapolis has a long history of effectively balancing public safety with First Amendment rights. I continue to be confident in the ability of the Minneapolis Police Department to manage protests in accordance with these principles.”

What planet is she from? Expecting people in the Twin Cities to “behave with civility and respect” weeks after BlackLivesMatter threw concrete blocks and construction rebar at police officers on I-94 in St. Paul is like throwing a piece of meat between 2 hungry Dobermans and expecting them to behave with civility. Anyone with a brain knows that’s a foolish expectation. Anyone with common sense knows that expecting civility from thugs is as foolish as expecting Bonnie and Clyde to not rob banks that advertise that their vaults are open 24-7.

Let’s rewrite Ms. Hodges’ statement for honesty. Here’s what I’d write:

I expect most of the people in Minneapolis to behave with civility and respect. Unfortunately, there are thugs, in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, who have shown a propensity towards anarchy and violence. Minneapolis has had a lengthy history of effectively balancing public safety with citizens’ First Amendment rights. These anarchists and thugs threaten that reputation. Their acts of violence won’t be tolerated. We will do everything we can to apprehend these thugs and bring them to justice.

It’s time for DFL politicians to announce a zero-tolerance policy towards acts of violence and anarchy.

Based on what he tweeted this morning, Chris Bremseth sounds like a Dorholt supporter. Bremseth’s tweet insisted that Zach Dorholt had “signed a pledged to get big money politics out of St Cloud.” Actually, that isn’t what Dorholt pledged to do. Dorholt’s own communication tells a totally different story, saying “In an effort to reduce the negative influence of outside spending during the upcoming election season, Minnesota House of Representatives District 14B candidate Zachary Dorholt authored a pledge to issue a bipartisan call for outside groups to disclose their donors before spending in the district.”

This is part of the DFL’s political showmanship. It’s substantively meaningless because special interests can (and will) ignore Dorholt’s pledge. It isn’t a coincidence that the item at the top of Dorholt’s priorities page is titled “Political Climate.” Dorholt said “The 2016 elections will be a defining moment in Minnesota politics. We will decide not only who will lead our government, but the manner in which we select them. Are we going to allow shadowy organizations with millions of dollars select our leaders or will we stand up and make sure that all citizens have a proportionate share in our elections?”

That’s laughable and disgusting. Dorholt’s 2014 campaign finance disclosure report shows that he raised $37,709.00, of which $5,675.00 was contributed by Minnesota individuals. Of that $5,675.00 raised in Minnesota, a whopping total of $225.00 came from a St. Cloud resident. That means $32,034 came from contributors in Philadelphia, PA, West Hollywood, CA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL and other places. That means that Dorholt, as an incumbent DFL legislator, raised 0.6% of his money from the city he supposedly represents.

When it came to lobbyists and special interest PACs, Dorholt was well-funded, getting $5,175 in cash contributions from them. Let’s summarize these totals. During the 2014 election cycle, Zach Dorholt, the incumbent legislator, raised $225 from the city he represents while raising $10,875 from other Minnesotans, from lobbyists and special interest PACs.

Why should the people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents think that he represents them while he raises the overwhelming percentage of his Minnesota contributions come from Twin Cities elites and from lobbyists and special interest PACs? The people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents shouldn’t pay attention to this PR stunt of a pledge:

Based on how much money the special interests and the PACs support him and how Mr. Dorholt faithfully votes for their agenda, isn’t it safe to say that this pledge is a PR stunt?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights what’s wrong with the PC movement. It highlights what’s frightening about the tactics the PC Police use in silencing people. First, let’s highlight how this episode of political correctness started.

According to the article, “In Hood River, Oregon, the Belmont Drive Missionary Baptist Church is taking on Islamic ideology through their church’s message board, but local officials are not happy about it, according to a WND report.” That’s just the start of things.

Things started getting testy when Pastor Michael Harrington posted the following on the church’s roadside sign: “Wake up Christians. Allah is not our God. Muhammad not greater than Jesus.” The other side of the sign said “Only the Bible is God’s Word. ‘Holy Book’ Koran is just another book.”

I don’t doubt that the sign is offensive to Muslims and people who aren’t religious. That’s irrelevant. The First Amendment wasn’t adopted and ratified to protect speech everyone agrees with. There’s no need to protect that type of speech. The First Amendment was adopted to guarantee the right of people to say controversial things. The British don’t have anything resembling the First Amendment. There was a time when the King ruled what was permissible to be spoken and what wasn’t.

The Founding Fathers wanted this new nation to be founded on principles opposite of England’s principles. That’s why they codified the First Amendment’s protections into the Bill of Rights. What’s interesting is that the PC police are quick to defend Muslims but are quick to criticize the practice of Christian faiths. That’s part of the progressives’ do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mantra.

Here’s hoping that Pastor Harrington’s congregation continues being provocative for the right reasons.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,