A quick review of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America reveals the intent of our Nation's founders was very straightforward:
Amendment I 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. (Emphases added for clarification)
Now, let's play the Bill Clinton game... "it depends on what abridge means". Here we go:
abridge- Pronunciation:
- \ษ-หbrij\
- Function:
- transitive verb
- Inflected Form(s):
- abridged; abridg·ing
- Etymology:
- Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at
- Date:
- 14th century
1 archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish 2: to shorten abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condensesynonyms see shorten
Now that we all know the
human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling
legalese definition) we can proceed.
The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or
PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered
insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a
manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or
origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":
- spade (1)
- "tool for digging," O.E. spadu, from P.Gmc. *spadon (cf. O.Fris. spada, M.Du. spade, O.S. spado, M.L.G. spade, Ger. Spaten), from PIE *spe- "long, flat piece of wood" (cf. Gk. spathe "wooden blade, paddle," O.E. spon "chip of wood, splinter," O.N. spann "shingle, chip"). To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans)
It
means to use blunt language - a definition that was established over
450 years ago! The racially charged, derogatory use of the word didn't come about until 1928, and today, most people still understand the phrase to mean
use blunt language. As
laughable as we may find the implied necessity to use
idiotic euphemisms to express honest thoughts, it was the beginning of the assault on free speech. However, that assault is
only in effect toward those who disagree with positions of the radical left-wing liberals.
Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously
left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".
There's an old saying, "Those who can,
do - those who
can't, teach." This
brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's
far left politically, and has an unusual v
iew of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of
tough restriction on gun sales and
ownership, a
ban on hunting,
animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing."
Excuse me, but
where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would
click on them... or would that be
mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is
FREEDOM! Freedom of
speech, of
expression, of
thought, and of
action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you
choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. -
not PC). That's what "freedom"
IS - the
right of the individual to
CHOOSE!
Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't
FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be
NO democratic process in our
REPUBLIC!
Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":
- In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
- In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
- In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
- In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."
The radical left has long desired to silence those with opposing viewpoints. They present themselves as "the tolerant ones", but they
only tolerate that with which they agree! What
exactly have they attacked? Anything in conflict with their world view.
Religion, via "hate speech" legislation, which equates the quoting of the Scriptural detestation of homosexuality as "hate speech" - which is a matter they should take up with God instead of the Legislature. They attack "freedom of the press" when that freedom is extended to include all media reportage. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or
any media reflecting the expression of conservative thoughts, principals, or ideals. They attack freedom of expression by attempting to marginalize activities such as the recent nationwide Tax Day Tea Party - with
well over one million participants - as "Republican backed", and "radical extremists that bear close watching", and "the uneducated masses blindly serving the interests of big money". These are descriptive phrases denoting their
FEAR! The left
FEARS opposition, simply because their emotional arguments have no basis in a realistic world view, and are too weak to withstand intelligent, objective scrutiny.
I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's
manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to
insure that
any story with political implications has the proper
"I own this company, and
you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is
not likely.
The thirst for
power is the great motivator. Gaining
personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an
international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.
The
media has
power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of
churches, synagogues, and mosques have
power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The
public school boards have
power over the primary and secondary "education" (read:
social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes,
greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost
all people, of
almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is
reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews -
anything which
that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is
power.
If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it
won't be the least bit
enjoyable!There is a
remote chance that I
could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?
