(Editor's note: This is the last of a two-part series)
Having failed to curtail First Amendment protections by use of government powers and in the courts, the militant radical left (rad-left) now seeks to do it in the streets.
Radical leftist thugs now mob the streets wearing hoods/masks, calling for the death of cops, destroying property of their choice and beating people with whom they disagree.
For years, "Huckleberry Finn" has been on the rad-left's hit list. In December 2016, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was accorded similar honor -- notwithstanding the unequivocal words and actions of Atticus Finch.
On Feb. 1, at Berkeley, to prevent a conservative "nobody" from speaking on campus, about 150 rad-left rioters, including "Antifa" and "By Any Means Necessary" set fires, damaged property, attacked members of the crowd and threw rocks at the police.
Masked Antifa rioters, who claim to be anti-fascists, instead gave every appearance of being 21st century fascists. Claiming to hate the Klan, they adopt the very tactics utilized by the Klan for 100 years.
In April, the New Orleans city council declared statues of Jefferson Davis, P.G.T Beauregard and Robert E. Lee to be "public nuisances" and ordered their removal.
On Aug. 14 at Durham, N.C., rioters pulled down and destroyed the statue of a Confederate soldier.
On Aug. 17, a plaque honoring Confederate soldiers was removed from a cemetery in Madison, Wis.
The same day, Sen. Corey Booker, D-N.J., announced he would introduce a bill to remove all Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol.
On Aug.18, a statue of former Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was removed from in front of the Annapolis, Md., statehouse. (Taney had authored the Dred Scott opinion).
On Aug. 19, a statue of Robert E. Lee was defaced in front of the Duke University Chapel. The university president then removed the statue to "protect worshippers."
In an Aug. 19 interview with Charlie Rose, Al Sharpton demanded an end to federal funding for maintenance of the Jefferson Memorial. (We are to ignore Jefferson's greatness. All that matters is Jefferson owned slaves!): “You’re asking me to subsidize the insult of my family. ... The public should not be paying to uphold somebody who has had that kind of background ”
Not to be outdone, Angela Rye, Congressional Black Caucus Director, on CNN said, "George Washington was a slaveowner. Whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn't protecting my freedom.
"This country was built on ... the raping and the killing of my ancestors. I'm not going to allow it ... it's OK for Robert E. Lee but not George Washington."
On Aug. 21, a 225 year-old Baltimore statue of Christopher Columbus was vandalized. The justification: "Christopher Columbus symbolizes the initial invasion of European capitalism into the Western Hemisphere. Columbus initiated a centuries of wave of terrorism, murder, genocide, rape, slavery, ecological degradation and capitalist exploitation of labor in the Americas."
On Aug. 27, the Orpheum Theatre in Memphis removed "Gone with the Wind" from its lineup, claiming it was racially "insensitive."
Since the 1990 Supreme Court holding in U.S. v. Eichman, flag burning/desecration is a protected form of political speech. The left now wants to extend that holding to smashing statues, burning books and censoring movies. But Eichman had an important caveat -- you can burn your own flag, but burning your neighbor's is criminal damage to property. Worse, its barbarism and fascism.
The rad-left rejects the hallowed First Amendment tenet that their "enlightened" ideas must compete with conservative ideas in the "marketplace of ideas." New vs. old. The left, instead, prefers to suppress and silence all opposition speech. After all, that's what good fascist and communists always do.
Today, the rad-left attacks statues, books and movies because they honor men who held slaves or who fought for the Confederacy. Reminiscent of President Barack Obama's Justice Department in Alvarez, the rad-left believes anything tainted by slavery has no value and hence no First Amendment protection. And worse, anyone who disagrees with their fascist notions is a racist and has no right to honor great, albeit tainted, political figures.
By the same logic, their next step is to trash the U.S. Constitution. Was it not born of a compromise that allowed the slave states to maintain slavery within their borders? Does it not contain a provision to count slaves as "3/5ths" for purposes of apportionment?
Provision for the return of fugitive slaves?
Posted: QCOline.com September 18, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
Showing posts with label Freedom of Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Speech. Show all posts
Monday, September 25, 2017
Thursday, September 14, 2017
The Left's War on the First Amendment - Part I
The Left's War on the 1st Amendment, Part 1
During President Obama's eight years, his left-leaning administration made at least three serious efforts to undermine the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Two were unsuccessful. The third, for a critical time, succeeded.
In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," about
Mrs. Clinton, who then was a candidate in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary. The film featured interviews -- mostly critical -- with political commentators and others.
It was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making it available through video on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. Fearing it would be prosecuted for violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, it sued to have the act declared unconstitutional.
In the 2010 Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for the majority, wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
In Citizens United, the court overruled or distinguished its earlier decision which prohibited "corporations from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."
The BCRA had allowed such speech only out of "special funds" raised by "political action committees," and not within 30 days before a primary election.
President Obama denounced Citizens United, asserting that it:
A. Allowed corporations to make unlimited donations to candidates or political parties, and
B. Allowed foreign corporations the same rights as domestic corporations.
Mr. Obama knew better.
In the court's own words, the only issue before the court was whether a corporation could use its "general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."
And as regards "foreign corporations," the court specifically wrote, "We need not reach the question whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."
In Citizens United, none of the parties were "foreign corporations."
Two years later, in 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez , the Obama administration prosecuted a liar for falsely saying, "I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times." The government made no claim the liar lied for material gain, or to harm any person. The Obama administration prosecuted the liar for simply lying -- nothing more.
President Obama's Justice Department argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection." The court disagreed:
"Were the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.
"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home.
Had the court upheld the Obama administration's contention, Congress would have been green-lighted to criminalize parental lies to their children -- in the privacy of their own home: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus," could carry a fine or jail time.
Then, of course, the third effort was the Obama administration's misuse of the IRS was to destroy the political effectiveness of the tea party groups. This was done by slow-walking or denying the requests of the groups for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Without the ability to receive tax-free donations, and without their donors receiving deductions for their donations, some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, were gagged for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The refusal to grant the tea party groups tax-free status also meant they had to pay taxes on any moneys they raised. The tactic worked. Tea Party groups were a non-factor in the 2012 presidential election.
President Trump's 2016 electoral victory removed power from the hands of the Democrats power to use the machinery of government to limit the speech of the conservative opposition. Now the battle to over free speech has moved from the White House, the IRS and the courts to the streets.
Posted: QCOline.com September 13, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
And as regards "foreign corporations," the court specifically wrote, "We need not reach the question whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."
In Citizens United, none of the parties were "foreign corporations."
Two years later, in 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez , the Obama administration prosecuted a liar for falsely saying, "I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times." The government made no claim the liar lied for material gain, or to harm any person. The Obama administration prosecuted the liar for simply lying -- nothing more.
President Obama's Justice Department argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection." The court disagreed:
"Were the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.
"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home.
Had the court upheld the Obama administration's contention, Congress would have been green-lighted to criminalize parental lies to their children -- in the privacy of their own home: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus," could carry a fine or jail time.
Then, of course, the third effort was the Obama administration's misuse of the IRS was to destroy the political effectiveness of the tea party groups. This was done by slow-walking or denying the requests of the groups for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Without the ability to receive tax-free donations, and without their donors receiving deductions for their donations, some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, were gagged for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The refusal to grant the tea party groups tax-free status also meant they had to pay taxes on any moneys they raised. The tactic worked. Tea Party groups were a non-factor in the 2012 presidential election.
President Trump's 2016 electoral victory removed power from the hands of the Democrats power to use the machinery of government to limit the speech of the conservative opposition. Now the battle to over free speech has moved from the White House, the IRS and the courts to the streets.
Posted: QCOline.com September 13, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Kumbaya or Confrontation? The 1st Amendment Question!
If Jefferson Davis II were running for president on a platform of reimposing slavery, would a black minister have a right to tell his congregation to vote against Jeff Davis II?
If Adolf Hitler Jr. were running for president, promising to exterminate all Jews, could a Rabbi lawfully urge his congregation to vote against Hitler Jr.?
On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, delivered an unusually forceful "anti-abortion" homily entitled, "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith."
Bishop Jenky accused the Obama administration of serious violations of religious liberty. Those who disagree with what he said have demanded his resignation from the University of Notre Dame Board of Fellows. Others have asked the IRS to revoke the dioceses' tax exemption.
Here are excerpts from that homily:
"For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But ... the Church survived...
"The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.
"We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.
"In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' ... against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama -- with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
"[T]his is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.
"This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings -- could easily be shut down.
Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb."
Whether you think Bishop Jenky right or wrong on abortion, there can be no argument that killing a human fetus raises a moral and religious issue. For 3,000 years Jews and Christians accepted "Thou shall not kill" as God's Commandment. There is no question but that applies to all humans from the minute of their birth. The only issue is whether it also applies to the unborn.
It is historically and religiously the function of a bishop to teach and preach. Christ told his disciples, "to make disciples of all nations ... teaching them "
Teaching has been the bishops' distinctive function for 2,000 years. It was the bishops' office when the Constitution was adopted, and the Bill of Rights approved. Our Founding Father recognized that.
When a bishop sees what he perceives to be a serious violation of God's law, he has a First Amendment right to believe that what he perceives is an "enormous evil." As a teacher, he has a second First Amendment religious right to engage in the free exercise of his religion, plus a third First Amendment right (free speech) to speak to convince others to oppose the "wrong" and/or wrongdoer.
The fact that a man is a bishop doesn't deprive him of First Amendment rights of freedom of belief, or free exercise of his religion. Nor does it mean that he surrenders his right of free speech. Whether he speaks in church, on a street corner, in a Catholic newspaper or on television, he still has the same First Amendment rights. (He is not advocating a breech of the peace.)
The First Amendment exists to give Americans -- including bishops -- the right to convince fellow Americans that any politician is evil, unworthy to be elected, re-elected, etc.
IRS regulations that abridge Bishop Jenky's rights to freedom of religion and speech are unconstitutional.
The reason churches are tax exempt is because the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- or control.
If churches can be prevented from speaking out on moral issues, or against politicians they perceive to have taken immoral positions on issues, such as extermination of Jews, killing the unborn, or "putting down" the retarded or the elderly, you have destroyed freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech. Removal of a tax exemption is in essence a tax.
If Planned Parenthood has a right to speak for abortion, a church has a right to speak against it. If "pro-choice" individuals and corporations have a right to support the election of "pro-choice" politicians, Bishop Jenky and religious corporations have a right to oppose "pro-choice" politicians, and to call for the election of "pro-life" politicians.
That is what the Citizen's United case is all about, and why it was correctly decided. Without this right, you get the sort of church leaders who temporized as million Jews were murdered.
So, where do you stand? For Kumbaya or confrontation? What exactly does "Freedom of Religion" mean?
Is a priest to be limited to saying Mass inside his church? A minister, limited to reading scriptures from his pulpit? Kumbaya or confrontation? The 1st Amendment question!
Posted Online: May 01, 2012, 3:24 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
If Adolf Hitler Jr. were running for president, promising to exterminate all Jews, could a Rabbi lawfully urge his congregation to vote against Hitler Jr.?
On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, delivered an unusually forceful "anti-abortion" homily entitled, "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith."
Bishop Jenky accused the Obama administration of serious violations of religious liberty. Those who disagree with what he said have demanded his resignation from the University of Notre Dame Board of Fellows. Others have asked the IRS to revoke the dioceses' tax exemption.
Here are excerpts from that homily:
"For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But ... the Church survived...
"The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.
"We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.
"In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' ... against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama -- with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
"[T]his is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.
"This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings -- could easily be shut down.
Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb."
Whether you think Bishop Jenky right or wrong on abortion, there can be no argument that killing a human fetus raises a moral and religious issue. For 3,000 years Jews and Christians accepted "Thou shall not kill" as God's Commandment. There is no question but that applies to all humans from the minute of their birth. The only issue is whether it also applies to the unborn.
It is historically and religiously the function of a bishop to teach and preach. Christ told his disciples, "to make disciples of all nations ... teaching them "
Teaching has been the bishops' distinctive function for 2,000 years. It was the bishops' office when the Constitution was adopted, and the Bill of Rights approved. Our Founding Father recognized that.
When a bishop sees what he perceives to be a serious violation of God's law, he has a First Amendment right to believe that what he perceives is an "enormous evil." As a teacher, he has a second First Amendment religious right to engage in the free exercise of his religion, plus a third First Amendment right (free speech) to speak to convince others to oppose the "wrong" and/or wrongdoer.
The fact that a man is a bishop doesn't deprive him of First Amendment rights of freedom of belief, or free exercise of his religion. Nor does it mean that he surrenders his right of free speech. Whether he speaks in church, on a street corner, in a Catholic newspaper or on television, he still has the same First Amendment rights. (He is not advocating a breech of the peace.)
The First Amendment exists to give Americans -- including bishops -- the right to convince fellow Americans that any politician is evil, unworthy to be elected, re-elected, etc.
IRS regulations that abridge Bishop Jenky's rights to freedom of religion and speech are unconstitutional.
The reason churches are tax exempt is because the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- or control.
If churches can be prevented from speaking out on moral issues, or against politicians they perceive to have taken immoral positions on issues, such as extermination of Jews, killing the unborn, or "putting down" the retarded or the elderly, you have destroyed freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech. Removal of a tax exemption is in essence a tax.
If Planned Parenthood has a right to speak for abortion, a church has a right to speak against it. If "pro-choice" individuals and corporations have a right to support the election of "pro-choice" politicians, Bishop Jenky and religious corporations have a right to oppose "pro-choice" politicians, and to call for the election of "pro-life" politicians.
That is what the Citizen's United case is all about, and why it was correctly decided. Without this right, you get the sort of church leaders who temporized as million Jews were murdered.
So, where do you stand? For Kumbaya or confrontation? What exactly does "Freedom of Religion" mean?
Is a priest to be limited to saying Mass inside his church? A minister, limited to reading scriptures from his pulpit? Kumbaya or confrontation? The 1st Amendment question!
Posted Online: May 01, 2012, 3:24 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)