War on Bill of Rights

The liberal, progressive, Marxist, Socialist, radical Left is now at war with the Bill of Rights. That’s the Constitution for the unaware.

They are at war with any amendment they don’t particularly like or see a political reason for, since ideology trumps everything. The process goes something like this:

So “make no law” means make a law, in fact, make lots of them. It means freedom for the preferred or right type of assembly, in the proper zone. It means Freedom for the correct type of press, sans James Rosen types.

It means that militia is no longer needed or necessary, and neither are guns. The “shall not be infringed” means please infringe it into nothingness.

“Due process” means whatever they decide or interpret due process is at any given time, subject to change or revisions. For example, having a Democrat in the White House could be considered due process.

It means being secure in your property and possessions against search and seizure are relative terms for the all-powerful state to decide, and is provided or bestowed on one how government chooses, subject to revocation.

Right to be “confronted by witnesses” at trial means not necessarily and, again, up to upper management. A “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” is not obligatory. Protection against “excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” is so yesterday. I mean times change and so do conditions.

We the big-government reserve the authority to “deny or disparage others retained by the people” whenever we declare it. Let’s just call it a Bill of Tolerances. Move along.

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“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.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

The Great Demise of US

Well, let’s start the week off right. This ties to my recent post “Justifiable Insurrection“. If you thought that was a little vague, here are some details to fill it in – complete with insider spook confirmations.

Sources confirm enemies within are close to their goal

March 19, 2014 | Examiner

Anthony Martin

Throughout the history of the United States, the enemies of freedom have always been at work to destroy the foundation and fabric of the nation. But now sources have confirmed that not only have these enemies been hard at work to negate the liberties Americans have come to expect, but they are close to reaching their ultimate goal of the total destruction of this Republic as a free nation.

The tactical framework by which the enemies within seek to reach their ultimate goal is multi-pronged. The first plank was the implementation of a significant part of the goals of the progressive movement in the early 1900s, again in the 1930s and 40s, again in the 1960s and 1990s, and yet again from 2008 until the present.

The progressive movement viewed the U.S. Constitution as its main roadblock to “progress,” which was the newspeak term they used for regression. Thus, they sought to dismantle as much of the Constitution as the citizens would allow under various leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Wilson believed in eugenics, or the genetic perfecting of the human race as a means of getting rid of the “undesirables.” He also threw persons of German/Austrian/Hungarian descent into concentration camps during World War I. FDR utilized the same tactics during World War II, except it was persons of Japanese descent who were rounded up and incarcerated without charges of wrongdoing, without warrants, and without a trial.

FDR also tried to ignore the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court with his favorites, adding new members without the approval of Congress or a change in Constitutional law to allow it. This he attempted to do because the Court had declared many of his social programs to be unconstitutional.

But perhaps the worst the thing FDR did was to rob Americans of their gold. The government had been keeping records of who bought gold for quite some time. And when the government ran out of money during the Great Depression, which had been prolonged and intensified by FDR’s reckless spending, he confiscated all the gold, just like that. He notified Americans who had bought gold that they were to turn it in to the government. And like sheep, most Americans at the time “obeyed.” But then Roosevelt decided like a good little crook that if these citizens wanted their gold back, they would have to pay at least twice what it was worth when the government confiscated it. This was nothing but a scheme, a criminal scheme, to force Americans to turn over their property to the federal government so that FDR’s regime could charge them double for it and help the feds get some much needed money to fund the reckless spending FDR had implemented.

Criminal theft is still theft even when the government does it. But no one was ever forced to pay for their crimes against the citizens of the United States. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-confirm-enemies-within-are-close-to-their-goal

The next report, which he adds daily, is this one:

‘You have no idea how bad it is,’ says ex-spook on destruction of US

On Wednesday it was reported that America’s enemies within, mainly those who are part of the “progressive movement,” are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.

An “ex-spook” as they are known, in other words a retired member of the CIA, stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., “You have no idea how bad it is.” The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. “Think of how far they have come since 2008,” he continued, “Most Americans don’t even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land.” /…

The progressives/Marxists/collectivists are willing to do anything to advance their agenda, even if it means lying incessantly to the public, or even toying with the lives of citizens, using them as guinea pigs for mass social experimentaion.

An example of one of the most despicable of these experiments is to be found during the mid-1960s under President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Very few except those with high security clearances within the government and LBJ’s inner circle knew about this program. Even fewer know about it today. It was never reported or acknowledged. And most who knew the details are now deceased. A few, however, are still alive and well, and they know the full story. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/you-have-no-idea-how-bad-it-is-says-ex-spook-on-destruction-of-us

Author’s note:

My latest entry is now available at my blog at The Liberty Sphere under the section, “Musings After Midnight.” It is titled, “The latest news from the underground patriot movement, including warnings of more gov’t harassment of conservatives, libertarians, and gun owners.

 
This is good daily accounting of the agenda chock full of details.
Follow the yellow brick road…. and daily installments.

Previous post: Justifiable Insurrection. Is an American Spring in our future?

Case for Impeachment grows … as does Obama’s tyranny

At the very time the case for impeachment and strategy grows, Obama is defiantly escalating his executive order”-war on America. He threatens running executive order end runs around anything in his way, with nothing to fear or restrict him, and hired White House advisers to pursue his objective — an all out assault on our Constitution. He’s long been at war with the Bill of Rights.

But some of his opposition put all their emphasis on the Senate’s ability to convict.

Obama’s regime views Snowden as a traitor and talk continues about what to do with him. While concerned about Snowden, his own actions poking his finger in the eye of the Constitutional republic reveal a different story. One of calculated, deliberate opposition and defiance to the Constitution. So much hypocrisy.

[Daily Caller] “One of the things I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting,” Obama said, “is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.”
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
“And I’ve got a phone,” he continued, “that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life — nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities — to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme, making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it.” — See Video

Read more

Did he just say he’d use executive orders on the economy? Jobs by Executive Order.

A very defiant Oval Office Occupant threatening to use more executive power to usurp Congress and/or the will of the people. And promising to dial up whatever support for his executive order power he can. Why not just do that by EO, too?

RightRing | Bullright

Honey, I shrunk the Bill of Rights

In the years of Obama’s reign, we have seen the eroded Bill of Rights take one assault after another.

There was Obamacare, and now we see the Nuns being denied their freedom. There was the drone issue.(they even mocked that) There is that gun control on the back burner. There is the NSA spying ordeal. (don’t even think about right to privacy there) And this is not to mention what other branches have done, like the Kelo decision. There is hardly a freedom that escaped Obama’s axe.

On top of that is the lying. Then the systematic attacks on our military. The calling of names of anyone who takes offense to his plans. And the abuse of government power to threaten opposition and enforce whatever laws he feels like.

There’s the freedom of press, where they spied on the AP and charged Jim Rosen with espionage. Then his war on the states — abolishing the tenth amendment wholesale.

After inventing their abortion “right”as a right of privacy, they have little use for the ninth amendment. Due process is whatever they decide it should be, or not. Even the challenges over his legal, natural-born status were dismissed.

We no longer have a bill of rights, we have a list of caveats, which unlike “rights” mean whatever they want. He’s done more to challenge the BoR than anyone in US history. Your rights — i.e. life, libery, and pursuit of happiness etc. — were not so unalienable after all.

What do you expect from a guy who’s default view that government of, by, and for the people is Government of, by, and for Government? A guy who’s executive authority is limitless. Protecting against enemies, foreign and domestic, means making alliances with them. Guarding against invasion means opening the doors for it. Labels American patriots and soldiers terrorists. Screws our friends but makes friends with enemies of the US.

He believes all men are created unequal and that it is government’s job to try to equalize — however it chooses, however he defines equal. (some are more equal than others) ‘It’s the non-bill of rights, stupid !’ Welcome to Obama’s more perfect union.

RightRing | Bullright

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.

Special: Constitution BoR

SPECIAL V

by

Just Gene

about

CONSTITUTION DAY

The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified effective December 15, 1791

 

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.
 

I       Freedom of religion – condoms over conscience

        Freedom of speech – unless it offends someone

        Freedom of assembly – if you can avoid the drones and cameras

        Freedom to petition – only with redacted answers via FOI

II     Right to keep and bear arms –the security of a FREE  state, not a government CONTROLLED state and   when the police decide you shouldn’t have them, ala Katrina

III   No soldier shall be quartered – the same as in England, except for the Olympics

IV   The right to be secure in your person, house – unless a federal agent issues themselves a no knock   Warrant or your property is needed for a sports stadium

V    No person shall be held to answer for a crime without a presentation or indictment of a grand jury  –   unless someone suggests you may be a potential terrorist i.e. ex-military, tea party member, or just   holding your Bible – then you disappear

VI   Right to a speedy and public trial – re-read IV &V

VII  Right to trial by jury – unless you’re forced into small claims court

VIII Excessive bail shall not be required – if you can’t afford it, it’s excessive

IX   The enumerations of certain rights shall not deny others retained by the people – unless it’s for our own  good, like health insurance, buying corporations, sending money to our allies enemies

X    The powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people – we are not a Sovereign  Union of States, we are a union of Sovereign States – so I don’t even know where to begin

 

KEEP HAPPY – KEEP HEALTHY

A redundancy

luvya

Could someone check the archives – is it still there?!!