But as for me and my house ...
When the framers of the Constitution of the United States sent the document for ratification by the States, most were concerned that it did not sufficiently ensure the rights of the people and States, holding too much power in the Federal government. Therefore, the first ten amendments called The Bill of Rights was adopted.
The First Amendment reads as follows:
'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.'
The First Amendment ensures that the Federal government cannot do any of the following:
(1) establish one religion as the religion of the country, as monarchies had done.
(2) reduce and/or remove freedom of speech even by minute measures.
(3) remove the ability of the people to demonstrate or discuss government
actions in groups, which the monarchies and dictatorships have done.
(4) prevent people (or states) from asking the government from relief from
unfair treatment. This was applied by the Supreme Court after the Civil War.
Notice that part of the First Amendment commonly referred to as 'separation of church and state' does nothing to remove religion from the fabric of society, in total contradiction to what atheists and secularists want you to believe. This first lie caused some to willingly relinquish a Constitutional right.
I am going to address item (2), because the Constitution ensures the citizens of the United States that one of the responsibilities of the Federal government is 'to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.' That is why the oath of every elected official and military officer begins, 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....'
Freedom of speech is a great liberty we have taken for granted. For one person to have this Constitutional liberty, he or she must grant the same liberty to another, despite the fact neither may like what the other is espousing. If one is prevented from publicly speaking his beliefs for any reason, the other is in jeopardy of losing his liberty, as well.
The United States has always been a 'melting pot' - but let's understand that what is already in the pot has much greater volume and is only seasoned by any additions. What is in the pot remains essentially the same. Vegetable soup remains vegetable soup; chicken soup remains chicken soup. The additions add flavor, yet must meld into the mix. If not, the soup is inedible.
In the past, immigrants were taunted, ridiculed and treated downright hatefully. They lived among their own for support. However, their desire and that for their children and grandchildren was to become part of the soup. I respect and admire their fortitude! Immigrants past have always desired to become American - not so today. They have ruined the soup!
What has resulted is intolerance of intolerance; and, everything that is disagreeable to anyone who considers themselves tolerant is labeled 'hate speech'. There are efforts in our own government to create a law removing a portion of our freedom of speech. Remember the Bill of Rights? Are we going to allow them to abridge - or take away a little bit - of our freedom of speech? It may sound like a good idea, but keep whittling away one freedom after another and pretty soon, you have no freedoms left!
Today, we are not only fighting amongst the citizens of the 'melting pot', but there are foreigners who seek to invade and remove our greatest 'Blessing' provided, and the masses seem to be in agreement! The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, attacked our Constitution which the UN seeks to over-rule by saying, 'when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.' Mr. Ki-moon erroneously said 'freedom of expression' and not freedom of speech.
How is it that the United Nations sees itself as a ruler over rather than a servant of the nations? Has the UN become so arrogant that it views itself as ruler over the laws of the nations it was supposed to serve?
Here, the Constitution to which our elected officials and military have sworn an oath to defend, dictates our government has the responsibility to 'provide for the common defence'. [defense] The Constitution is being attacked by foreign 'invaders' and our officials don't stand up and say, 'Don't Tread on our Constitution.'
I find it ludicrous to defend the only 'religion' which has the most heinously intolerant 'doctrine' in the world, while those who consider themselves tolerant call those who speak the truth about Islam ugly names and say we are guilty of 'religious hatred,' as Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard did in her recent UN speech. Words cannot slice throats as Muslims have done. Nor can words crucify, which Muslims have resurrected from Roman history for those who leave Islam.
If you so willingly relinquish one Constitutional right, the others will fall away - one by one, until you have no Constitution upon which to stand. The enemies win. This is why I continue to fight to wake you all up! You have drunk the Kool-aid and your children are in danger!
If you don't like what I say - don't listen - don't read it. You have still have the freedom to choose. But, remember: if they take my rights away, your rights aren't far behind.
Please Post a Comment or Contact Us Below