The Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, stands as a testament to stinging audacity, selfless courage and fierce devotion to God. The 56 signatories to the document embodied those traits which became uniquely American characteristics.
Today youngsters in American schools still study the 1,337-word document, but often educators gloss over the ethos that influenced the representatives of the 13 fledgling colonies to declare their freedom from British rule. Their bold rejection of the yoke of King George III was without precedent.
Great Britain was the world's super power. The Royal Navy had 117 ships, dwarfing the armada of any nation on earth. The British empire stretched from Europe to Canada, India, Africa, Singapore and beyond. The island nation had three times the population of the colonies: 6.5 million versus 2.5 million.
Yet these upstart Americans had the audacity to challenge British rule. In unambiguous and often defiant language, the authors of the Declaration of Independence denounced their oppressors, referring to the British king as a "tyrant" unfit to be "the ruler of free people."
During the summer of 1776, some colonists celebrated the birth of independence by holding mock funerals for King George III. It was as if David was shaking his tiny fist at Goliath.
Unflinching courage was required of the 56 men who inked their names at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence. They were exposing themselves, their personal wealth and their families to great peril. The English had a standing army in the colonies dedicated to preserving the status quo.
Charles Carroll, one of the signers, was a wealthy Maryland landowner who was an early supporter of revolution against the British. He declared himself "most willing" to sign the document. After affixing his name, John Hancock questioned Carroll's dedication to the cause.
Hancock, who boldly stroked his name in large letters, suggested that Charles Carroll was a common name, which meant the latter might claim mistaken identity if he were arrested by the British. Without argument, Carroll jotted the name of his hometown "of Carrollton" next to his signature.
A member of the signing committee was said to have whispered, "there goes another million." The reference was to the vast fortune Carroll stood to lose by scribbling his name on the document. Each signer made his mark out of unselfish devotion to the budding nation and its hallowed principles.
When the Declaration of Independence was approved 238 years ago, the inhabitants of what would become the United States were a faith-filled bunch. Many journeyed to the colonies to escape religious persecution and for the opportunity to practice their faith without government interference.
There are no fewer than four references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The authors famously asserted 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."
It was an acknowledgement that God, not kings, governments nor armies, gifted humanity with essential freedoms. Those rights have stood the test of time, but sadly, the courts, legislatures and atheists have frantically attempted to scrub all references to God from the fabric of the nation.
Today we should all thank God for the guile, courage and religious fervor of those brave individuals who created and signed the document that allowed a fledgling country to become Earth's first shining beacon of freedom.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
What's Really Wrong With America?
Media and political pundits have pontificated for years on what ails America. The maladies usually end up sounding like a litany of liberal rants: income inequality, climate change, federal budget cuts, gun violence, tax fairness and immigration reform.
But those are sound-bite issues gift-wrapped for political gain. The real problem in America is a an unhealthy sense of entitlement. Too many Americans expect the government to solve all their problems instead of accepting any personal responsibility for their own life decisions.
The best illustration of this affliction appeared on the opinion page of a recent issue of the USA Today newspaper. The author's words are a poignant illustration of the attitudes and values of Americans who believe tax payers should pick up the tab for their bad choices. Here's the letter:
"I am a single mother who just graduated from veterinary school. I have $396,000 in loans. Veterinary doctors do no make what human doctors do, although we have similar debt burdens and years of education. I have student loans from before 2007 and therefore do not qualify for the pay-as-you-earn plan.
"President Obama's proposal simply extends this existing plan to all of us with high student loan debt relative to our income. It is a welcome relief for someone who is just trying to realize her dream of saving animals' lives while putting food on the table for my family."
The writer's reference to the president's student loan program came on the heels of Obama's proposal to make repayment of debts easier. His recent announcement included a scheme to eventually forgive student debt balances. It was a partisan political stunt hailed by those addicted to government alms.
For the record, student loan debt in America now stands at $1.2 trillion. That is more than the combined credit card debt of every American. The frightening pace of the debt should concern tax payers who are already on the hook for the 5.4 million borrowers who have defaulted on their loans.
Obviously, none of that seems to bother a single mother who racked up nearly $400,000 in debt. Did she not experience second thoughts about borrowing that much money? Did she ever consider what a veterinarian earns and do some simple math? Apparently, it never crossed her mind.
Now President Obama, America's savior-in-chief, has come galloping to her rescue. Does this single mom understand tax paying Americans will subsidize her loan relief? She speaks of her dreams for her family. What about the dreams of hard-working Americans who will bear the burden for her excesses?
This is the America we live in today. My dreams are more important than yours. I can't be held accountable for my decisions. It isn't my fault a college degree costs so much. My government has plenty of money and owes it to me to pay for what I want and cannot afford.
What kind of cockamamie country have we become? Americans once relished rugged individualism. We worked hard, earned everything we received and expected no help for some bureaucrat in Washington. Today self-reliance has been vanquished, replaced by self-pity, envy and dependence.
That is not the America most of us have known. Yet new generations are growing up that have never experienced anything but government handouts for everything from heating to housing to food. There is a insidious expectation that government's role is to make their lives easier, more comfortable, less stressful.
The result is America is changing before our eyes. Some people carp about the lost of independence. But far more Americans are willing to trade their freedoms for a nanny government that takes care of them. That is another step closer to socialism. Once taken, democracy becomes but a lost dream.
But those are sound-bite issues gift-wrapped for political gain. The real problem in America is a an unhealthy sense of entitlement. Too many Americans expect the government to solve all their problems instead of accepting any personal responsibility for their own life decisions.
The best illustration of this affliction appeared on the opinion page of a recent issue of the USA Today newspaper. The author's words are a poignant illustration of the attitudes and values of Americans who believe tax payers should pick up the tab for their bad choices. Here's the letter:
"I am a single mother who just graduated from veterinary school. I have $396,000 in loans. Veterinary doctors do no make what human doctors do, although we have similar debt burdens and years of education. I have student loans from before 2007 and therefore do not qualify for the pay-as-you-earn plan.
"President Obama's proposal simply extends this existing plan to all of us with high student loan debt relative to our income. It is a welcome relief for someone who is just trying to realize her dream of saving animals' lives while putting food on the table for my family."
The writer's reference to the president's student loan program came on the heels of Obama's proposal to make repayment of debts easier. His recent announcement included a scheme to eventually forgive student debt balances. It was a partisan political stunt hailed by those addicted to government alms.
For the record, student loan debt in America now stands at $1.2 trillion. That is more than the combined credit card debt of every American. The frightening pace of the debt should concern tax payers who are already on the hook for the 5.4 million borrowers who have defaulted on their loans.
Obviously, none of that seems to bother a single mother who racked up nearly $400,000 in debt. Did she not experience second thoughts about borrowing that much money? Did she ever consider what a veterinarian earns and do some simple math? Apparently, it never crossed her mind.
Now President Obama, America's savior-in-chief, has come galloping to her rescue. Does this single mom understand tax paying Americans will subsidize her loan relief? She speaks of her dreams for her family. What about the dreams of hard-working Americans who will bear the burden for her excesses?
This is the America we live in today. My dreams are more important than yours. I can't be held accountable for my decisions. It isn't my fault a college degree costs so much. My government has plenty of money and owes it to me to pay for what I want and cannot afford.
What kind of cockamamie country have we become? Americans once relished rugged individualism. We worked hard, earned everything we received and expected no help for some bureaucrat in Washington. Today self-reliance has been vanquished, replaced by self-pity, envy and dependence.
That is not the America most of us have known. Yet new generations are growing up that have never experienced anything but government handouts for everything from heating to housing to food. There is a insidious expectation that government's role is to make their lives easier, more comfortable, less stressful.
The result is America is changing before our eyes. Some people carp about the lost of independence. But far more Americans are willing to trade their freedoms for a nanny government that takes care of them. That is another step closer to socialism. Once taken, democracy becomes but a lost dream.
Monday, June 16, 2014
America: Land of the Uninterested and Uniformed
For better or for worse, the fate of democracy rests on the shoulders of an informed and engaged citizenry. The founders of these United States entrusted ordinary people with the responsibility to elect those who would govern their country. It was a noble but novel concept.
Until the American revolution, most nations were ruled by kings, queens and royalty. The aristocracy turned up their noses at the huddled masses as too ignorant and too ill informed to be involved in decisions of government. America was to be the first experiment in an enlightened democracy.
Today that founding principle is crumbling, undermined by an uninterested and uniformed populace. Far too many Americans are uninvolved in the political process. Even worse, most do not care about what happens in the nation's capitol. They are content to be politically ignorant.
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, was rightly worried about investing the right to vote in illiterate commoners. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be," he famously said in 1816.
Jefferson would be horrified by a survey that found only one in five Americans could name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, nearly one-fourth of Americans could correctly identify all five characters of the cartoon series "The Simpsons."
Assistant Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason's School of Law has done extensive research on political participation in U.S. elections. After years of study, he concludes there is "overwhelming evidence that the electorate fails to meet even minimal criteria for adequate voter knowledge."
A recent Pew Research poll found only 14 percent of those surveyed could answer rudimentary questions about political parties, taxes, unemployment and heads of state. This shouldn't be surprising in light of the study's discovery that the number of people who rely on social media for their news has doubled since 2010.
America has become a nation that spends more time combing You Tube, Twitter, Facebook and Goggle for information, where pop culture figures like Kim Kardashian dominate what passes as news. It doesn't help that Americans' distrust of mainstream media is at an all time high.
This dumbing down of America is at least partly responsible for low voter turnout in recent decades.
The 1860 presidential election reached an apogee in voter participation. Fully 81 percent of Americans cast ballots that year. Until 1904, presidential contests attracted no less than 73 percent of the voting age public. Recent presidential elections have been testimonials to American apathy.
In 2008, a total of 57 percent of the voting age population showed up on election day. In 2012, the percentage held steady at 57 percent, but voting in other federal and state elections has been a vast wasteland of indifference.
A telling statistic from the most recent presidential election: 64 percent of those with less than a high school education voted for Barrack Obama, while challenger Mitt Romney won 49 to 48 percent among those who had at least some college background.
Those does not bode well for the future of America. The country's political course has been usurped by the uneducated and unenlightened. Centuries ago, Jefferson foresaw this problem as an obstacle to the continuation of the world's foremost democracy.
In 1789, Jefferson wrote that "whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government." Under Jefferson's apriorism, most Americans are ill equipped to be handed the keys to democracy.
The unsophisticated and the misinformed are determining America's destiny. If this trend continues, then the country will no longer be recognizable to its founders. The nation will stumble and fall into the abyss of philistine rule.
Until the American revolution, most nations were ruled by kings, queens and royalty. The aristocracy turned up their noses at the huddled masses as too ignorant and too ill informed to be involved in decisions of government. America was to be the first experiment in an enlightened democracy.
Today that founding principle is crumbling, undermined by an uninterested and uniformed populace. Far too many Americans are uninvolved in the political process. Even worse, most do not care about what happens in the nation's capitol. They are content to be politically ignorant.
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, was rightly worried about investing the right to vote in illiterate commoners. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be," he famously said in 1816.
Jefferson would be horrified by a survey that found only one in five Americans could name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, nearly one-fourth of Americans could correctly identify all five characters of the cartoon series "The Simpsons."
Assistant Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason's School of Law has done extensive research on political participation in U.S. elections. After years of study, he concludes there is "overwhelming evidence that the electorate fails to meet even minimal criteria for adequate voter knowledge."
A recent Pew Research poll found only 14 percent of those surveyed could answer rudimentary questions about political parties, taxes, unemployment and heads of state. This shouldn't be surprising in light of the study's discovery that the number of people who rely on social media for their news has doubled since 2010.
America has become a nation that spends more time combing You Tube, Twitter, Facebook and Goggle for information, where pop culture figures like Kim Kardashian dominate what passes as news. It doesn't help that Americans' distrust of mainstream media is at an all time high.
This dumbing down of America is at least partly responsible for low voter turnout in recent decades.
The 1860 presidential election reached an apogee in voter participation. Fully 81 percent of Americans cast ballots that year. Until 1904, presidential contests attracted no less than 73 percent of the voting age public. Recent presidential elections have been testimonials to American apathy.
In 2008, a total of 57 percent of the voting age population showed up on election day. In 2012, the percentage held steady at 57 percent, but voting in other federal and state elections has been a vast wasteland of indifference.
A telling statistic from the most recent presidential election: 64 percent of those with less than a high school education voted for Barrack Obama, while challenger Mitt Romney won 49 to 48 percent among those who had at least some college background.
Those does not bode well for the future of America. The country's political course has been usurped by the uneducated and unenlightened. Centuries ago, Jefferson foresaw this problem as an obstacle to the continuation of the world's foremost democracy.
In 1789, Jefferson wrote that "whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government." Under Jefferson's apriorism, most Americans are ill equipped to be handed the keys to democracy.
The unsophisticated and the misinformed are determining America's destiny. If this trend continues, then the country will no longer be recognizable to its founders. The nation will stumble and fall into the abyss of philistine rule.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Incessant Incompetence Defining Obama
In recent months, a series of appalling lapses in leadership have stung the Obama presidency. His mishandling of the botched roll out of Obamacare and his indecisiveness in swiftly dealing with the Veteran Administration scandal have raised fresh concerns about his competence.
Despite the mounting evidence, most Democrats and the president's media chorus of apologetics have stood by their man. But even their faith has been tested this past week by the relentless firestorm of criticism over the decision-making process that led to a prisoner swap for an American soldier.
The latest imbroglio exposed the administration's disdain for the legislative branch of government, its failure to conduct appropriate due diligence, its tone-deaf flaunting of an deal involving the release of five Jihadists and its callous parsing of words to explain its ineptitude.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was outraged that the president failed to notify Congress before the prisoner exchange. The Californian accused Obama of "totally breaking the law." A law that President Obama signed.
Earlier this year, Obama affixed his signature to a measure that required him to notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison was completed. Clearly, Obama did not abide by the spirit or letter of the law. No amount of justification will change that fact.
At a news conference, the narcissistic president strutted before the cameras to announce the a deal to release five hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay for a lone American soldier held captive by the Taliban. His unbridled chest-pounding was woefully pathetic in light of the somber occasion.
Shortly after Obama's victory lap over the return of Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl, social media erupted with charges by military personnel that the sergeant had deserted his post in Afghanistan and walked willing into the open arms of the Taliban. How could that fact have escaped the president?
This perpetuates the narrative that President Obama is detached and isolated. He depends too much on a tight circle of advisers, never bothering to dive into the details. His trust is ill placed and he lacks the managerial skills to ask the right questions of those in charge.
The president also failed to grasp the gravity of turning loose five stone-cold killers. Of the 614 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay since it opened in 2002, a total of 104 are involved in some form of terrorist activity, according to a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Those facts didn't deter the president and Secretary of State John Kerry from reassuring Americans that the high-risk detainees would pose no threat to the United States. Already one of the Taliban prisoners has vowed to return to Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces.
Once the media ratcheted up the pressure, Obama trotted out National Security Advisor Susan Rice to inform the world that Sgt. Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction." When critics pounced on her characterization, the administration began parsing her words in a lame attempt at damage control.
Instead of admitting her mistake in the light of emerging facts, Rice doubled-down. She continued her full-throated praise of the sergeant, saying she was referring to his decision to enlist voluntarily in the Army as an honorable act.
Her "talking points" glossed over the fact that incriminating emails had been resurrected showing Bergdahl was critical of the military and of his country. He may have voluntarily signed up for duty, but he also voluntarily walked away from his Army post without permission.
The administration's clever word crafting has failed to stem the damage. A series of Pew polls show that the American public's perception of Obama's executive competence has plummeted from a 70 percent favorable rating in February of 2009 to 43 percent in the latest research.
His inept executive and managerial skills have been exposed. More troubling to Americans is the president's plans for the remaining 149 murderous terrorists at Gitmo. The Bergdahl exchange likely signals Obama will empty the prison, making the world a more dangerous place.
Despite the mounting evidence, most Democrats and the president's media chorus of apologetics have stood by their man. But even their faith has been tested this past week by the relentless firestorm of criticism over the decision-making process that led to a prisoner swap for an American soldier.
The latest imbroglio exposed the administration's disdain for the legislative branch of government, its failure to conduct appropriate due diligence, its tone-deaf flaunting of an deal involving the release of five Jihadists and its callous parsing of words to explain its ineptitude.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was outraged that the president failed to notify Congress before the prisoner exchange. The Californian accused Obama of "totally breaking the law." A law that President Obama signed.
Earlier this year, Obama affixed his signature to a measure that required him to notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison was completed. Clearly, Obama did not abide by the spirit or letter of the law. No amount of justification will change that fact.
At a news conference, the narcissistic president strutted before the cameras to announce the a deal to release five hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay for a lone American soldier held captive by the Taliban. His unbridled chest-pounding was woefully pathetic in light of the somber occasion.
Shortly after Obama's victory lap over the return of Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl, social media erupted with charges by military personnel that the sergeant had deserted his post in Afghanistan and walked willing into the open arms of the Taliban. How could that fact have escaped the president?
This perpetuates the narrative that President Obama is detached and isolated. He depends too much on a tight circle of advisers, never bothering to dive into the details. His trust is ill placed and he lacks the managerial skills to ask the right questions of those in charge.
The president also failed to grasp the gravity of turning loose five stone-cold killers. Of the 614 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay since it opened in 2002, a total of 104 are involved in some form of terrorist activity, according to a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Those facts didn't deter the president and Secretary of State John Kerry from reassuring Americans that the high-risk detainees would pose no threat to the United States. Already one of the Taliban prisoners has vowed to return to Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces.
Once the media ratcheted up the pressure, Obama trotted out National Security Advisor Susan Rice to inform the world that Sgt. Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction." When critics pounced on her characterization, the administration began parsing her words in a lame attempt at damage control.
Instead of admitting her mistake in the light of emerging facts, Rice doubled-down. She continued her full-throated praise of the sergeant, saying she was referring to his decision to enlist voluntarily in the Army as an honorable act.
Her "talking points" glossed over the fact that incriminating emails had been resurrected showing Bergdahl was critical of the military and of his country. He may have voluntarily signed up for duty, but he also voluntarily walked away from his Army post without permission.
The administration's clever word crafting has failed to stem the damage. A series of Pew polls show that the American public's perception of Obama's executive competence has plummeted from a 70 percent favorable rating in February of 2009 to 43 percent in the latest research.
His inept executive and managerial skills have been exposed. More troubling to Americans is the president's plans for the remaining 149 murderous terrorists at Gitmo. The Bergdahl exchange likely signals Obama will empty the prison, making the world a more dangerous place.
Monday, June 2, 2014
The Death of Free Speech in America
Freedom of expression, guaranteed under the very First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no longer exists in the country that enshrined the concept. It has been usurped by the malicious political correctness crowd and the elitist cultural commissars whose goal is to censor speech in America.
Disagreement and criticism are regulated by those with social and political agendas. Double-standards are employed to justify the indefensible. Private conversation is no longer protected from public exposure. Independent thought is discouraged in the name of social harmony.
The erosion of freedom of speech did not happen overnight. But the First Amendment officially died when a public corporation fired its chief executive officer for making a private donation to a political campaign to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
The sacking of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich capped a decades long crusade by murky forces determined to eradicate any opposition to their social, political and religious paradigms. This trampling of free speech hardly elicited a whimper of outrage from champions of democracy.
It followed on the heels of student and faculty protests over the invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at Rutgers University's commencement. The academic dissidents bullied Ms. Rice into silence by forcing her to voluntarily remove herself from the podium to restore civility.
Remember when colleges were bastions of free speech? Now academia is one of the worse offenders of freedom of expression, ostracizing professors, students and guests who fail some unwritten litmus test over their ideology and principles.
This has happened in the nation that invented free speech because the concept has been redefined by powerful forces: educational institutions, legislative bodies, federal and state courts, pseudo-activist organizations, regulatory bodies and the office of the president of the United States.
These groups have decreed the country cannot tolerate intolerance. Any disagreement with the prevailing norms is labeled prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. Even if the dispute involves strongly held religious beliefs, the political correct mob insists their agenda trumps faith.
If you believe in traditional marriage, you are homophobic. If you don't think women should wear head scarves for drivers license photos, you are anti-Muslin. If you support charter schools, you are a racist. If you are an advocate of life, you want to enslave women.
No American has a right to an opinion unless your viewpoint is in sync with what the social and political cabal has determined is proper speech. Courts are increasingly codifying this as a legal axiom, ignoring the right to free speech affirmed in the First Amendment.
Take the case in a Pennsylvania court earlier this year. A Muslim man was charged with verbally castigating an atheist who marched in a Halloween parade. The judge railed against the victim instead of the defendant.
Judge Mark Martin lectured the victim of the assault, telling him "our forefathers intended to use the First amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures, which is what you did."
Free speech means exactly the opposite of the judge's soliloquy. Americans are supposed to be able to speak their minds, even if others don't agree with their crudeness, attitudes or beliefs. In a free country, speech can be blasphemous, hateful, discriminatory, controversial or even moronic.
President Obama, allegedly charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution, has done more than his fair share to shred the dogma of free speech. He has attempted to silence his critics, the Tea Party and Republicans among others, with name-calling and by impugning their motives.
The president's disciples, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, have bitterly branded Obama's detractors as "racists." No one is allowed to to say anything negative about the president or his policies. Public speech must dovetail with the political aims of the president or risk being called incendiary.
There are some Americans who still cling to the notion that speech is free. However, their voices have been stilled by the threat of libelous muggings in the media and on social networks. Most have been cowered into accepting the inevitable censorship of speech.
Wake up America. Once freedom of expression is lost then liberty will crumble. Tyranny will replace democracy unless Americans reclaim the ability to speak whatever is on their minds, even if the majority may disagree with their viewpoint.
Disagreement and criticism are regulated by those with social and political agendas. Double-standards are employed to justify the indefensible. Private conversation is no longer protected from public exposure. Independent thought is discouraged in the name of social harmony.
The erosion of freedom of speech did not happen overnight. But the First Amendment officially died when a public corporation fired its chief executive officer for making a private donation to a political campaign to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
The sacking of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich capped a decades long crusade by murky forces determined to eradicate any opposition to their social, political and religious paradigms. This trampling of free speech hardly elicited a whimper of outrage from champions of democracy.
It followed on the heels of student and faculty protests over the invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at Rutgers University's commencement. The academic dissidents bullied Ms. Rice into silence by forcing her to voluntarily remove herself from the podium to restore civility.
Remember when colleges were bastions of free speech? Now academia is one of the worse offenders of freedom of expression, ostracizing professors, students and guests who fail some unwritten litmus test over their ideology and principles.
This has happened in the nation that invented free speech because the concept has been redefined by powerful forces: educational institutions, legislative bodies, federal and state courts, pseudo-activist organizations, regulatory bodies and the office of the president of the United States.
These groups have decreed the country cannot tolerate intolerance. Any disagreement with the prevailing norms is labeled prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. Even if the dispute involves strongly held religious beliefs, the political correct mob insists their agenda trumps faith.
If you believe in traditional marriage, you are homophobic. If you don't think women should wear head scarves for drivers license photos, you are anti-Muslin. If you support charter schools, you are a racist. If you are an advocate of life, you want to enslave women.
No American has a right to an opinion unless your viewpoint is in sync with what the social and political cabal has determined is proper speech. Courts are increasingly codifying this as a legal axiom, ignoring the right to free speech affirmed in the First Amendment.
Take the case in a Pennsylvania court earlier this year. A Muslim man was charged with verbally castigating an atheist who marched in a Halloween parade. The judge railed against the victim instead of the defendant.
Judge Mark Martin lectured the victim of the assault, telling him "our forefathers intended to use the First amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures, which is what you did."
Free speech means exactly the opposite of the judge's soliloquy. Americans are supposed to be able to speak their minds, even if others don't agree with their crudeness, attitudes or beliefs. In a free country, speech can be blasphemous, hateful, discriminatory, controversial or even moronic.
President Obama, allegedly charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution, has done more than his fair share to shred the dogma of free speech. He has attempted to silence his critics, the Tea Party and Republicans among others, with name-calling and by impugning their motives.
The president's disciples, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, have bitterly branded Obama's detractors as "racists." No one is allowed to to say anything negative about the president or his policies. Public speech must dovetail with the political aims of the president or risk being called incendiary.
There are some Americans who still cling to the notion that speech is free. However, their voices have been stilled by the threat of libelous muggings in the media and on social networks. Most have been cowered into accepting the inevitable censorship of speech.
Wake up America. Once freedom of expression is lost then liberty will crumble. Tyranny will replace democracy unless Americans reclaim the ability to speak whatever is on their minds, even if the majority may disagree with their viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)