FIRST AMENDMENT 101

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.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS 101:

This is something heard over and over and is one of our most valuable rights and one we should most certainly protect. However, even amongst conservatives it is often misunderstood as to what this protection really is.

What it is.

This amendment states, Congress shall make no law abridging; Think about that for a minute. Congress shall make no law. See it? We don't have the "right" to free speech under this amendment. It isn't something we were so graciously given by the government.

Rather, it is something which we have told the government you cannot do. You cannot silence my speech against you. You cannot keep me from petitioning you for redress. You cannot stop me from protesting you, peacefully.

What it is not.

It is not a right you have on private property, the owner of the property has their rights as well. It is not a right that infringes with another's right. It was not meant to protect hate speech, violence or pornography.

It was meant solely as a protection for us to speak against, or redress, our government.

For the press it simply means that the press can write articles opposing the government. Today that would also include of course television and radio. But back when it was originally written it was to protect those who wrote newspaper articles, pamphlets and books in opposition to the government.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION 101:

This is a hot subject for conservatives. Again, another misunderstood right. So let's try and clear this one up.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I hear many conservatives say, our country was founded on Judeo Christianity or Judeo Christian beliefs. Whether or not that is true is a subject of major discourse. When we look at the fact that the phrase itself, "Judeo Christian" was never even documented until the mid-1800s many refute it, I believe rightfully so.

Our Declaration of Independence contains the words "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God" and "our Creator." These terms are all generic terms. Nowhere in any of these documents does it say Jesus, Moses or the Bible.

And James Madison said;

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

That our Forefathers were of many denominations is well known. Some never did embrace a particular faith, such as George Washington. It is well known that Thomas Jefferson himself, the author of many of these documents, had nothing but disdain for the Bible, as written, and took great pains to literally cut and paste sections of the Bible out to make his own version, the Jefferson Bible. He did not believe in miracles. He believed Jesus was a good moral man.

So if we look to our history it was very, very plain that the Forefathers wanted to ensure that we did have the freedoms guaranteed by our First Amendment.

What does this mean? It means you indeed do have the freedom to be a Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Pagan, et cetera. The thing is there are about 10,000 different religions and about 1,000 different gods.

I'm glad you have your chosen religion but it is not the "right" religion. There is no right or wrong religion. There is your religion and although I'm very happy for you that you believe in your religion with all your heart it is not the religion of this country. Our country has no official religion. Remember,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I see many, many times on the forums and in discussions, blogs and comments Christians making the statement that a "true conservative is a Christian." WRONG. A true conservative believes what he/she believes. That is our right, given to us by our Creator. And it is up to us to determine our own God.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated,

"I inquire of no person’s religion, nor do I bother any with my own. A person’s religion is solely between him and his maker."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." [Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814]

In a nutshell what this means. Worship God in whatever way you choose. But do not tell any person what they must believe. Your freedom ends where another's freedom begins.

Another thing I see that is extremely bothersome is the judgement of others. You may have that right, within your particular religion, to judge others that have embraced that religion, however, you cannot pass judgement on a person who has chosen another religion and is following the doctrines of that religion whether you agree with it or not. If they have embraced a religion that is not what you have chosen you do not have the right to force upon them the doctrines of yours. That is an infringement on the religious freedom rights of others and is not necessary in a community environment.

Views: 96

Replies to This Discussion

If I remember my history lessons correctly, albeit were public education, Our Forefathers most likely left their homeland because religion had turned from spiritual to political, and when they(England) Continued to enforce this issue it lead to rebellion. Is this beginning to sound a little familiar? I wonder what the correct response should be when Government and Allah are biting you in the ass. Thanks for bringing it up. I will research this with renewed fervor.   NEVER SURRENDER

why can't the people sent to washington to represent the will of the people follow the constitution? while i do not follow the islamic religion, i do not hold to depriving any person to practice their beliefs as they see fit. obama's sneaky way of trying to worm islam as the religion of the nation is trying to undermine our ability to live as free individuals who have the right to believe and practice religion any way he or she desires. 

we need to Plaster the First Amendment on banner ads everywhere! making it known to the government that we are not accepting islam as the religion of the nation!!! we hold our truths and beliefs dear to our hearts and will not be stepped on by obama cronism!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service