by Thomas Gallatin: If there’s one thing the vast majority of Americans agree upon, it’s disgust with those in power who display attitudes of entitlement and elitism. These attitudes are especially grating to America’s fundamental belief in the equality of all individuals under the law. It’s one of the primary reasons American colonists rebelled against British rule. Sadly, in spite of our history, it is ever more apparent that many of our nation’s politicians fancy themselves as an elitist ruling class, to which the Rule of Law and equality simply don’t apply. Sen. Dianna Feinstein (D-CA) provided the latest display of this political elitism in the wake of the Las Vegas atrocity. Feinstein is no friend of the Second Amendment, and she has long actively sought to limit public access to a right she herself exercises. Recently Feinstein was asked about proposed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. She stated, “We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon? Around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation, Californians do not want concealed carry.”
Feinstein then further opined, “I don’t believe [conceal carry] is protected by the Constitution. To conceal it, without a permit. … I am saying that the state I represent would not want any part of [national reciprocity], nor should any American. You just make the situation worse. You let somebody with a weapon who may do you harm get close to you. Why would you want that?”
As bad as Feinstein’s flawed interpretation of the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment is, it is her blatant display of hypocrisy on the issue of concealed carry which may be more egregious. California, with its severely restrictive gun laws, has just over 70,000 concealed carry permit holders. It would be more if the state was “shall issue.” And one of those privileged few is Feinstein herself.
The assertion Feinstein makes — that concealed carry would allow someone with a weapon to get close to you and do you harm — displays again an attitude of entitlement and elitism, as well as being profoundly ignorant and judgmental. Does Feinstein view the vast majority of Americans as nothing more than a mass of psychopathic murders just itching to get their hands on a gun so as to kill anyone they get close to? She speaks as if she were the warden overseeing a prison population. How dare she claim the right for herself while actively seeking to prevent her constituents from enjoying the same right to self-protection.
This elitist entitlement attitude was displayed last year by then-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who, when questioned on gun rights, stated, while standing next to armed Capitol Police, “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.” When the obvious presence of armed security protecting him was pointed out, Rangel insisted, “Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.”
Once again we see that Orwellian display of the entitled ruling class preaching that leftist dogma of everyone being equal, but some being more equal than others. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51822
VIDEOS
{townhall.com} ~ "The constitutionally guaranteed 'freedom to be intellectually ... diverse or even contrary,' and the 'right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,' encompass the freedom to express publicly one's opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous."
-- Supreme Court of the United States in Street v. New York (1969)
Sometimes the public expression of unwanted ideas reaches directly into our living rooms. When President Donald Trump attacked a half-dozen or so professional football players who, instead of standing during the traditional playing of the national anthem prior to football games, "took a knee" by kneeling on one or both of their knees during the anthem, hundreds of more players on national television took a knee in defiance of the president.
Here is the back story.
Last year, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick, began quietly taking a knee at NFL games to protest what he said was the excessive use of force by police. He was the subject of mild but largely below-the-radar criticism by those who thought sincerely that taking a knee publicly during the playing of the national anthem was a sign of disrespect for the flag and the anthem and thus for this country.
When a few of his buddies and former colleagues -- he is no longer a member of an NFL team -- followed suit for a variety of reasons, all of which centered around the right to protest the policies of the government, Trump saw a political opening.
This pronouncement focused a spotlight on the six or so scattered players who had followed Kaepernick's lead, and soon hundreds were doing so. The president took their behavior as an affront to him and the nation, and he persisted in his attacks on the players. Soon, some team owners joined their players in various means of expressing solidarity with those who had taken a knee.
When the players union backed up these silent expressions of political opinions, it argued that all of its members have a constitutional right to express themselves in uniform in their workplace. Do they? The short answer is that it depends on where the players are when they take a knee.
Some jurisdictions -- such as California, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York -- give more protection to employees for expressive conduct in the workplace than others do. When the expressive conduct -- taking a knee, bowing one's head, locking arms with colleagues -- occurs in the workplace, the issue is not necessarily one of free speech, because the First Amendment only comes into play when the government itself is accused of infringing upon or compelling speech. In the NFL, the alleged infringers of speech or compellers of speech are team management, not the government.
In states where expressive conduct in the workplace is protected, employees may express themselves as long as they do not materially interfere with the business of the workplace. In states without that employee protection, they may not do so.
So in states such as Texas, an employee who refuses to comply with an instruction from management to conform to certain behavior in public -- e.g., standing during the playing of the national anthem -- can be disciplined, as Texas lacks the added protections for individual workplace expressions that a few states provide.
However, even in the states that lack the employee expression protection, if management's instructions to conform require conformance on property that the government owns, such as a publicly owned stadium, then management is treated constitutionally as if it were the government. Just as the government cannot interfere with speech to suppress its content or to compel conformity, neither may team management when teams play on government-owned land.
If team management could show that taking a knee materially interferes with the workplace product -- money for the owners resulting from players winning football games -- because it chases away ticket buyers or reduces advertising or media revenue or impairs team morale and thus produces poor play, it would have a strong case, even in the states with employee protection laws and even in venues owned by the government.
In the famous flag burning cases a few years ago, the Supreme Court made clear that in America, we have no revered symbols that command orthodox respect. The flag itself represents the right to treat it as one wishes. We are free to respect the flag and to shun those who do not, but we may not harm a hair on their heads.
I am with the French philosopher Voltaire, who, regarding folks who had literally lost their heads, is reputed to have said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Comments