"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof"
It’s Saturday and I’m still enjoying my coffee and cigarettes and just browsing some of my favorite news sites and skimming the articles whose titles interest me. I came across one that talked of freedom of speech being restored at the seat of freedom, Philadelphia. I think it was the fact that freedom of speech had to be “restored” in the first place that grabbed my attention. Since when was that one abolished?
So I open the article to find out that the City of Philadelphia took some religious zealot preacher to court for preaching on the sidewalk and violating a verbal permit instead of issuing a written one as per the law. Frankly I wouldn’t want to hear from a religious zealot either but you can’t have freedom of speech only for those you agree with.
The court found that Philadelphia hadn’t made its case and they found in favor of the preacher. No biggy, I would actually hope they would. So why do religious zealots always get it wrong about what they were exonerated for? Here, let me show you:
Keeping order isn’t license ‘to deprive an individual of a constitutional right’
Posted: June 18, 2010
8:36 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
“I’m rejoicing and praising the Lord for this victory; this is not only a victory for me, but for all Americans,” Marcavage said. “The dangerous reality as evidenced by this case is that, even in the birthplace of American freedom in the shadows of the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, the government is aggressively working to silence the truth.
“The only thing that I was guilty of that day was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and against the mass murder of children in the womb,” he continued. “I’m thankful to the judges who delivered justice and restored freedom with their unanimous ruling.”
The American Bald Eagle, Symbol of Freedom Wikipedia image
< rolling my eyes > Wrong dude but so typical of this kind of person. The court found that the City didn’t meet its burden of proof and so the case was decided in the zealots favor favor. Not because of God or anything else. Your guilt or innocence had nothing to do with you preaching about Christ or dead babies.
One thing no one has answered though, if we still have our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, why do we need permits? Why do cities feel they can impose these “permits” on us if this is a Creator-given right, not one that was legislated to begin with?
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.
To further insure that those inalienable rights were never misconstrued, the Bill of Rights was drafted. The definition for unalienable is:
in·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l–)
That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.
What are the synonyms, (words spelled differently that mean the same thing).
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: absolute, inherent
Synonyms: basic, entailed, inbred, inviolable, natural, nonnegotiable, nontransferable, sacrosanct, unassailable, untransferable
Adult Bald Eagle Wikipedia image
Is any of that unclear? So exactly how is freedom of speech open to legislation of any sort? What part of a public sidewalk is subject to a permit? Why don’t the people challenge this in court?
From the beginning this has been a source of interest for me. While I do not wish to be subject to some religious zealots diatribe, I also recognize that one cannot have freedom of speech for just one group of beliefs. Too many laws are being allowed to come into being which transgress our inalienable rights. By what authority do these local governments have to limit a Creator given right? Government is NOT a person and doesn’t have the right to do this.
Most especially this interest pertains to assembly as part of free speech when I see news items about protesters being segregated from that which they are protesting. It is another example of how we have allowed those in government to impose restrictions on us that the founders not only never intended to allow but made sure to protect against infringement.
In the same way that the Southern Poverty Law Center is allowed to put out hate messages, (they call them intelligence reports), about anyone and everyone, so too do the rest of America have that right. Why should the American people be censored when the SPLC isn’t? For that matter, why should the SPLC’s musings have any more weight than the average Citizens?
As I read the article headlines I have to wonder just how asleep we have been. The push towards “global” think makes me nauseous. Not only does it demand that we force our views on other nations but that we remake our own views to conform with that of everyone else. Like interests in the United States are the same as those in Iraq. It only serves to prove just how BAD for us this globalism is. A great example of the what is wrong with all this crap is the Obaminator’s National Security Speech which was dissected by Michael LeMieux, and which I agree with completely, for NewsWithViews:
By Michael LeMieux
June 17, 2010
He goes on to state “America’s commitment to pursue our interests through an international system in which all nations have certain rights and responsibilities.” Obviously he is speaking from the position of a global citizen because in America we believe that rights come from our creator and not some international order. But to carry this out to its logical conclusion; if nations have certain rights and also responsibilities, who decides what those are? How are those responsibilities going to be gauged and what happens when they are not met? Is there then going to be an international judicial system to enforce those responsibilities? If there is an international judicial body, how are those rulings upheld – will there by an international police force to ensure compliance? And what happens when those who are not a part of this new order decide to challenge that order – will there be an international military to defend the interests of those that belong to the order? Questions which were not answered by him in this forum!
His plan, whatever that may be, includes “American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action…so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern…” And with this new found cooperation “we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions…” So let me get this straight, his strategic goal is to build an international cabal, I mean collective, who will cooperate on global concerns so that they can engage with hostile nations, as a test of their intentions – sounds like empire building on a global scale. Let me see, how did George Washington put it? – “The policy of America should be trade with all but entangling alliances with nobody.” Now our President wants to have foreign entanglement on a global scale – that ought to make it much easier.
Excuse me but I find the Obaminator’s global agenda totally absurd. If we can’t even balance our own check-book, just how does the Obamination foresee us capable of regulating the entire planet? Now I know where all the drugs are going that are being seized, up the collective noses of congress and the POTUS. But then I’ve come to expect the absurd from this and other administrations. And isn’t that an absolutely dismal view of our government?
The global mindset has forced many States to enact laws protecting a parents right to parent. I was dumbfounded to realize this had to be done in the first place, let alone actually pass laws on it. Help I’m slipping into the twilight zone…says the lyrics to Golden Earrings’ Twilight Zone. Yup, I am so there!
LAW OF THE LAND
Organizing campaign to ascertain treaties won’t usurp authority of moms, dads
Posted: June 18, 2010
8:31 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A move to assure Americans that neither new laws nor new treaties would usurp the authority of parents to raise their own children is gaining momentum, with members of the Louisiana legislature unanimously approving a resolution urging Congress to move the Parental Rights Amendment forward.
With the 93-0 vote in the state House, Louisiana became the second state to adopt the specific call for action. Other states have approved similarly designed proposals and many others are working on related legislation.
People act as though the U.N. has any right to legislate to the united States. It doesn’t despite what congress and the squatting POTUS say. Just more proof of the illegitimacy of the Obamination administration and congress willful flaunting of our Constitution. For more information on this issue click HERE:
The U.N. string isn't visible here.
Globalism isn’t just screwing up this country it is screwing all countries! Who ever thought this crap up was seriously demented. Of course we know this all comes down to money. I’m not specifying U.S. dollars here, but the global economy and whatever denomination this manifests itself in. Trade agreements which hurt all the nations involved, (such as NAFTA and CAFTA), have done far more damage than they ever helped. So why would we want this “global mindset” the Obaminator wants to follow? What the people of the country understand these treaties to be and what they actually are couldn’t be more in opposition.
Those ruling the banking industry, whether local or global, have engineered the current and past financial crisis here as well as in other countries. Banks and bankers are also the movers of the United Nations. Nothing happens in this world without their desire and backing. A very good reason for us to turn out backs on the United Nations and global think.
Since most of what is done for the U.N. and others is kept strictly out of the public view, let’s put some real numbers behind the money men and the money.
May 7, 2009 Obama put on the table the following requirements for Congress to approve: (pdf document)
- $1,529,400,000 for the Contributions to International Organizations
- $452,560,000 for the United Nations regular budget
- $1,497,000,000 for the Contributions to International
- $356,550,000 for the International Organizations and Programs
- $65 million for U.S. voluntary contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The average cost for all this is around $10,000.00 per individual, (man, woman AND child), per year in this country. Who has that kind of pocket change laying around??? Congress got generous though and gave Obama even more than he asked for. H. R. 3081 and S. 1413 will show you what Congress did. Which person out there couldn’t use this money right now? Think how much closer to balancing our checkbook we’d be if we weren’t financing an agency which operated in opposition to American values and freedoms?
While neither congress nor the acting POTUS hide this information neither do they talk about it. It seems counterproductive and certainly undesired to support a global agenda when its goals are diametrically opposed to our own.
In every poll that Washington Watch does the American Citizens voting absolutely oppose this kind of spending. When will congress and the POTUS listen? Never if we don’t vote the bums out. This consistent re-election of the people who continue to ignore us is worse than stupid, it verges on the criminal.
So, my coffee is finished now, I’m ready to begin a wonderful Saturday. My mind has been stimulated with the headlines I’ve read and the research I’ve done along the way. Most of this was probably preaching to the choir, but well, I had time to spend.
I’ve done my best to link things together. Even when it seems unlikely to join the First Amendment with congressional spending and the United Nations and Obama’s global band wagon. It’s just how my mind works. Here is hoping your Saturday is the best day of the week.