Freedom of Speech

OK, so an old High School classmate posted the following on Face Book today and I just wanted to take a few minutes to jot down some ideas about it, since I feel so very strongly about the idea. No names, just so nobody blasts him. If you are friends on Facebook, you’ve probably already seen it anyway…

“I believe it's time to modify the First (sic) Ammendment. You know, Freedom of Speech. I see so much hate being spewed under the protection of Free speech. I think we need to modify it to protect the individual and their right to pursue the happiness as guaranteed in the Constitution. The basic pursuit to be happy should override some douchebags pursuit to to be a DICK! These Baptist assholes who cloak themselves in the first (sic) ammendment so they can crap on (sic) someones right to mourn in peace should be EXEMPT from this Freedom! I BELIEVE THESE ARE HATE CRIMES AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH!

We've let the lawyers and judges take away too many rights of freedom and happiness from the good and peaceful in this country and give it to the mean and hateful DICKS and DOUCHEBAGS! That includes the criminals who have more rights and power of the victims.

I'm done ranting! Time for a cocktail!”

First, a short history lesson. The Bill of rights, which contain the amendments to the constitution, was not part of the original document sent for ratification to the states in 1787. It was not until AFTER the constitution was ratified and adopted that a Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. Many believed that by providing a list of rights, people would be limited to those rights listed ONLY. When taken in context with the Declaration of Independence, that is an understandable argument.

Just for clarity, the entire first amendment is included here:

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.

The first thing I notice here is that this amendment is about more than free speech. For this argument though, I want to concentrate on just the phrase “…abridging the freedom of speech…”.

What does it mean to “abridge the freedom of speech”, and why would the founders want to constrain the government from being able to do it? According to Dictionary.com, abridge is defined:

Verb:

1. Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
2. Curtail (rights or privileges).

In this case, it is pretty clear the founders meant to prevent the government from curtailing anyone’s speech.

OK, history over. So, my friend wants to modify the first amendment to stop protecting speech he calls “hate”. The first thing I wonder is, Who defines hate? No matter who it is, it is bound to offend someone, and “abridge” their ability to speak their mind. In short, I may or may not agree with someone else’s definition of hate. Further, hate is not a speech; hate is a thought, or feeling. Is it even possible to know whether a person who says something you think is hateful thinks that speech is hateful?

Here is an example to help you understand what I mean by this. Let’s say some guy sleeps with my baby sister, gets her pregnant in the 10^th grade creating a situation where she has to drop out of school to have and raise the baby. If I find the guy and pound the snot out of him is that a hate crime? What if her were a black guy? Could you tell if I was angry because he was black, or because he knocked up my sister? No (Yeah, I know this is not an example of speech, but the idea is the same). The point is, nobody knows if I do or do not “hate” someone based on my actions.

He wants to “…modify it (the first amendment) to protect the individual and their right to pursue the happiness as guaranteed in the Constitution.”

That protection, pursuit of happiness, is protected the way the amendment is presently written. That right is not even IN the constitution, but is part of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. That declaration is an interesting document, however, and bears a few comments here. What is the “pursuit of happiness” and who is it protected FOR? The answer to the second question is easy: Everyone. (NOT just Americans by the way).

I am certain you’ve read it before, but just for clarity here is the pertinent text:

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

But what does it MEAN? First, that these facts (truths) are SELF-evident…they are true whether you believe them or not. They do not require a human being in any way to make them so.

All men are created equal. Self-evident, whether you believe it or not. Each and every one of us is born EXACTLY the same – No clothes, unable to care for ourselves etc. Further, we continue to be equal our entire life. Yes, entre life. Each of us is sovereign – no one person is better or worse than another. No man has the ability to control me, or you, unless we grant them that ability. This is because government derives it’s authority from the consent of the governed. Don’t believe it? Government can NOT control how you act. If you are law abiding, it is because you CHOOSE (consent) to be law abiding. That idea has plenty of evidence to back it up, just pick up a paper…an awful lot of people are not law abiding – because they CHOOSE not to be.

These rights are “endowed by our creator”. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs today, clearly the founders believed that God granted us these rights. For those who don’t believe in God, these rights are ours with or without government. Government did not give them to us, so it cannot take them away.

Among them are the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Of course, the phrase “among these” indicates that these three things are not all-inclusive…but let’s stick to them for this argument.

So what are they, these rights? Well, life is pretty clear…or maybe not, but that is for another argument. No one can kill us, or at least no one can LAWFULLY kill us.

Liberty. What IS liberty? Is that the ability to just do whatever you want whenever you want? Don’t think so, at least not lawfully. Let’s look to Tomas Jefferson to answer that question.

“Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.” (Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Henry Lee

May 8, 1825)

Coercive interference. One man may NOT coercively compel another man to do anything. We have liberty.

So what is the pursuit of happiness? That one is a bit more “elastic”. The best I can understand it, it means I can act in any way I want to and that I believe will make me happy, just as long as in doing so I do not trample anyone else’s right. In short, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

So what does ALL this have to do with the original post? Well, it all ties together, and has to be taken together in order to be understood. First, nowhere in any of the founding documents, or any of the supporting documents, does it talk about freedom or liberty in a way that indicates we all have to like or agree that an action or speech is acceptable. It doesn’t require a majority to agree that the speech is acceptable; if anything it protects the MINORITY opinion first. It prevents a mob from restricting me as much as a single person from restricting me. Remember: A democracy (majority rules) is like three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Our founders wanted to protect the sheep.

Nor does it restrict free speech in a way that allows only for speaking out against the government. It clearly protects ALL speech, providing that speech does not cause someone to be restricted in his or her rights.

It seems, in the main, to particularly protect speech that may be offensive. After all, the folks who wrote that were speaking out against the monarchy, and saying things that many in the colonies found offensive, even traitorous! What follows in the Declaration is the list of grievances they had against the crown, and the preamble was written to explain why they felt justified in saying those things to begin with.

Clearly, the actions of the so-called church are offensive to many (me included), but which right does their inflammatory speech infringe for the people they picket? Yeah, it sucks, and yeah it is upsetting. It is offensive to most, and it makes a difficult time even more difficult. But it does not prevent anyone from having life, or liberty, or even from pursuing happiness. Providing these people do not enter private property, or act in a way that prevents these families from having their funerals, then they are not infringing a right.

What is really interesting here is that my classmate (I’d say friend, but since I haven’t seen him in more than 30 years, that one is tough…I consider him a friend, but do not want to be presumptuous) states, “We've let the lawyers and judges take away too many rights of freedom and happiness from the good and peaceful in this country and give it to the mean and hateful DICKS and DOUCHEBAGS! That includes the criminals who have more rights and power of the victims”, and then suggests we allow these SAME lawyers, judges and of course legislators to start narrowly defining what speech we do and do not have a right to. That works out great until you find yourself on the wrong end of that narrow definition.

For example, what if the dicks and douchebags are offended by your referring to them as dicks and douchebags? What if they can put together a strong enough lobby that you find yourself being accused of a hate crime for using that sort of language? It is not too far fetched, and I am sure none of these idiots would find it inoffensive. It IS s slippery slope, because it implies that our rights, which were not given by our government, can be taken away by our government. That leaves it up to whoever happens to be in office, and could land on you as easily as anyone else.

Let’s be clear. What these people are doing is reprehensible. It makes my insides twist up, not only because they are using the sorrow of these families to bring attention to themselves, but also because they do these things in the name of God, identifying themselves as Christian in a way that dishonors true Christian organizations.

We have relinquished too much of our sovereignty to the government already, we don’t need to hand them any more than they already have.

The best approach to these people is just what is going to happen; many others exercising THEIR right to free speech and getting between the morons and the suffering families. What I would LOVE to see happen is for normal, loving, supportive people to show up in such great numbers that the Westborough crowd is so small by comparison that they are not even recognized.

Do we think we are free?

I know we do. We hear it all the time! “This is a free country!”. But is it? In short: NO!

First, what IS freedom? Well, freedom is the ability to behave in a particular way without the interference of government, provided you do not infringe on the freedom of others. Simple, right? Maybe not, the definition of freedom at the free dictionary by farlex states:

“affranchisement, arbitrium, autonomy, civil liberty, decontrol, deliverance, discharge, disenthrallment, emancipation, empowerment, enfranchisement, entitlement, exemption, exemption from external control, exemption from restraint, extrication, franchise, franchisement, independence, leave, leeway, legal right, liberation, libertas, liberty, licentia, noninterference, permit, political independdnce, prerogative, privilege, redemption, relaxation of control, release, right to decide, room, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, unconstraint, unfettering, unrestraint” (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/freedom)

Not exactly easy to understand…but it IS clear that freedom means the ability to act the way you want to…always assuming you are not infringing on anyone else’s rights.

So, clearly we believe we are free, but a better way to decide might be to have a look at what it is like NOT to be free. If an individual is restricted from a particular action under the threat of fine or imprisonment, then it can be said that the person is not “free” to perform that action. Sound reasonable? I think so.

In short, we might not be “free” to do something that is illegal. Fair enough…but what is illegal? Again, from the free dictionary by farlex:

“illegal 1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal. 2) a person residing in a country of which he/she is not a citizen and who has no official permission to be there” (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/illegal)

Well, that’s not very clear either, because by this definition, illegal is anything that is in violation of a law. Of course, a law may be legal, but not lawful (a point for another topic), but let’s assume that a given law is lawful, therefore not adhering to that law is, by definition above, illegal.
So to sum up what we have so far: We are free if we are able to decide what behavior we want to have, providing we are not infringing the rights of someone else in the performance of that behavior. We are not free to chose a behavior that is against some statute or regulation.

So what type of behavior is illegal? Is it legal to get married? Is it legal to start and run a business? Is it legal to operate your vehicle? Is it legal to build a house? You might be shaking your head yes at this point, because these are common things that any people do every day.

To that I say…you are shaking your head in the wrong direction! Believe it or not, ALL of these actions are currently illegal in the United States. I know, you disagree, however, I am about to prove my point. In order to do any ONE of these things, it is necessary in the United States to obtain a license. The legal definition of a license, again from the free dictionary by farlex is:

“The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.” (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license) (Emphasis added)

If you need a license to do it, it is because without a license, the action would be illegal! I do not believe this is what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they wrote:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Emphasis added)

So how do they do it?

Anybody ever wonder how the Federal Government is able to inject itself so far into our lives? I have, so I went looking. This will be a fairly short post, but let’s look at it for just a moment.

The Constitution of the United States is very clear about the powers vested in both the federal government, and the state. It states, in part:

The President shall…have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

OK, clearly not the entire Constitution, but the important parts for this discussion. To sum up the foregoing: The President, with the consent of congress can make treaties, and the congress can ONLY make laws pertaining to the District of Columbia, federal enclaves ceded by states and US help territories that are not states. Congress can ALSO make any laws needed for carrying out all the powers granted by the Constitution.

At first glance, we see that within a given state, the federal government has little or no power to make laws governing the citizens of that state. So how can the federal government have laws pertaining to things like wetlands, wildlife, fish and game and all the other federal laws that restrict our freedoms and liberties? It’s simple, but not obvious (this is what happens when lawyers run the government). Since the President can make treaties that are ratified by the Congress, and Congress can make laws to carry out the treaties, then all the government needs to do is make a treaty with some nation concerning, for example, some environmental issue, and suddenly the federal government has jurisdiction, and can make and enforce laws within a state, concerning that environmental issue.

If you weren’t worried about a gun control treaty with the members of the United Nations before, now might be a good time to worry. If a treaty is signed by the President and ratified by Congress concerning the ownership, sale or transportation of fire arms, suddenly the federal government will be empowered to make federal laws concerning just those things.

Where there is a will, there is a way…and when a group of people seeks absolute power, they will find a way to do it. In this underhanded way the United States is headed toward a “one world order” type of government through a back door method of treaties with other nations.

As I understand it today

The Federal Government has and continues to perpetrate a huge fraud on the American people. State governments participate willingly and are complicit in the fraud. This fraud is complex and intentionally confusing, so that ordinary Americans (those who do not hold a degree in law) have a difficult time finding and understanding that fraud (I know I am having a difficult time understanding it in detail). The government that is SUPPOSED to (Constitutionally)protect our rights, routinely tramples them underfoot, and leaves it to each individual to “belligerently” defend their rights alone, in a maze of legal jargon and without the knowledge or understanding of court procedure and rules. The lawyers we hire to represent us to the courts are officers OF that court and do not, in general, have an interest or motivation to truly represent us at all.

Once an individual becomes aware of this fraud, and attempts to assert their God given, INALIABLE rights identified in the Declarationof Independence and ostensibly protected by our Constitution, that individual suddenly has a new hobby: Belligerently protecting his own rights in a battle with the government and its court system.

The fraud, in a nutshell is this: The lawful currency of the United States has been transferred to what amounts to an offshore bank, owned by foreign bankers and other legal entities, who then issue a fiat currency, based on debt that we unsuspectingly use as “legal tender”thinking it is backed by something with intrinsic value, which it is not. The collateral of this debt is the entire land-mass of these several United States and the productivity of every individual thereof. In order to pay the interest on this debt, the Congress has established a municipal entity (corporation) and overlaid it across all of the States, which has then fraudulently contracted with us to effectively rob us of at least part of our productivity, using the Internal Revenue Service as a collection agent and misleading everyone of us to believe that payment of “income” tax is not only“patriotic” but mandatory as well.

Furthermore, we are continually compelled to contract with both Federal and State & Local corporations (municipalities) to “willingly”relinquish the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution by way of licensing for activities that are guaranteed by the Constitution such as operating our vehicles, marrying and starting/maintaining a business.

I think, at a very high level, this captures what is being done to us, with our “willing” participation each and every day. At least this is how I understand it, and I welcome correction.

I am sure this is not precisely true, but in essence is very close.

A slow lazy day

Well..here it is Monday and I just couldn't bring myself to get out of bed to go to work.  It is a gloomy, rainy, lazy day.  I like those some times.  Gives me time to think.

What is the country coming to when we have a President who finds it necessary to travel all over the globe apologizing for us?  If he is going to actually accomplish anything, should he not be staying home working?  

Since taking office President Obama has spent an awful lot of time traveling to foreign countries to apologize for Americans being, well, Americans!  Further, he has been pandering to our enemies, and it is beginning to show (already).  Today Iran's President (whose name I can't spell and don't feel like looking up), addressed a group of politicians at an event aimed at criticizing racism.  His talk?  Well, just some more racist diatribe about Israel and the Jewish state.  This is the guy we need to apologize to, and of course to meet with without preconditions?  When are the American people going to wake up? Well, the TEA parties in the last week may be an indication that they are in fact awakening, but they MUST remain awake and those tea parties CANNOT be the end!

Also, Obama can not possibly have enough time to complete the work of the nation...he consistently fails to remain home, instead galavanting all across the globe on his apology tour.  Wonder what the liberal media would have made of it if Busch had done that?

Random thoughts after having just signed up

OK, so just got the account, and am posting for the first time.  I have not given this post ANY thought yet, but will stick it up there anyway...odds of anyone actually READING it is slim anyway.

So, for the moment I have nothing to say, but check back since I almost ALWAYS have something to comment on...just ask my wife, she'll tell you!