Category Archives: First Amendment

Christian Sermons are the New Hate Speech!

The “Bathroom Bill”

One October 17th, 2014, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, stood in defense of Houston pastors’ First Amendment right to preach and speak from the pulpit freely.  The controversy has been nicknamed “the bathroom bill”   Thanks to our Bill of Rights, The City of Houston has backed off, a little bit at least. Let’s review the event and analyze how and why the Constitution once  again is at least almost doing its job as designed.

Senator Cruz’s speech concerned a shockingly unconstitutional attempt by the City of Houston to restrict Houstonians’ practice of religion and free speech, in favor of furthering a pro-gay political agenda backed by the city government.

In the video linked below, Senator Cruz called upon the pastors and citizens of Houston to defy the City of Houston’s recent unjust sermon subpoena requirement.

That’s right, you read it correctly; a city requirement to examine and approve the contents — of Christian sermons!

Listen to exactly what Senator Cruz had to say about the matter here,  courtesy of  The Liberty Foundation

Outrage is Due!

This action taken by the City of Houston should seem  outrageous to  every American, but what is frightening is that this unjust policy  garnered  any support from the public at all.  Gay and transgender supporters feel especially offended  by traditional Christians who disagree with their version of morality.

No Political Bias Here

I’m not here to defend or to oppose the morality held by the offended party, namely, the LGBT crowd.  I’m only here to defend every  citizen’s inalienable right to hold and to speak his own religious opinion freely.  Period.

Who Grants Human Authority?

Who granted the City of Houston the authority to pass judgment upon the truth of any human opinion?  Who granted The City of Houston the authority to exercise an assumption that their morality trumps all other versions of morality?  Nobody grants such authority, and that logically renders such supposed authority invalid.

Any humanly supposed authority is self granted. It has no real authority, except that imagined by those who claim it. Such a false supposition of authority rings of tyranny.

The First and Tenth Amendments

We’re all familiar with the First Amendment’s assurance of free speech and  of free religious practice, but what about the Tenth Amendment?

In a nutshell, the Tenth Amendment states that all clauses distinctly defined in the Bill of Rights are valid and enforceable at every level of government within the United States, including, but not limited to the level of state and city governments.

That means that the First Amendment always trumps local laws and rulings.  The right to practice free speech of any nature is universal and inalienable, and that is why it was spelled out in the Bill of Rights – because that is what the Bill of Rights is, namely, an enumeration of inalienable rights..

The Right to Live Your Own Belief System is also Universal

I can really sympathize with the LGBT point of view, but I cannot at all sympathize with their unconstitutional methods of flexing political power.

The right to your own belief system is yours,  and the right to speak freely about that belief system is yours  – whatever it might be.   So, let’s look at both sides of the coin.

If you are LGBT or an LGBT sympathizer, you have the right to be what you are, and you have the right to openly disagree with those who oppose your choices.  That is, in traditional Christian terms, free will.  If you are an atheist,  it’s a sure bet you will still agree that you possess an inherent right to choose for yourself.

Likewise, if you are the member of a Christian congregation, or the pastor over such a congregation, you also have the right to be what you are, and you have the right to openly disagree with those who oppose your choices.  It’s as simple as that!

LGBTs, like anyone else, don’t like being criticized for their choices, and neither do Christians.  Yet, Christian pastors do not disagree with the individual right for any individual to choose to be LGBT.  Once again, that’s called free will in religious circles.  It’s widely accepted in traditional Christianity that God granted us free will,  the option of making a mistake that can be corrected.  What  Christians preach about is what they see as the dangers of your making the wrong  choice, and of course they hope to talk you out of doing what they feel might be bad for you.

Yes, certain churches do condemn the practice of homosexuality, and they do openly preach against it, and  they do warn of what they believe to be the dangers of that style of life.  On the flip side, pro-gay groups are often quite active in openly bashing traditional Christianity.

Do not pastors, as Americans, have as much right to condemns LGBTs , as LGBTs have a right to openly preach against and condemn Christians?  Pro-gay groups do commonly openly bash traditional Christianity, yet traditional Christians generally do not call for the silencing of the opinions of the LGBT crowd.  Why the hypocrisy?

 The New Hate Speech

Why is a traditional pastor’s version of the truth painted as hateful, while the derision of Christians on the part of those who oppose traditional moral Christianity, the LGBT version of truth,  is painted as a fair and balanced view?

Why do we consistently see one sided behavior from human government that would silence traditional Christian opinion, and would herald their own humanist opinion as the superior one?  If Christians were really mistaken, and the real God is not divine, but instead humanism really rules us all, then there would be no real authority outside of humanism!

Who, then, in a supposed humanist world, would decide which of the two humanist views was superior?

Facebooktwitterrss

Terry Holcomb Sr. Goes to Jail for Defending Liberty For YOU!

Terry Holcomb Sr. Stands Up for Himself  (and other Constitutional Commentary)

Take a good listen to the details of this event. The actions of this judge are despicable. Here is KrisAnne Hall’s plea for you to listen to this broadcast and take action:

“What is Liberty worth to you? To Terry Holcomb, Sr. it is worth going to jail. Mr. Holcomb refused to allow his voice to be silenced by tyrannical government and that tyrannical government put him in jail. He stood his ground peacefully, while others watched on in submission to tyranny. Mr. Holcomb defended Liberty for YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. Will YOU stand with him NOW?”

Just three days ago, a judge in a Texas county decided to adjourn a meeting which was held for the purpose of hearing public redress of an issue to which there was public opposition.

The County didn’t want to hear any opposition. So what did the judge do? He adjourned the meeting before anyone had a chance to speak contrary to the intentions of the County……. and of course that was the designated reason for the meeting in the first place.

One man, Terry Honcomb, Sr.,  protested and demanded that he be allowed to speak. . Inspite of the fact that the meeting was already formally adjourned when Mr. Holcomb spoke up, he was arrested and jailed on a bogus charge because he had refused to be denied the opportunity to be heard.  Mr. Holcomb broke no law, and only stood up for his right to be hear and not to be run over by a judge’s abuse of authority.

 

—>  Listen to the audio commentary by KrisAnne Hall  here

 

Why there even is a Bill of Rights

Why would I take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the people against the unjust actions of a tyrannical government? Maybe it’s because the history of the activities of the Continental Congress in 1789 verifies that position. The Federalists actually argued against the creation of the Bill of Rights, but not because they disagreed with its proposed contents.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the Federalist point of view, argued against the creation of a Bill of Rights, and it was a hotly contested issue in the Constitutional debates.  His motivations for taking that position were also quite reasonable. Hamilton contended that as soon as you spell out a defined set of individual rights, those specific words would be used to rule in favor of the allowance or prohibition of anything that was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights  as prohibited or allowed.  Hamilton was quite perceptive.

The Bill of Rights WAS created, and now we can see exactly that happening today. Liberals.  in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, take exactly the same position that Hamilton feared would be taken.

For instance, in the modern  liberal view, you can outlaw certain kinds of weapons, because their allowance was not specifically spelled out when the Constitution was penned in 1789. After all, automatic rifles did not exist back then. Therefore, by their argument, we can outlaw them without ever infringing on the rights that existed in 1789.

Likewise, in the liberal view, we can define what comprises “the press” to exclude bloggers and Facebook particpants because the press was nothing more than newspapers back in 1789. The internet did not exist yet. Therefore, by their argument, bloggers and people who do not fit a government definition of “press” can be excluded from the freedom of press rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Those are only two examples and both pf them typify exactly the kind of Constitutional abuse that Hamilton warned against. On the other hand, although that’s why Hamilton didn’t favor adopting a Bill of Rights, where would we be without it to lean on today? Hamilton lost that argument, and the Bill of Rights DOES exist. So now, we have this resulting interpretation debate to deal with, just as Hamilton predicted would happen.

What is the only logical answer to this Constitutional interpretation debate?

In my mind, original intent is the only argument behind which anyone can stand with any sort of logical validity. Original intent is easy enough to understand on the basis of the history that transpired in the debates of the Continental Congress, resulting in the penning of the final documents. If we can establish what the Framers intended, that is, what the absolute meaning behind their words was, that must certainly take precedence over any sort of opinion about it. Rulings about whatever the Constitution DIDN’T ever say, can logically be nothing but baseless and personally biased opinions. Such opinions are easy to spot, because they without exception walk on someone’s inalienable rights.


The narrator, KrisAnne Hall, in the piece linked above well explains the debate in 1789 over whether or not there even should have been a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. If you really read and dig into history, you will learn that the party which believed that the purpose of the Constitution was to give the people power over potential tyrannical government, was the same party that WON the debate over the issue of whether or not there should even BE be an enumerated Bill of Rights. Because they won that argument, the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.

I have been told by liberal minded friends that I need to read the Constitution because I am supposedly misinterpreting it.

Well, I did. I carry a copy in my briefcase. I also read history, and I also considered the tyrannical actions of King George, who inspired the Colonists to revolt and to declare independence from his tyrannical government.

What I have not done, and which makes me incapable of Constitutional interpretation, according to one of my esteemed well meaning liberal friends, is to take a course from a liberal arts college law department which teaches students to interpret the Constitution in exactly the manner against which Alexander Hamilton warned it is not to be interpreted.

Be sure to listen to the audio and take action.

Facebooktwitterrss

Ted Cruz says 41 Senate Democrats Co-Sponsor Bill to Repeal 1st Amendment Regulate Free Speech

Ted Cruz Repeal 1st Amendment

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors retreat that Senate Democrats want to limit free speech through amending the Constitution.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

Calling these “perilous, perilous times,” Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19 – “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

Ted Cruz says Democrats want to limit free speech.

“What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient,” Cruz said.

UPDATE… Because of several comments on this story indicating they would like the list of Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, we are providing the list below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (alpha order by last name):

  • Tammy Baldwin (WI)
  • Mark Begich (AK)
  • Michael Bennet (CO)
  • Richard Blumenthal (CT)
  • Cory Booker (NJ)
  • Barbara Boxer (CA)
  • Sherrod Brown (OH)
  • Benjamin Cardin (MD)
  • Thomas Carper (DE)
  • Christopher Coons (DE)
  • Richard Durbin (IL)
  • Dianne Feinstein (CA)
  • Al Franken (MN)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
  • Kay Hagen (NC)
  • Tom Harkin (IA)
  • Martin Heinrich (NM)
  • Mazie Hirono (HI)
  • Tim Johnson (SD)
  • Angus King, Jr. (ME)
  • Amy Klobuchar (MN)
  • Edward Markey (MA)
  • Robert Menendez (NJ)
  • Jeff Merkley (OR)
  • Barbara Mikulski (MD)
  • Christopher Murphy (CT)
  • Patty Murray (WA)
  • Jack Reed (RI)
  • Harry Reid (NV)
  • John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
  • Bernard Sanders (VT)
  • Brian Schatz (HI)
  • Chuck Schumer (NY)
  • Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
  • Debbie Stabenow (MI)
  • Jon Tester (MT)
  • Mark Udall (CO)
  • John Walsh (MT)
  • Elizabeth Warren (MA)
  • Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
  • Ron Wyden (OR)

Please note that the above article mentioned all co-sponsors as Democrats. Actually, there are 40 Democrats and one admitted socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/cruz-41-senate-democrats-co-sponsor-bill-repeal-1st-amendment-regulate-free-speech/#GUlI6UzQGkwTWJc8.99

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!