… what do you fail to understand about the following? Are the words too polysyllabic? Do you need pictures? Are you so self absorbed, you fail to see you are about to do what no other occupant of the oval office has been able to do; bring the people of this nation where they haven’t been since colonial days?
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.
Of all the Amendments, as articulated in the “Bill of Rights”, the first two amendments were considered, by most, to be sacrosanct. They are, for all intent and purpose, the ones on which all else was built. “Freedom of Speech”, and “The Right to Bear Arms”, are there to allow for the free dissemination of information in order to provide for an informed electorate, and if all else fails, “the people” have the option to remove (by force if necessary) any and all elected officials (along with entrenched bureaucrats and other assorted toadies), with the “blessing” of the latter.
Lately, there has been a move toward returning to the original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment. Witness SCOTUS’s ruling on Heller vs D.C. as an example of this. So there is hope we would at least hold ground on this one, especially with the upcoming case being heard by SCOTUS regarding Chicago’s handgun obscenity law.
Nobody gave much thought to the First Amendment. It was thought to be the darling of the media, and the perennial favorite of the liberal (both traditional “blue collar dems” and progressives) hoards. Oh sure, there was McCain-Fiengold, but that has been worked around and generally derided (either openly by conservatives, or a bit more covertly, by those of a more liberal bent) by all. Naa, “The First” was considered to be pretty much “hands off” at the end of the day … until now.
In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:
“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”
Ms Bayefsky goes on further to state:
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
Pay close attention to the boldface directly above, re-read it, and ask yourself this; What individual, or “august body”, is going to interpret this? Seems to me, one man’s “negative racial and religious stereotyping”, may very well be another man’s satire, or critical commentary. And that is the whole point. This is (of course) assuming our own administration or legislative body was solely behind what is going on here. That it was based on the “will of the people” to some greater or lesser extent, this was being brought forth.
But what is of the gravest of concerns, is this is a UN resolution. Obama is actively pursuing changing our rights, as granted by divine providence, in order to appease the very agents who seek to destroy same, if given half the chance. He is not acting as the leader of this great nation in championing our cause, our culture, our way of life, he answers to a (much) lower calling then that.
And so …
This is my “line in the sand” … you shall not cross. You shall not grossly pervert, to the point of turning to dust, that which has been bought and paid for by the blood of men, honest and true. Patriots whose very names your lips are not worthy to speak are surely awakening from well deserved slumber, their specters heading to your bed, there to rage mightily against your corrupted conscience, your shriveled, despotic soul.
But there won’t be a “Scrooge of a political nature” to resurrect. A man, who, when faced with the list of his sins against his fellows, seeks by the changing of his ways, redemption. For first, there must be found, a man. And secondly, the man must be in possession of both conscience and soul. Barack Hussin Obama has neither.