End The First Amendment???

[PoliticalChic]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.

Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.

Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.

You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey.

This is not about the election....
...this is about the end of America.




Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution.


...or did you miss that as well?




"Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant."

Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Related:

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
By Patrick Goodenough
September 26, 2012
CNNNews.com

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N. | CNSNews.com

 

[there4eyeM]

The attacks on individual freedoms in general and free speech in particular are bi-partisan as far as Republican and Democratic parties go.

What constitutes 'liberal' in America (the word the opposite meaning in Europe) is a set of ideas and ideals that include more government action in society. Conservatives seek to have the minimum of such involvement. The two camps do not necessarily correspond to the two above parties. There is no inherent reason either side should attack the First Amendment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The attacks on individual freedoms in general and free speech in particular are bi-partisan as far as Republican and Democratic parties go.

What constitutes 'liberal' in America (the word the opposite meaning in Europe) is a set of ideas and ideals that include more government action in society. Conservatives seek to have the minimum of such involvement. The two camps do not necessarily correspond to the two above parties. There is no inherent reason either side should attack the First Amendment.

You really need a tutorial on the issues....

...and here I am, to provide same:

1. Free Press was founded by Robert McChesney, and on his board sat Marxist Van Jones, former ‘Green Jobs Czar’ for Obama.

2. Insight into Free Press, and the Center for American Progress can be seen in “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” co-authored by Mark Lloyd. The following from their policy report: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

a. “…more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.”… Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006…conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format…91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive

b. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand….Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data.



2. Phil Kerpen, of the conservative think tank, Americans for Prosperity, blasted the FCC for being in bed with Free Press: ‘AFP was reacting to an email sent out under FCC Spokeswoman Jen Howard’s name by Free Press discussing FCC’s intent to advance net neutrality regulations. Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet and Howard’s attempt to have one foot in and one foot out of government at the same time is outrageous.

“Free Press was founded by left-wing extremists who want to destroy private ownership of the media and the Internet. It was bad enough that the Federal Communications Commission hired Free Press’s former spokesperson, Jen Howard. Now we see that she is still apparently working for Free Press,” said AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen. “Now that Howard is running the press office for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski it is shocking that she would still be a soldier for a left-wing advocacy group.”


Free Press is the brainchild of Robert McChesney who wrote a column last year advising President Obama: “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
“The FCC has put on a false front that it is honestly interested in the public’s feedback on its efforts to regulate the Internet,” said Kerpen. “Today’s revelation that it is sharing employees with a group that is dedicated to destroying our free market system is unacceptable.” ‘ FCC Official Spokeswoman Still Working for ‘Free Press’ – Common American Journal



3. Robert McChesney, former editor of Monthly Review, a leading Marxist publication, has dangerously close ties to the Obama administration, … McChesney created the “media reform” organization Free Press, and served on the board of Norman Solomon‘s Institute for Public Accuracy. He remains on the board of Monthly Review, which has a half-century history of supporting Communist movements and regimes. Echoing President Obama’s media diversity czar Mark Lloyd, McChesney supports Venezuela’s Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez and that country’s crackdown on the media. He even argued that owners of an opposition TV station that had been critical of Chavez should be arrested for treason.


4. "I’ve spent a lot of time here deconstructing and criticizing the proposals set forth by the Free Press, the radical media “reformista” group founded by the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert McChesney. I have been trying to shine more light on their proposals and activities because I believe they are antithetical to freedom of speech and a free society. That’s because, as media scholar Ben Compaine has noted, “What the hard core reformistas really want, it seems, is not diversity or an open debate but a media that promotes their own vision of society and the world.” That’s exactly right and, more specifically, as I argued in my 2005 Media Myths book, the media reformistas want to impose this control by taking the fantasy that “the public owns the [broadcast] airwaves” and extending it to ALL media platforms and outlets. In other words, McChesney and the Free Press want an UnFree Press. To cast things in neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production. And it begins, McChesney argues, by all of us having to give up this “sort of religious attachment to the idea of a ‘free-press’” from which we all suffer."
Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media


Marxist,Left-wing, Progressive, Democrat.....all the same.

 

[MisterBeale]

You know, I read this article you posted, it read like an early Halloween creep story. I can't believe any Republican or Democrat would agree with the conflating of mistakes of the past to weakening of constitutional protections of today; using past episodes in America's history as illustrative examples as to why we should bend to global opinion and weaken our cultural and national legal foundations for the good of the globalists new world order goals.

One need only peruse the comments of this article to see how the majority of Americans find this Globalist's propaganda critically in error and subversive to our culture. But don't look for it to end. They continually will use events such as these, and more to be planned, and taught in our schools to change opinion about the absolute necessity of the sovereign individual to be able to say what one thinks in one's heart to be silenced. If we can agree that this is wrong, then let us also agree that political correctness has gone to far as well. But we can all imagine Mr. Obama joking around with his wife or even Colin Powell, using the word ******, and no one really giving a shit. But what if Romney bandied up with the same term with Obama behind the scenes at the debates? Well then, I think there would be a national up roar, wouldn't there? Linguistic hypocrisy and the end to sovereign freedom. Back in high school we learned about a thing called thought crime. Call a spade a spade. Never thought I would see the day where one would be guilty of such a thing.

That's b/c the whole issue is politicized. Political Correctness is Newspeak.

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by the state. Orwell explained the basic principles of the language in an essay included as an appendix to the novel.[1] Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak – by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the diminishing scope of the new language: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. The Party intends to replace Oldspeak completely with Newspeak before 2050 (except among the Proles, who are not trained in Newspeak and whom the Party regards as barely human).

Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[2][why?]In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he claimed to encourage unclear thought and reasoning. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states:
“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.

Principles of Newspeak

 

[daveman]

Obama's claim of being a Constitutional scholar strains credibility.

Maybe someday he'll read the document he swore to protect and defend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one cares where the words come from.

They are stupid. America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.

Let the wacky far right in charge again, however, and the country will crumble.

Do you really think Romney will put up with your libertarian bullshit any more than Obama?

You guys are not going to ever a chance of governing again.

Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.

Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.

You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey. This is not about the election.... ...this is about the end of America. Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution. ...or did you miss that as well? "Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant." Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.

 

[daveman]

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.

I'll say this while I still can:

Eat shit, Slate. The rest of the world doesn't get a say in our internal affairs. Moron.

 

[del]

^

gaggle of morons

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop it, morons. The first amendment is in no danger from us, the rest of the world, or the wacky right. Who cares what the UN says?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one cares where the words come from.

They are stupid. America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.

Let the wacky far right in charge again, however, and the country will crumble.

Do you really think Romney will put up with your libertarian bullshit any more than Obama?

You guys are not going to ever a chance of governing again.

Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.

Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.

You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey. This is not about the election.... ...this is about the end of America. Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution. ...or did you miss that as well? "Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant." Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.

Step off, jerk.

 

[del]

No one cares where the words come from.

They are stupid. America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.

Let the wacky far right in charge again, however, and the country will crumble.

Do you really think Romney will put up with your libertarian bullshit any more than Obama?

You guys are not going to ever a chance of governing again.

You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey. This is not about the election.... ...this is about the end of America. Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution. ...or did you miss that as well? "Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant." Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.

Step off, jerk.

eat shit and bark at the moon, fuckwit

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, we are not stepping off. We stepped on the faces of the far right and the libertarian wings and ground them into the ground. The mainstream GOP and the rest of sane America will never take its foot off your collective neck.

Your time passed and will never return.

No one cares where the words come from.

They are stupid. America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.

Let the wacky far right in charge again, however, and the country will crumble.

Do you really think Romney will put up with your libertarian bullshit any more than Obama?

You guys are not going to ever a chance of governing again.

You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey. This is not about the election.... ...this is about the end of America. Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution. ...or did you miss that as well? "Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant." Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.

Step off, jerk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, I read this article you posted, it read like an early Halloween creep story. I can't believe any Republican or Democrat would agree with the conflating of mistakes of the past to weakening of constitutional protections of today; using past episodes in America's history as illustrative examples as to why we should bend to global opinion and weaken our cultural and national legal foundations for the good of the globalists new world order goals.

One need only peruse the comments of this article to see how the majority of Americans find this Globalist's propaganda critically in error and subversive to our culture. But don't look for it to end. They continually will use events such as these, and more to be planned, and taught in our schools to change opinion about the absolute necessity of the sovereign individual to be able to say what one thinks in one's heart to be silenced. If we can agree that this is wrong, then let us also agree that political correctness has gone to far as well. But we can all imagine Mr. Obama joking around with his wife or even Colin Powell, using the word ******, and no one really giving a shit. But what if Romney bandied up with the same term with Obama behind the scenes at the debates? Well then, I think there would be a national up roar, wouldn't there? Linguistic hypocrisy and the end to sovereign freedom. Back in high school we learned about a thing called thought crime. Call a spade a spade. Never thought I would see the day where one would be guilty of such a thing.

That's b/c the whole issue is politicized. Political Correctness is Newspeak.

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by the state. Orwell explained the basic principles of the language in an essay included as an appendix to the novel.[1] Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak – by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the diminishing scope of the new language: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. The Party intends to replace Oldspeak completely with Newspeak before 2050 (except among the Proles, who are not trained in Newspeak and whom the Party regards as barely human).

Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[2][why?]In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he claimed to encourage unclear thought and reasoning. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states:
“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.

Principles of Newspeak

If I neglected to do so, let me welcome you to the board.


Now...as far as "weakening of constitutional protections "....we have none. The Constitution was obviated by his Eminence, FDR the 1st.


Theodore Lowi wrote about it in "The End of Liberalism," wherein he posited that we no longer live in a nation ruled by the Constitution, and, instead have an unwritten one....

He sketched it as follows:

PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.

Article I. It is the primary purpose of this national government to provide domestic tranquility by reducing risk. This risk may be physical or it may be fiscal. In order to fulfill this sacred obligation, the national government shall be deemed to have sufficient power to eliminate threats from the environment through regulation, and to eliminate threats from economic uncertainty through insurance.

Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.

Article III. Congress exists, but only as a consensual body. Congress possesses all legislative authority but should limit itself to the delegation of broad grants of unstructured authority to the president. Congress must take care never to draft a careful and precise statute because this would interfere with the judgment of the president and his professional and full time administrators.

Article IV. There exists a separate administrative branch composed of persons whose right to govern is based on two principles: (1), the delegations of power flowing from Congress; and (2), the authority inherent in professional training and promotion through an administrative hierarchy. Congress and the courts may provide for administrative procedures and have the power to review agencies for their observance of these procedures; but in no instance should Congress or the courts attempt to displace the judgment of the administrators with their own.

Article V. The Judicial branch is responsible for two functions: (1), to preserve the procedural rights of citizens before all federal courts, state and local courts, and administrative agencies; and (2), to apply the Fourteenth Amendment of the 1787 Constitution as a natural-law defense of all substantive and procedural rights. The appellate courts shall exercise vigorous judicial review of all state and local government and court decisions, but in no instance shall the courts review the constitutionality of Congress’s grants of authority to the president or to the federal administrative agencies.

Article VI. The public interest shall be defined by the satisfaction of the voters in their constituencies. The test of public interest is reelection.

Article VII. The public interest to the contrary notwithstanding, actual policy making will not come from voter preferences or congressional enactments but form a process of tripartite bargaining between specialized administrators, relevant members of Congress, and the representatives of self-selected organized interests. Principalities And Powers: Goodbye Liberalism: Hello Socialism



"the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate;"

...this would include the power to make it illegal to 'defame' any religion....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

Did you bother to read – and comprehend – the actual article before butchering it like the partisan hack you are?

The author in no way advocates ‘ending the First Amendment,’ and neither do ‘liberals.’

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.

She is a political ethug who wishes to end free speech on the Board through misrepresentation and intimidation.

She forgot that we just laugh at her when she starts this nonsense.

 

[daveman]

Stop it, morons. The first amendment is in no danger from us, the rest of the world, or the wacky right. Who cares what the UN says?

Your little tin god Obama.

 

[daveman]

Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.

She is a political ethug who wishes to end free speech on the Board through misrepresentation and intimidation.

She forgot that we just laugh at her when she starts this nonsense.

"We" being, of course, Fakey and his fellow leftists.