Evidently Hillary is going to try to run again.

 Otherwise my post from 2016 wouldn't be receiving the scrutiny it has gotten.

http://txfellowship.blogspot.com/2016/10/from-inbox-facts-just-facts-maam.html

After requesting a review, they took down the notice. But WHY are they targeting ANYTHING about that person from 2016?

There is NO reason to be trying to clean up anything about Hillary UNLESS she is planning on try to run again.

So make your own determination.

On Free Speech

"Trope Six: "This isn't free speech, it's [category]"

Example: "It’s not free speech. It’s bullying and intimidation. It’s a horror show." Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, February 17, 2015.

The First Amendment is, in a way, categorical: there are well-defined categories of speech that are not protected, as I discussed above. But media commentators often abuse categorical thinking by inventing new categories of speech outside the First Amendment. "This isn't free speech, it's hate speech." "This isn't free speech, it's discrimination."

And much much more.

Click on the above link to read the whole thing

An Interesting Treatise on the First Amendment

An Explanation of Free Speech For Morons and Arthur Chu

Some of the "Money Quotes"

"you only have two responsibilities towards free speech: use it and defend it"

 But don’t you have a responsibility to be mature, or to avoid giving offense, or to be constructive? No, you don’t"

"The argument here is, basically, “Charlie Hebdo is racist, if you don’t agree, go read this book on racism and then come back to me.”"

"If we followed this law, you’d never be able to say a bad word about any ideology. How many poor Christians inhabit the southern United States? And how does the existence of these poor Christians inhibit the criticism that Christianity receives on a daily basis? It isn’t a trick question"

You really should click over and read the whole thing

FCC Approves new Regulations

"The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday adopted sweeping new regulations sought by President Obama for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, in a party-line vote that is sure to be challenged by the broadband industry.

The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."

But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone." 

Be prepared for the FEC and the SEC and all the other ..C agencies and branches of the government taking a closer interest in any on-line content.  In the phrasing, above you see the two words in quotes "Public Interest" which means that they can regulate content that they deem to be detrimental to the "Public Interest".  It also opens up the door for the government to develop new "Income Streams" through new taxes, and possibly requiring permits or licenses to do things like my little blog here.  Or my Blog Talk Radio Show which I need to reboot.

Keep your eyes open, this is JUST the beginning.

Violating the First Amendment under the Color of the Law

"Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to $1,000 in daily fines, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court."

And how is this NOT Religious Persecution? And how is this NOT a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the Ministers who refuse?

You cannot use your Rights to Compel me against My Rights.

That rights there is the problem. Compulsion under the color of law. It is a violation of their First Amendment Rights.

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, "impeding the free exercise of religion", abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances

Did you get that? "Impeding the Free Exercise of Religion"

If a Minister, Priest, Preacher, Chaplain, Parson or ANY other religious official says that to do so is AGAINST their Religious Principals, you CANNOT Coerce or Compel them to do so.

Don't you IDIOTS GET THAT!?

Your "Rights" do NOT Supersede or Usurp theirs.

And just because the Chapel is run as a "Business" doesn't mean you can run roughshod over the beliefs of the OWNERS of the business.

Eugene Volokh has more on this.

"I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice."

Atheism has become a Religion for some

"‘Many Atheists Seem to Have a Rather Thin Skin’: Blaze Readers React to Hollywood Actor Revealing What He Thinks Is ‘Weird’ About Atheists"

I have posted on this a few times before.  Many atheists have made their "Non-Belief" a Religion in and of itself.

Demanding that any display of any diety be removed as it is "offensive" to them.  However many of the comments on the article by people who declare themselves "Atheists" hearten me.


"Daithi

There are some militant atheists, just like there are some religious militants. I’m an atheist, and I don’t care what you believe in. I’m guessing the majority of atheists are like me and have no desire to “convert” you or get into a religious discussion with you. I happen to love Christmas and all the trappings (particularly time spent with family). I could not care less if the town I live in had a nativity scene on display, and I would be very disappointed if there weren’t lots of lights, Christmas trees, and Santa Claus. I happen to like Easter, too. I don’t care to have someone try to convert me to his or her religion or tell me my beliefs are wrong, which is why I normally keep them to myself. I’m also a libertarian, so I believe in liberty. Many laws are based on a religious morality that goes beyond the golden rule. I’m not your brother, and you’re not my keeper. If I want to drink, gamble, or have sexual relations out of wedlock, it is not your business. I don’t think gays deserve to be condemned because of your religious beliefs either. However, I do think you have the right to your beliefs, even the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think you should have to make them a cake for their weddings, either. Both sides should just follow the golden rule, or try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

Well, that’s my atheist take on things anyway."

Dathi, if you read this, I would LOVE to interview you sometime.

You espouse many of my own personal beliefs with the exception that I am a Deist/Theist and believe in our Creator.  However I still feel more kinship towards you than I do rabid Atheists who attempt to force a compliance to their beliefs at the expense of all others.

Hate crime bill to police speech

Ben says exactly what the problem is.  "WHO" defines what is hate speech?  Who gets to determine that which may be hateful, restricted speech?

I'm sorry Senator Markey, the very fact that you want to restrict speech tells me that you are the one person who cannot be trusted to determine what is hate speech.

Bloggers' beware

You Could Be Next

I'm sorry I will not sign anything without my attorney checking it out first.  

Obama Administration Censorship

One of Bob Owens readers sent him that screenshot.  Evidently certain .GOV networks are blocking access to his blog for their users.

To read the rest click below.


No longer government approved

Colorado went after the Second Amendment - Now after the First

Colorado Bill Would Restrict Distribution of “Magazines Whose Primary Focus is Marijuana or Marijuana Businesses”

Going after printed magazines, of the paper kind not the kind used for firearms.

With all the of Kalifornians who have moved to Kolorado, you would think this type of over reach would never come about. But Oh well....

Pledge the Mexican Flag and sing the Mexican National Anthem

or fail your class.

Over at This Ain't Hell

And this happened here in TEXAS!!

Not just the Second Amendment, Now the First

"A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.

The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

Notice where it is?  How long until the politicians require you to have a license to speak your mind?

KTD Project

I asked Chris Muir of the Day By Day Web Comic which is there at the top of the blog, if he could post a link to the KTD Project.  Well it is now live over there at DayByDay.Com Scroll down until you see the Red And Black thumbdrive with the words "Get Ready".  That is the link back to the KTD Project page.

Thank you Chris for the link.  I hope this will help more people get some information which can help them in case of emergency.

I am also still working on the UTD 1A Project, and I hope to have a preliminary release by this weekend.

Free Speech for them, but not for us

Figures. 7th Year Human Rights Major and Gay Activist Rips Down Campus Free Speech Wall …It Was Offensive

Why is it, that the First Amendment which specifically PROTECTS speech that may be offensive, causes someone who is SUPPOSEDLY learned in the RIGHTS of EVERY HUMAN, tries to impose their own belief on others. That is the problem with Institutions of HIGHER Learning, they IMPOSE a WARPED Belief Structure on students, who then forever after have to function in the REAL world.  and as the above mentioned "Human Rights Major" has shown, THEY CAN'T.

They Cannot operate in the real world, so they try to impose their beliefs through tearing down "Free Speech" walls, showing disdain, and contempt for those so "uncouth" and "unenlightened" as they are.

Brainwashed Flavor-Aid drinkers of the worst kind.  Jim Jones would have loved them.

Obama tries to bypass Congress again

"The Obama administration is attempting to bypass Congress and force publicly-traded companies to reveal their political donations through regulation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporate Finance has begun the steps necessary to create a regulation that would in many ways mirror the DISCLOSE Act — a bill Senate Democrats have failed to pass through Congress."

This looks to me like a violation of the companies in question, First Amendment rights.  If they are forced to disclose this information, they can be also targeted through extra-legal means of the left.  Such as what happened to Rush Limbaugh after the Sandra Fluke debacle.

Bastions of Higher Education have a problem with the First Amendment

Is this what is going to happen to our First Amendment?

Europe's Medieval Libel Laws: Thwarting Free Speech

If Obama and his minions wins a second term possibly.

Journalistic "Only Ones"

"In a comment, responding to Robb Allen's post on "offensive speech" and how "American Journalists whose entire lives revolve around being able to say what they want, when they want" are moaning and whining about how free speech must be curtailed Bleddyn says: 

This is the journalist version of the "only ones" mindset. When they espouse restricting speech they don't mean THEIR speech. They are smart and trained to speak only correct ideas. If you take offense, it's because you are wrong. But who knows what filthy, terrible ideas you might express if given the freedom to?"

Click the above. I don't think this is that far away from coming into being.

Over Reaction once the cat is out of the bag

With the advent of new printing technologies, the government and several of it's agencies are struggling to play catch up.


"Report: 3D-printed handgun project faces setback with revoked printer lease

Wired reports 3D printer manufacturer Stratasys has nullified a lease agreement with Defense Distributed.

When I last spoke with Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed had just met its $20,000 funding goal, and he had taken delivery of his Stratasys uPrint SE 3D printer. Fast forward nine days and the outlook for his 3D printed firearm project looks less positive."

Once again the government in this case the BATFEIEIO is trying to change the rules in mid game.  Making something LEGAL, ILLEGAL.  In order to prohibit a legal exercise of our rights and freedoms.  How many more times are we going to put up with the ham handed, questionable  actions of the an out of control federal agency, whose utility and need is under question itself?

H/t Divemedic

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand

"Anthea Butler is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and she made quite an impression yesterday when she argued that the maker of a film should go to prison for making a crappy movie."

So the First Amendment applies to you and your friends, but not to people who you do not agree with?  Typical Leftist Academian