Category Archives: The First Amendment

How much news has the Obama administration successfully suppressed? |

As I said. The Obama administration is riminal.

“Rosen was not charged with any crime, but it is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting the routine business of reporting on government secrets.”

via How much news has the Obama administration successfully suppressed? |

Blog: America’s New First Amendment

My latest article (blog entry) appears today at American Thinker. Here is a snippet:

With Obama genuflecting to Muslim leaders around the world, with him supporting the creation of radical Muslim regimes, and with his administration supporting and spewing all manner of leftist drivel (see Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13) aimed at shutting down conservative voices, we might as well accept that our First Amendment has already been revised. Published first here, the new First Amendment now reads:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.

via Blog: America’s New First Amendment.

A couple really flattering comments on yesterday’s article at American Thinker

It’s so nice to write an article conservatives like. My last two were not well-received, inasmuch as I provided a principled defense to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius. One article even ended up on a site exposing “Liberal Whoppers.”

Yesterday’s article, in contrast, garnered nary a complaint. Indeed, two comments were very encouraging.

Stellar course in Common Sense 101. The reason for much of the breakdown in the social fabric is the failure to adhere to rules of civility,sacrificing these time-honored traditions upon the altar of political expediency.

For instance, where you rightly deride the ignorant assumptions of your presumably liberal friend: “So, obviously, my friend is saying, between my hypothesis that Americans object to Obama because he is a Marxist and his, that Americans object to Obama because he is African-American, the latter involves fewer assumptions (in his mind) and therefore is right.”, you illustrate the erroneous reasoning that has been creeping into the common zeitgeist and compounding over the years,unchecked by principled opposition.

Only in the liberal mind would ignoring the stated motivations of your opponent(s) in order to attribute to them racial motivations for which no proof exists constitute fewer assumptions. In the “bad old days” which liberals insist are a step backward for the country, it was considered improper and acting in bad faith to attribute to others attitudes or beliefs they did not claim to hold. In order to do that, one must have at least circumstantial evidence that the opponent actually believes the opposite of what he claims to believe.

‘The tea party did not exist before Obama was president” is an invalid claim in that (a) The same people still existed and fought for most of the same goals (limited government, free speech, gun rights etc.), though not united under one banner (except, of course, the well known banner of conservatism), and (b) as you pointed out, it is a logical fallacy which assumes that correlation is equal to causation.

Thank you for this sorely-needed course in clear thinking. It is not only one of the better articles on the subject I have read, it is also quite timely. Keep up the good work.

And another:

Wow, a brilliant read. Lots of corollaries here. And you set my mind to other thoughts of added rules. Keep the logic pouring out. God, grace, and truth at work through you, sir.

Read more:

This is humbling, and I thank God for opening this avenue of advancing conservative thought.

Today, Thayrone X, on WAAM 1600, will discuss my article. I may call in if it seems appropriate. I’ve asked friends and loved ones to pray, should I have the opportunity to speak on air, that I say things that will benefit our great republic.


My latest article appearing at American Thinker

Update to the Update. I have no idea why my article disappeared from about 10:30am to 3:00pm. But, it went back on line and all was (is) well. I never got an answer as to why Harry Reid’s name appears in the title…

American Thinker article.

Update: Apparently I jumped the gun on this. My article did appear on their site, as I took a screen shot of it and even read it on their pages. However, it appears that Google had dug it from the AT servers and it wasn’t yet being “published” for public consumption.

So, I have to wait. And in the mean time, I”ll hopefully figure out why the title to the article had Harry Reid’s name in it.