The New 1st Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment I.

That is, you have the freedom to say whatever you want, only if your self annointed "betters" agree with it.

The Constitution forbids the Government from shutting you up, and practicing your own beliefs, but what about private organizations and businesses? Groups and corporations have the same right under the Constitution to speak, but at what cost to others' rights?

One has only to look at the increased political activism of private corporations, and the willing to just do whatever political action groups demand without so much as a complaint.

The canary in the coal mine was in South Carolina, where the multitude of corporations in the state, as well as the NCAA, took part in removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol It was placed there by none other than Governor...later Senator... Fritz Hollings (D), on the centenial of the War Between the States. As time went by, the detractors of all things Southern decided that it was placed there out of institutionalized racism, and that it must come down. Never mind that this is a state issue that passed a referrendum, but private out-of-state corpporations made it clear that they will do anything possible to "punish" the state if the people continued to exercise voter validated state soveriegnty.

The more accurate ANV infantry battle flag was then moved to the Confederate War Memorial on the grounds of the Capitol, as every other war memorial is placed. Still, this was not good enough for the usual gang of supects, and the NCAA "penalized" South Carolina, making any NCAA teams inelligible to host a bowl game, or to participate in one

.

Fast forward to today, where now any team with an indian name is now held to the same level of insensitivity.

All I can say to those who laughed at S.C.: "I told you so!"

This level of private organization sensitivity and censorship has reached absurd levels during this current world war. One cannot racially profile radical Islamic men between the ages of 18-35, as that would be most intolerable. Instead, we shake down 80-year old grandmothers in the name of "winning the war on terror."

Now, this only seems to be getting worse, as "We, the People," have allowed it to become so.

Radio talk show host Michael Graham, previously written about by myself on this blog, was finally terminated for "insensitivity" for his four part series on Islam. Evidently, the corporate suits at ABC-Disney felt that perceptions were more important than reality, and that anything that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations, known supporters of Hamas and Islamic jihad worldwide) had to say was important, as they represent the "downtrodden." I won't spend a lot of time on CAIR, other than that it has been posted on this board before with more footnotes and sources than you can shake a bomb vest at, and that it is essentially the "front men" for Islamofascisim. They essentially seek to change this into an Islamic nation with Shiria law through our own media and political system. They pretty much come running to the defense of any and all Islamic terrorist suspect s in this country, even when they have been proven guilty.

For those who say that there is nothing to CAIR than that they are just another "advocacy group" speaking their mind, just remember....the Koran allows those to lie to non-Muslims. So, they are self-righteously full of crap.

Graham's problem was that he dared to give a four part series on Islam, and how the current culture of violence does not fit in with the mindset of millions of Muslims worldwide. He continued to point out that Islam's problem is that they do not point out and condemn the violent in their midst, and that they only condemn violence as a last resort. Oddly, this is allowed by the Koran when faced with defeat. In short, by their inaction, Islamic peoples approve the actions taken by radicals who seek to spread the "love" of Islam by blood.

In true Islamofascist fashion, when presented with the truth, this person is rapidly attacked by the defenders of Hamas and ordred to shut up. Showing remarkable adaptability to assimilate into American free society for their owm purposes, they readily call Graham's series "hate-speech." Oddly enough, this group also closely cooperates with the ACLU. If this had been an Islamic country, Graham would not only be sans his job, but his head.

One could be understanding if this template of "tolerance" was applied universally to any religious body in our nation today. Unfortunately, it isn't. What would it take to get fired if anyone would say "hateful " things about anyone, according to Graham:

For example, to lose your radio gig for offending Catholics, you have to go so far as to having a couple engaged in on-air, non-immaculate conception in the back of a cathedral (Opie and Anthony). To get chased off the radio waves for offending families with kids riding in the car, you have to have explicit, "how-to" conversations involving lesbians, vegetables and petroleum by-products (Howard Stern). To get fired for offending Christian evangelicals, you have to...

Actually, that's not possible. You can publicly dismiss all evangelicals as people of limited intellect who are easily led, and you'll be defended on the New York Times editorial page.

Sad, but true. Regarding the same template of tolerance towards Christians...you know, those people who put Bush in the White House against the protests of their betters...simply doesn't get applied to that faith. Never mind it makes up the vast majority of the nation.

Hugh Downs of ABC's 20/20 in November of 1992 connected Christians to Nazis:

"In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan urged the nation to adopt family values and to return to old-time religion. Similarly, Adolf Hitler launched a family-values regimen. Hitler's centered on his ideas of motherhood. Fanatics in the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, the Hezbollah, or any other intolerant organization, refer to themselves as religious warriors. As warriors, fanatics censor the thoughts of others and love to burn books."

What happened to him? Nothing.

Not only do they condemn Chrsitians, they bend over backwards through mental gymnastics of the worst order to avoid calling "terrorists" terrorists!

ABC once again on World News Tonight, August 2003:

"Abu Shanab was a senior member of Hamas, a political and social welfare organization with a military wing that has launched terror attacks against Israel. Shanab was not a declared military operative and had a reputation as a political moderate, but Israel said today that all Hamas leaders are responsible for terrorism."(Reporter Mike Lee).

Hamas makes for a pretty odd welfare organization. Mercy killings, maybe?

Then again, these same people are more at ease calling Jessie Helms a terrorist (George Stephanopoulis, ABC's "This Week" 14 Sep 97) than the ones actively attempting to destroy this country.

Whether we like it or not, we are fighting an enemy that has declared war upon our very existence, and aided by those with a misguided sense of noblesse-oblige and using the very safeguards of our own liberty to be used as a weapon against us.

That is, if we let them.

Get involved. Get active. Get educated. Take charge of your own country, before you lose it.

Rhino 21, out.

"THE GREAT REPERATIONS RIP-OFF"

We're comin' afta' you...votes cost money!

Although slavery has been abolished since after the War Between the States in 1865, and there exists a level of freedom today that has been unmatched by any other time and place on the planet, there is a disturbingly shrill voice demanding "reperations" to the descendants of slaves.

Never mind that several generations have come and gone since 1865, and that not even the child of a former slave lives today, a demand for one of the greatest hustles in our history is well underway to becoming a reality.

Although slavery is not acceptable when referring to Biblical authority, it has existed upon the face of the globe since one man learned that he could keep another captive. The problem with the reperations movement is, is that it goes against the Consititution and common sense.

In the 14th Amendment, Section 4, it plainly states that "But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States , OR ANY CLAIM FOR THE LOSS OR EMANCIPATION OF ANY SLAVE; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void" (Caps added ).

Not only is this unconstitutional, how does one "qualify" for this great vote-buying scheme, especially in a nation where blood is mixed? What will qualify as documentary proof? My own grandfather ( a still-living person) was listed as "Mulatto" on the 1920 Census. Do I qualify, and if so, in whole or in part?

What if the claimant in question was the descendant of Black slaveowners? Does this forfeit his elegibility for some sort of payment?

How about the descendants of white slaveowners who FREED their slaves? Will they be exempt from the tax or levy to pay for all of this, or will they be entitled to some measure of the reward? That brings us to the next question...who pays for it?

Of course, the racket from the same corners is that "all White people" are responsible, therefore should pay through taxation of some sort. Again, using the same racial demographics of mixed blood, arrival in the U.S. prior to or after Emancipation, the ancestor's part in the freeing of slaves and such, how would one figure a formula for "monies owed," and in what quantity? Do Americans who happen to be of "mostly" black ancestry have to pay for the crime of having mixed blood?

Again, the U.S. Constitution forbids such payments. The U.S. government, although admittedly eager to "punish" the South after Lincoln's death, did have the good sense to realize that reparing the "financial" loss of a human being would only add to the debt of the war, as well as serve to drive a wedge deeper between the sections of the country to be united. Never mind that this would also lend legitimacy to the practice and idea of slavery as an institution, by the act of reimbursement for loss of property value.

Then again, the whole "Reperations Movement," like so many other movements from the "Hate America Left," has the same disdain for the Constitution, and would sooner repeal all safeguards of our liberties for the sake of their own personal gain. The Constitution, according to former President Clinton himself, is "A hinderance to good government."

I guess it is, when your definition of "good government" means that all people are subject to the will of one man or party, and that God-granted liberties are an archaic, simplistic fantasy.

Before those with an "R" by their names chuckle too loudly, your actions versus your words on "limited government" are telling. There are those who are willing to jump on this bandwagon to garner votes, implying that only those in the southern states will be effected.

If there is some altruistic desire to lash out in abolitionistic fervor, there is plenty of slavery still in the world today to stop. North African and Arabic countries still practice the slave trade, and it is considered "protected" by Islam. Asian countries today freely engage in the trafficing of human beings (mostly women and children) for the sex trade. Children in this very country are kidnapped and smuggled out of the country via Mexico for the same purpose, mostly to wealthy Arabs. Then again, battling this kind of REAL slavery demands a bit of effort, commitment, and intelligence. It also requires being selfless as opposed to selfish. That, I am afraid, would defeat the whole momentum of the reperations movement.

I think I have your attention, now. Rhino 21, out.