BLAST FROM THE PAST: Friday, January 21, 2022 THREE NEWS ITEMS: LIES, REWRITING HISTORY, AND TREASON.

 

 Here are 3 short news items that will show all of humanity: THE TRUE NATURE OF DONALD TRUMPS SUPPORT BASE, THE GOPS DESIRE TO TURN THE U.S. INTO A FASCIST NATION, AND AN ACT OF TREASON AT DONALD TRUMPS DIRECTION. (IN WRITING)

1)

There is no evidence that Trump requested troops tosecure the Capitol or consulted Pelosi ahead of January 6 insurrection, fact-checkers say:

Former president Donald Trump did not formally request 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the Capitol in the days leading up to the insurrection on January 6, 2021, fact-checkers from PolitiFact and The Washington Post say. A spokesperson for the Defense Department said there is “no record of such an order being given” and a spokesperson for House Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was never consulted about National Guard ahead of the events, according to PolitiFact and Washington Post.

Well a lack of evidence never stopped TRUMPIANS from running off at the mouth.

FACT CHECKERS REVEAL THAT Rep. Jim Jordan’s claim that Pelosi denied a request for National Guard troops is completely false.

Sorry Jim, crawl back under your rock and try again.

2)

Normally, I would not give a passing glance to a FAR-RIGHT FLUNKY like

JON VOIGHT, but this was too good to be true.

HE RELEASED A SHORT VIDEO, THAT INCLUDED THIS LINE:

"DONALD J TRUMP...we know that the spirit of ABRAHAM LINCOLN is with him."

Really? Let us remember a few images of TRUMPS SUPPORTERS during the attempted coup on 1/62021.

YOU DO KNOW LINCOLN SAVED THE UNION FROM THOSE LOOKING TO TOPPLE IT, AND WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE "EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION."

Have you ever picked up a history book? Oh, that's right, under TRUMP AND THE GOP, HISTORY IS WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO BE. FACTS BE DAMNED.

 3)

Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines

The Jan. 6 select panel has obtained the draft order and a document titled "Remarks on National Healing." Both are reported here in detail for the first time.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/read-the-never-issued-trump-order-that-would-have-seized-voting-machines-527572?

fbclid=IwAR1E_F1D__EdNEA2ZfKr_tD2dWmRDpTCMf0Q8qXgL7o7ly7Wu5SpbwGw-yU

THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT: ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""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."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CAN NOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

FREE SPEECH ACCORDING TO THE FPA IN TEXAS.

 Twitter give and take.

Greg Abbott

@GregAbbott_T

X

Aug 16

Texas will NOT allow the Biden Admin or social media companies to silence conservative speech. I was proud to sign a law in 2021 banning social media censorship in Texas. In Texas, we will always fight to protect Texans’ freedom of speech.

MY RESPONSE: TRANSLATION: We should be able to Lie, Make False Accusations, Publish Bogus Data, and promote Fascist Hate Speech with Impunity. That is how I and my FPA FASCIST/TRUMPIAN Supporters "PROTECT" the Citizens of Texas.

Of course, this does not apply to ENTITIES LIKE FOX, NEWSMAX, EPOCH TIMES.etc. They don't have to allow anything but Far-Right Fascist Rhetoric on their sites. That is Reichfuehrer Abbotts idea of Free Speech.

FREE SPEECH: AN ABUSED AND MISUNDERSTOOD RIGHT. PART 1.

 

Here is a response I gave on Twitter to a previous Tweet on FREE SPEECH:

Why is it that entities like FOX AND NEWSMAX are given a Free Pass from Accusations of Violating Free Speech for allowing no opposition to their Far-Right Rhetoric, yet when Progressives seek to limit Fascist/Trumpian Opinions on their outlets it is suddenly a Moral Outrage?

This points out a fact that seems to escape many Americans, including those in all forms of the MEDIA, that the following portion of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

Only applies to Government or the State Penalizing or Sanctioning the Individual for expressing an Opinion or Idea, and does not apply directly to Speech offered by a Single Person or Private Enterprise being penalized by other sources. ( SCHOOLS, EMPLOYERS, PARENTS, CLIENTELE)

The SCOTUS and CONGRESS, in the past, have sought to create guidelines for FREE SPEECH, just as it has set Rules that apply to other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS. As a simple example, taken from todays Headlines, I offer the following:

YOU MAY EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE LEGALITY OR MORALITY OF A GIVEN ACTION OR EVENT AND ITS RESULT, BUT CAN NOT USE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO COMMIT AND/OR PLAN A CRIMINAL ACT OR ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, SEEKING TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME.

SEE PART 2.

Why is it that entities like FOX AND NEWSMAX are given a Free Pass from Accusations of Violating Free Speech for allowing no opposition to their Far-Right Rhetoric, yet when Progressives seek to limit Fascist/Trumpian Opinions on their outlets it is suddenly a Moral Outrage?