The First Amendment

First Amendment:

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.

1. When the first amendment was written. It stated that Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This statement has, in my opinion, been abused in order to extend the first amendment on this issue, beyond that which the authors had intended. It was meant to avoid having a government that endorsed certain specific religions over others. However, some people have used this one statement as a means to violate the other part of the amendment that clearly states that the government shall not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why should congress be given the authority to recognize only certain parts of our rights and ignore others?
2. In most instances where people's rights, to "freely exercise their rights to practice their religion" have been infringed upon, the most common reason given has been because it offends someone else who does not share their religious beliefs. However, the fact that someone may be offended by witnessing someone peacefully, and privately practicing their religion amongst themselves, does not diminish or remove that fact that that person is exercising a clearly described right. The simple fact that someone is offended by it does not remove that right. Secondly, there is no amendment anywhere within the constitution that states that anyone has the right to NOT be offended. By the very nature of the first amendment, we are guaranteed that everyone and anyone will at some point be offended by something.
3. For some reason religion, and the right to practice ones religion freely, has repeatedly been made an exception when it comes to protecting the rights that apply to them. Congress and the judicial system choose to selectively uphold certain amendments and parts thereof, and not others. Likewise, They seem to selectively choose individuals and organizations, such as religion, for which they feel, should or should not be protected by the constitution. This very practice of selectively recognizing peoples rights is, in my view, discrimination and in itself "unconstitutional".
4. I do not believe that when the authors of our constitution elaborated the rights of the people with the amendments, that they ever intended for the first amendment to be abused to the extent, which it has. I am confident that first and foremost their primary concerns were to protect the individuals right to practice their religion, and not to foster such hostile attitudes towards those who practice their religion. I'm sure if the original authors were to witness the way the first amendment has been perverted and used in the way that it has in order to strip people of some of their fundamental rights, they would be appalled.

The Americans

"LET'S BE PERSONAL"    Broadcast June 5, 1973     CFRB, Toronto, Ontario

Click Here for the Original Broadcast

Topic: "The Americans"
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the world.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Well, Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there. I saw that.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan... the Truman Policy... all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or a woman on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are right here on our streets in Toronto, most of them... unless they are breaking Canadian laws... are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the bonds, let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of them are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters... with the year less than half-over... has taken it all and nobody... but nobody... has helped.

ORIGINAL SCRIPT AND AUDIO
COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD.
(c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR

PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN)

A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC.

578 HYMUS BOULEVARD

POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC,

CANADA, H9R 4T2

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT

Sep 24, '06 6:13 PM
for everyone

Will we still be the country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????

Think about it.
All I have to say is when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. It's not Christmas vacation, it's Winter Break. Isn't it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday? We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that.
This says it all!
This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there
are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.
Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you
should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE. 

Dennis Miller on Illegal Immigration

Funnyman Dennis Miller Returns to FNC!

Friday, September 22, 2006

 

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," September 21, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Finally tonight, here's our old friend, Dennis Miller, with some real free speech.

DENNIS MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, folks. Nice to be back.

Tonight I want to talk to you about the elephant-sized piñata in the room, illegal immigration. Now I don't have anything against Mexican people, but for God's sakes, sign the guest book on the way in.

Come on. If you're going to knock off a nooner with a co-worker at a bad motel you have to scrawl your worn Hancock on the desk blotter. Of course, you should sign in at the border.

Protecting our borders is not a racist act, and anybody who tells you that it is, be they Mexico-American, American-Mexican, American-American or Mexican-Mexican, is quite simply full of it, full of it. Sit down, Alan.

We have to confront this problem right now, because the Rubicon Grande has obviously been crossed. I realized that when I heard there's now a copy of the national anthem sung completely in Spanish. Although, truth be told, I've kind of been doing it a little bit myself over the years. Because I don't know about you, but I always start the song off "Jose can you see?"

Now I place a lot of the blame on our two presidents. I don't like Fox. The president, not the network. Love the network. I love Roger Ailes. Love, love, love, love, love, love, but Vicente Fox always reminds me of Nile Wagner in his Zorro sketch.

And you know something? If he's proud of his country as he says he is, maybe he should try to honcho his economy out of the permanent state of siesta it's in so its people can stay home and make a buck or 60 trillion pesos, whatever today's conversion rate may be.

And while I truly admire President Bush, I just don't get him at all on illegal immigration. I sometimes think that his soft approach to this problem might possibly have something to do with the reflexive guilt he might feel about his patrician upbringing.

I believe as he made the long mosey from Yale to y'all, he found himself touched by people who don't take the gift of America for granted. Well, that's fine, sir. But you have to realize that right about now 80 percent of this country has reached the same point with illegal immigration that you did after Saddam Hussein lined his bird cage with that 17th U.N. resolution on Iraq. Enough is enough.

And so I present my Mexican/American lifeboat theory. It's quite simple. If you really want everybody coming here unchecked, just give up your seat in the boat. One illegal immigrant in, one proponent of illegal immigration out.

Hey, if you're going to talk the "come on up" talk, you've got to walk the "head down south" walk.

Back to you, Holmes and Watson.

COLMES: Has me defending Bush.

HANNITY: OK, Inspector Clouseau. I'll tell you, Inspector Clouseau- Miller.

Let's Say I Break Into Your House

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.
     Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

     Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
     According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.
     It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know.
     And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me
     Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it as a good simile. If not blow it off along with your future Social Security funds.