Any excuse

By Nathan Barton

Actually I am sure that some people are surprised. The US Ninth Circuit is known as the most progressive of the Federal Nazgul, and this seems counter to their usual attitude towards cannabis. Of course, given their hatred of specifically-enumerated rights (in the Constitution) while they busily create many other “rights” we should not be surprised. Just angered.

Very angry.

What do these demons in black robes NOT understand? “Shall not infringe” is pretty clear. A lot clearer than deciding that “free speech” includes allowing anyone to walk down the street naked and fornicate in the middle of said street, but that free speech and freedom of assembly does NOT include a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a so-called homosexual “wedding” ceremony.

But the Ninth Nazgul clowns have decided that holding a medical marijuana card strips a person of their G-d-given right to keep and bear arms, as reported by The Hill.

Just as telling a lie (perjury) in court to a judge and jury strips a person of their G-d-given right of free speech. And participating in an unauthorized, illegal protest march which turns into a riot allows a state or a city or even the cop on the beat to strip a person of their right to ever again peaceably assemble or petition for a redress of grievances.

Oh, excuse me, I am mistaken – no court has EVER done either of those two things. Those rights are (after all) protected by the Constitution. Even if the lie sent someone to the electric chair or sent them to prison for the rest of their life, or let millions of dollars be stolen from an innocent person. Even if the riot included the looting of stores and the burning of stores and houses and the beating, maiming, and even killing of people of the wrong color or wrong economic class.

So, Nathan, what don’t you understand about how government is inconsistent? Of course, I do and the real reason for this band of Nazgul to deny basic rights of self-defense to MMJ-users (and of course, usually their families, as well) is to expand the number of supposedly-free Americans who are not armed, not able to effectively defend themselves against the armed thugs these Nazgul send against them to enforce laws which are immoral and unconstitutional, and an insult to any free people.

Funny, isn’t it? The courts have over the years steadily expanded the franchise and currently, there is a push across the Fifty States to give convicted felons the right to vote- apparently even from inside the prison walls. We are told that voting is a constitutional right which cannot be denied under ANY circumstance: even if the person is a wife- or child-beater or rapist or murderer or fraudster or crooked politician or bureaucrat. But when it comes to another basic human right, well, as I say in the headline, “Any Excuse” can (and IS) being used.

Enough is enough.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Any excuse

  1. Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 09/07/16 - Nicaragua: Regime grants asylum to ex-Salvadorian president under corruption probe - Thomas L. Knapp -

  2. Ken Hagler says:

    A lot clearer than deciding that “free speech” includes allowing anyone to walk down the street naked and fornicate in the middle of said street…

    I think that would count more as “peaceably assembling,” while laws against it would violate the separation of church and state. Or at least, it would if any courts should decide they like the Constitution more than they like Shariah laws.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Well, why would the “courts” have any legitimate say in the matter? I suspect that people indulging in naked sex in the middle of the road would risk being run over, but that’s their problem. I don’t have any authority to stop them, even if I find the idea of it disgusting. They might also discover that they were shunned by the neighbors… or not. That would be the neighbor’s problem. And Shariah will only come around if individuals in the community allow it. All this tolerance BS is pointed in the wrong direction. Do I care if my neighbors believe in something I don’t? Not at all… as long as they don’t attempt to impose it on me – or others – by force. Then they would really have a problem.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s