Human rights? Sorry, not here.

By Nathan Barton

The recent discussion of the increasing discrimination of “major” social media companies and major information technology companies, against lovers of freedom deserves more discussion.  We are condemned as being evil monsters, promoting such things as firearms, disobedience to government, resistance to the “wrong kinds of tyranny,” and as being racist, sexist, exclusivist, and even nationalists and fascists, because of the principals we seek to follow and teach.

I pointed out that we are finding ourselves in (or being pushed into) ghettos and modern technological equivalents.  We are finding a need to create enclaves in which we can live and trade. At the same time we are being put into Coventry by the other three corners of the political diamond.  These discussions prompt this thought.

What are “human rights”?

Specifically, is not the buying and selling of goods and services, trade, a human right? Is it not inherent in the very concept of “private property” as we understand it?

Are we not entitled by our humanity to spend our time, use our skills, and take resources available to us to produce material things which are valuable to other people? And trade them for things which we need or find valuable? Or to take something we own (whether purchased by us or given to us) and sell it to someone else?

Yet the FedGov and state and local government have erected this vast edifice of laws which DO prevent us from selling and buying what we will from whom we will – not just “illegal substances” or “illegal devices” or “illicit services.” But virtually everything!

Will we give these rights – these God-given rights – up?  The Nazgul of the FedGov have made it clear that “commercial rights” are NOT (in their eyes) human rights.

We can see it most clearly in “free speech.”

“Commercial speech” was removed from “free speech” decades ago when SCOTUS found that the FedGov (in the form of Congress and the FCC) could outlaw certain kinds of free speech: specifically advertising for tobacco products, liquor and other alcoholic beverages.  And when Congress mandated certain packaging and labels: the infamous warnings on cigarette packs and cartons. They called it “commercial speech,” and even had the gall to call it “commercial free speech,” even though it was anything BUT free.  In any definition of that word.

There is no distinction whatsoever in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution between “private” and “commercial” free speech – or freedoms of any sort.  What about corporations?  The current federal restrictions on commercial free speech purport to apply to sole proprietors, partners, and all kinds of business organizations.  Want to advertise or radio or television for your little cigarette and tobacco selling handcart?  Sorry, that is “against the law.”

Except that any “law” that violates the Constitution is not a law.

Our right of free speech (freedom of expression) must, of necessity, include the right to NOT speak, to NOT write, to NOT publish something which we do not want to speak, write, or publish.  But our governments here in the Fifty States, as they near totalitarian goals, demand that we (and our businesses) say and write certain things. Funny how a school child cannot be made to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but a manufacturer of tobacco products (even a sole proprietor) can be forced to print warning labels condemning their own product. And a clinic established to provide alternatives to abortion can be forced to advertise where abortions are provided.

And we have no recourse to “free trade zones” or “open ports.” Or “free speech zones” for commercial speech – that only applies to petitions and protests and the like.

Of course, there is more to this idea of human rights than just speech and its variations.  Those are topics for future commentaries.

 

Consider this quote:

    • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Funny, but that is found on an official FedGov website.

 

 

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Pledge … for the children?

By Nathan Barton

I recently commented on child abuse here in the Fifty States. Especially as dealing with the so-called public schools.

One area in which there is abuse is in the rituals and customs of schools.

Specifically with the recitation of that venerable tradition, the Pledge of Allegiance.

In this one thing, we see both the way children are abused in the government-run, tax-funded (“public”) schools AND the incredible inconsistency of statists and progressives.  Whether those are national, international, or transnational socialists.

Continue reading

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gun Confiscation Day?

By Nathan Barton

At Quora.com, an interesting and often frustrating site, this recently was posted:

Paul Harding, listing himself as a Deputy Sheriff (since 2000), replied.  His reply, “upvoted” (seconded) by at least two other law-enforcement types, is worth sharing.

I wouldn’t be at home. I’d be at work, going door-to-door.

Knock Knock Knock

Good morning, ma’am. I’m Sergeant Harding with the Sheriff’s Office. Sorry to disturb you. As I’m sure you’ve heard, today is gun confiscation day. You wouldn’t happen to have any guns here would you?

No? They fell in the lake? Tragic. There seems to be a lot of that going around.

Hey! While I’m here, you wouldn’t happen to have any child porn or illegal drugs in the house? Maybe the dismembered corpse of someone you murdered? A sex slave chained up in the basement, maybe? Would you mind if we checked?

No, ma’am, we have no warrants. Just out going door to door for gun confiscation day.

You don’t want us to search? Well, no worries, ma’am. We all still have that right, at least. Here’s my business card. Some federal agents may be by to double check my work. Please show them this and tell them I was already here. Also, if one of your guns should happen to turn up, please don’t shoot the federal agents.


That’s about how it would go, so long as the 4th amendment wasn’t abolished along with the 2nd. If you abolished the 4th as well, then I guess I’d be too busy at the riots to go door-to-door, unless you also abolished the 1st, in which case I’d be even busier at the riots.

Well, what do you think?

Even if this cop is honest about what he would do in a case like that – that he believes in the Constitution of the United States and his duty to support and defend it – what about his brother and sister thugs in blue (or tan or black)? Will they also do this?

Or will they prevent the “freedom-loving” cop from playing his little game? Will he be the first to be rounded up and disarmed?  Or just gunned down by his brother and sister thugs? Or will he decide to go along to get along, with worry for his family and fate?

Any of these outcomes is possible, not just for this man but for any cop.  No matter how well taught, how loyal to the Constitution, how knowledgeable of liberty. We cannot know and will not know until the balloon goes up.

And we know that many cops are taught it is right – even “honorable” and moral – to lie about things like this. We know that many cops are brutal, child- and spouse-abusing, arrogant elitists who worship the state and believe that they are the only ones who should be armed.

I like to believe that most of my comrades in arms, even those serving today who could be my children or grandchildren, would live up to their oath to the Constitution and NOT become the kinds of thugs that German, Japanese, Soviet, or Union troops did in time of war.  It is some that I want to believe, but dare not trust that to be the case.

Neither can we trust the guy or gal in blue or black uniform, even if they live next door or sit in the pew in front of us every Sunday.

We must be prepared to resist (or avoid) the efforts of cops and politicians and bureaucrats to disarm us and steal other rights from us.  Every effort. No matter how it is worded, how it is supposed to prevent some horrible fate.

 

 

 

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

It’s for the children…

By Nathan Barton

Child abuse is a serious, deadly problem in this country.  Consider this:

Not long ago, a NINE year old killed himself in Denver. He was bullied because he decided (and announced) that he was homosexual.  (Or maybe transgender.)

We discussed this already, so you may recall the TEN year old punished for being respectful to his teacher in North Carolina. (He said, “yes, ma’am”)

These are a couple of recent examples of child abuse.  In the “public” (government-run, tax-funded) schools.

But there is more:

Continue reading

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

No more “Garfield on my fork”?

By Nathan Barton

CBS and MSN News reports (the headline is inaccurate) that the US House of Representatives has passed a bill to outlaw eating cats and dogs here in the Fifty States.

CLASSIC HOAXES: The Swiss Eating Cats Prank - Pranksters

There IS an exemption: AmerInd can eat dogs “for religious purposes.”

Continue reading

Posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bloody Tuesday

By Nathan Barton

It is, if I count right, seventeen years since someone hijacked four commercial airliners and used them to attack targets in the Northeastern United States.  Killing thousands, many of them simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Since then, many more cities have been attacked.  Many more people killed. Much of this as a direct result of the attacks on New York City and Arlington Virginia.

Stock Video Clip of Syria Pan Dolly shot aftermath ...

What have we Americans learned since then? What has changed since then?

Continue reading

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Majority rules?

by Nathan Barton

Some PAC I never heard of called “The Majority Rules” http://themajorityrules.org/ sent me a begging email urging me to sign a petition and donate to keep the Senate from confirming Trump’s nominee to be one of the Nine Nazgul on SCOTUS.

Right.

This PAC is also called the “Voting Rights Watch,” it claims to be unaffiliated with any political party, or candidate.  But here is the odd thing: all its website talks about is that they are taking action to ensure that whomever wins the popular vote becomes the Massa, POTUS.

Continue reading

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments