27-You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen | View Thread

Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing. I agree a Soldier’s level of fitness must be sustained — but that is a matter of the climate established by the commander. What I see happening here with changing Army fitness requirements is the creep of more social egalitarian standards.

According to a report in Military.com, for the first time in more than 20 years, the Army is gearing up to change its fitness test for every Soldier. Gone is the simple pushup, sit up, and run routine, and in its place comes a battery of sprints, jumps and rows. And the service is also introducing a grueling series of slalom runs, balance beam walks, casualty drags, and ammo carries it calls the Army Combat Readiness Test — a totally new evaluation that simulates the kind of body crush Joes experience on deployment.

To me it seems like we’re going back to the old style test with a new name, Army Combat Readiness Test (ACRT). The new test supposedly stresses readiness over fitness according to Lt. Gen Mark Hertling, Army Deputy Commanding General for initial training. LTG Hertling says that the objective of the new ACRT is to develop a “tactical athlete.” The standard for evaluation for the new ACRT will be excellent, good, or poor replacing the previous standard of passing and failing based upon a point score — hmm, this sounds fishy to me. Could this be just another means of giving everyone a trophy? No more APFT patches earned for superior level of fitness?

This new assessment is supposed to force a Soldier into actually staying fit rather than just getting in shape for the test day. Stupid me, I thought that was what our daily morning PT was all about, along with leadership that ensured its Soldiers were trained and ready, physically and mentally fit to accomplish their mission.

This new assessment will have timed events such as “rowers” (a hybrid crunch using a combination of arm and leg motion), best of three standing long jumps (sounds like something we did in elementary school), and a 60 yard combination of wind sprints. As well, Soldiers will be required to hurdle over gates, negotiate barriers, drag a casualty, balance with weighted ammo cans, maneuver through a simulated shooting course, do 100 yards of wind sprints, and weave through a slalom course, all timed.

Ok, these are all tasks that were part of a diversified unit PT program. I remember days when we had squad level PT and leaders showed ingenuity by having events such as 400 meter runs carrying a Soldier on a litter. I was in an artillery unit and in the old days you have to drive stakes into the base plate for the M102 105mm towed artillery piece. Sections would have stake-driving events for PT. At Ft. Bragg the 18th Airborne Corps standard was a 12-mile ruck march with 45 pounds in four hours, and run four miles in 36 minutes. In Air Assault School, the final road march standard is 12 miles with full combat gear in two hours 59 minutes — not one second more, lest you fail.

The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as it stands is a measure of upper body abdominal and aerobic fitness. In my experience, it was successful, and where it wasn’t, it was due to failure of leadership, not of the AFPT. I guarantee you’ll find more soft bellies jiggling around the Pentagon than at Ft. Bragg. And another thing, you don’t need a lot of resources to conduct the current APFT.

Back in the 80’s as a young Cadet at the University of Tennessee, the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) featured events like the run, dodge, and jump, horizontal ladder, inverted crawl, pushups, and a two-mile run. Of course we also did other training events that stressed combat readiness through fitness, such as 10 to 12 mile rucksack marches. As I entered active duty, the APFT changed to three timed events: pushups, sit-ups, and two-mile run. I must admit, my current fitness program is based on those three events.

I agree PT has to be relative to physical readiness — kinda like the three-mile full chemical suit runs we did in our Battalion when I was a commander — to include 800 meters with gas mask. Sometimes instead of taking trucks out to the rifle range, units would road march out and back. At the end of the day, it is the commanders’ responsibility to ensure the combat readiness of their units.

The fix was in: Obama’s patent office got ZERO Redskins name complaints

By Jim McElhatton

The Washington Times

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The recent decision by an obscure administrative law board to cancel the Washington Redskins’ trademark registrations came despite the fact the agency hadn’t received a single letter from a member of the public complaining about the team’s name, records show.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name was disparaging to American Indians. The team is appealing that decision.

PHOTOS: Obama's biggest White House 'fails'

Politicians, including President Obama, have waded into the team name controversy, with many saying the team should change its name. But despite widespread media attention and a legal fight that goes back more than a decade, the USPTO recently acknowledged there’s hardly been an avalanche of public complaints filed with the agency.

In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins’ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling.

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress or the public produced just 13 pages of records.

Six of those pages were a handwritten, meandering letter from a man in Lubbock, Texas, whose position on the team name controversy isn’t clear. Another writer congratulated the appeals board after its decision but questioned whether the judges would “go after” the United Negro College Fund. Both letters were sent after the ruling.

In addition, there were a few pages of email correspondence between staffers for the USPTO and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress. Ms. Norton has been a vocal critic of the team name, but her staffers were mostly seeking background information on the case.

The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.”

PHOTOS: Famous mistresses

Both sides in the widely publicized case introduced thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from experts. And the decision hinged, in part, on the testimony of linguistics experts.

The Redskins declined to comment through an attorney Monday, but an attorney for Ms. Blackhorse said the paucity of public input isn’t entirely unexpected despite the intense media coverage.

“There are regimented procedures in which the USPTO makes its decisions, and there is no mechanism for input from the general public,” attorney Jesse A. Witten wrote in an email. “This is not at all like the notice and comment period that accompanies a regulatory rule making.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the patent office isn’t like the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration, where there can be a public comment procedure for individual cases.

“If you don’t have a particular stake there’s no obvious point at which your input can be given,” she said. “I’m sure that doesn’t stop people from sending in correspondence, but I honestly wouldn’t know how to go about getting it read in an individual case.”

The USPTO did not respond to phone calls Monday.

The trademark appeals board based its ruling on part of the law that says a trademark can be canceled if it is deemed disparaging. In the case of the Redskins, the board said the drop in the use of the word in the last century showed it was becoming a slur. The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive.

The agency’s decision doesn’t mean the Redskins are barred from using the team name, but it does make it harder for them to assert their brand against potential copycats.

The same appeals board was overruled on appeal in 2003 after ruling against the Redskins in a similar case. Bob Raskopf, the team’s trademark attorney, said in a statement after the most recent ruling that he expects the same outcome.

“This case is no different from the earlier case, where the board canceled the Redskins’ trademark registrations and where a federal-district court disagreed and reversed the board,” he said.

Even if the public hasn’t been very vocal with the agency, politicians have been quick to let the media and Redskins know where they stand.

Last fall, Mr. Obama said he would think about changing the name if he were team owner Dan Snyder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to attend any games until the team changes its name.

And Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said last week at an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting that while he doesn’t think Mr. Snyder should be forced to drop the Redskins’ name, he’d “probably” change the team name nonetheless.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/?page=all#pagebreak

What They’re Not Telling You: Democrats Pushing Constitutional Amendment to Change Bill of Rights

While the nation, quite understandably, focuses their collective attention on the continual stream of scandals that spill out of the White House, too many remain unaware of the assault occurring on our Bill of Rights in the Senate.

Senate Resolution 19, a resolution that calls for fundamentally changing the First Amendment, is being hailed by Democrats as a necessary measure to limit political influence in elections.

It sounds dire- and it is. The proposed constitutional amendment is designed to give Congress the authority to limit fundraising and spending on elections as well as independent political activity. Though political expression is protected by the First Amendment, Senate Democrats are hoping to squash it, un-coincidentally carving out a narrow exemption for media outlets who, by-and-large, lean heavily-left.

“So The New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Sen. Ted Cruz stated in May. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty; what it says it that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient.”

The resolution has the support of an astounding 41 Democrats, including vulnerable Democrats Sens. Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Al Franken, Kay Hagen and Jeanne Shaheen. It’s also being championed by such liberal stalwarts as Sens. Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy and, of course, Harry Reid- the Senate Majority Leader who has dedicated himself to an obnoxious campaign against the Koch Brothers, private citizens who engage in the political process by supporting candidates.

So who will fight for free speech? For our Bill of Rights? Several Senate Republicans have joined the fight and are pushing back against the Democrats’ nefarious push.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley outlined the consequence of the proposed amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, saying,

“The proposed constitutional amendment would enable government to limit funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates. That would give the government the ability to limit speech. The amendment would allow the government to set the limit at zero. There could be no contributions. There could be no election spending. There could be no public debate on who should be elected. Incumbents would find that outcome to be acceptable. They would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them. Rationing of speech at low limits would produce similar results.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared before the Senate Judiciary Committee,

“Benjamin Franklin noted that ‘whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.’ The First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom, and it has never been amended.”

Poignantly speaking of the value of the First Amendment, Sen. McConnell reminded the committee, “I understand that no politician likes to be criticized — and some of us are criticized more often than others. But the recourse to being criticized is not to shut up our fellow citizens. It’s to defend your ideas more ably in the political marketplace, to paraphrase Justice Holmes. Or it’s simply to come up with better ideas.”

As we near the midterm elections, Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid have worked tirelessly to try and distract voters from the numerous scandals and failures plaguing the liberal party, most notably, of course, has been the now-conspicuous failures of Obamacare.

To help redirect the media narrative, Sen. Reid has ranted and raved ad nauseum against the Koch Brothers, ignoring the hundreds of millions of dollars coming from liberal benefactors such as Tom Steyer, George Soros and the large financier of Democrat candidates: unions.

Nearly half the Senate now supports this crusade against the First Amendment, pretending to champion the measure as a means of “leveling the playing field.” The aim is to undercut not only the Bill of Rights, but also to undercut the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that determined that political spending is a form of protected political expression, the famed Citizens United decision that held that “it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.”

The Democrats’ effort selectively carves-out which parts of the First Amendment serves their purposes and which do not. Leaving MSNBC and CNN free rein to carry their messages, Democrats seek to squash the efforts of big and small donors alike- people like Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the recent Supreme Court case that served as a big win for free speech proponents, McCutcheon vs. FEC.

Dan Backer, who brought the McCutcheon case, spoke with TPNN on the issue, saying,

“A government that can deny one iota of political speech from its critics can suppress all political speech by its critics. John Adams tried this in the 1790’s with the Alien & Sedition Act, which granted the government the power to throw its critics in jail. It was un-American then and it’s un-American now.”

Backer incredulously questioned, “Who in their right mind would trust this administration – or any government – with the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t?”

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen 2/25/2014 10:40:38 PM
	The latest in technology
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+1

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen 2/25/2014 11:09:34 PM
	Pro-Gun Commercial That’s Sure to Make Gun Owners Smile! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=535739339855576
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen 2/26/2014 10:37:46 PM
	Are new Army fitness requirements more “wussification?” Written by Allen West on February 26, 2014 Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/new-army-fitness-requirements-wussification/#ydTQ40pZr5xx5uzo.99 Image: Boris Balaban Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing. I agree a Soldier’s level of fitness must be sustained — but that is a matter of the climate established by the commander. What I see happening here with changing Army fitness requirements is the creep of more social egalitarian standards. According to a report in Military.com, for the first time in more than 20 years, the Army is gearing up to change its fitness test for every Soldier. Gone is the simple pushup, sit up, and run routine, and in its place comes a battery of sprints, jumps and rows. And the service is also introducing a grueling series of slalom runs, balance beam walks, casualty drags, and ammo carries it calls the Army Combat Readiness Test — a totally new evaluation that simulates the kind of body crush Joes experience on deployment. To me it seems like we’re going back to the old style test with a new name, Army Combat Readiness Test (ACRT). The new test supposedly stresses readiness over fitness according to Lt. Gen Mark Hertling, Army Deputy Commanding General for initial training. LTG Hertling says that the objective of the new ACRT is to develop a “tactical athlete.” The standard for evaluation for the new ACRT will be excellent, good, or poor replacing the previous standard of passing and failing based upon a point score — hmm, this sounds fishy to me. Could this be just another means of giving everyone a trophy? No more APFT patches earned for superior level of fitness? This new assessment is supposed to force a Soldier into actually staying fit rather than just getting in shape for the test day. Stupid me, I thought that was what our daily morning PT was all about, along with leadership that ensured its Soldiers were trained and ready, physically and mentally fit to accomplish their mission. This new assessment will have timed events such as “rowers” (a hybrid crunch using a combination of arm and leg motion), best of three standing long jumps (sounds like something we did in elementary school), and a 60 yard combination of wind sprints. As well, Soldiers will be required to hurdle over gates, negotiate barriers, drag a casualty, balance with weighted ammo cans, maneuver through a simulated shooting course, do 100 yards of wind sprints, and weave through a slalom course, all timed. Ok, these are all tasks that were part of a diversified unit PT program. I remember days when we had squad level PT and leaders showed ingenuity by having events such as 400 meter runs carrying a Soldier on a litter. I was in an artillery unit and in the old days you have to drive stakes into the base plate for the M102 105mm towed artillery piece. Sections would have stake-driving events for PT. At Ft. Bragg the 18th Airborne Corps standard was a 12-mile ruck march with 45 pounds in four hours, and run four miles in 36 minutes. In Air Assault School, the final road march standard is 12 miles with full combat gear in two hours 59 minutes — not one second more, lest you fail. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as it stands is a measure of upper body abdominal and aerobic fitness. In my experience, it was successful, and where it wasn’t, it was due to failure of leadership, not of the AFPT. I guarantee you’ll find more soft bellies jiggling around the Pentagon than at Ft. Bragg. And another thing, you don’t need a lot of resources to conduct the current APFT. Back in the 80’s as a young Cadet at the University of Tennessee, the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) featured events like the run, dodge, and jump, horizontal ladder, inverted crawl, pushups, and a two-mile run. Of course we also did other training events that stressed combat readiness through fitness, such as 10 to 12 mile rucksack marches. As I entered active duty, the APFT changed to three timed events: pushups, sit-ups, and two-mile run. I must admit, my current fitness program is based on those three events. I agree PT has to be relative to physical readiness — kinda like the three-mile full chemical suit runs we did in our Battalion when I was a commander — to include 800 meters with gas mask. Sometimes instead of taking trucks out to the rifle range, units would road march out and back. At the end of the day, it is the commanders’ responsibility to ensure the combat readiness of their units. Tags: Army Physical Fitness Test Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/new-army-fitness-requirements-wussification/#ydTQ40pZr5xx5uzo.99
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen 7/2/2014 10:47:47 AM
	The fix was in: Obama’s patent office got ZERO Redskins name complaints By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Times Tuesday, July 1, 2014 The recent decision by an obscure administrative law board to cancel the Washington Redskins’ trademark registrations came despite the fact the agency hadn’t received a single letter from a member of the public complaining about the team’s name, records show. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name was disparaging to American Indians. The team is appealing that decision. PHOTOS: Obama's biggest White House 'fails' Politicians, including President Obama, have waded into the team name controversy, with many saying the team should change its name. But despite widespread media attention and a legal fight that goes back more than a decade, the USPTO recently acknowledged there’s hardly been an avalanche of public complaints filed with the agency. In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins’ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling. A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress or the public produced just 13 pages of records. Six of those pages were a handwritten, meandering letter from a man in Lubbock, Texas, whose position on the team name controversy isn’t clear. Another writer congratulated the appeals board after its decision but questioned whether the judges would “go after” the United Negro College Fund. Both letters were sent after the ruling. In addition, there were a few pages of email correspondence between staffers for the USPTO and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress. Ms. Norton has been a vocal critic of the team name, but her staffers were mostly seeking background information on the case. The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.” PHOTOS: Famous mistresses Both sides in the widely publicized case introduced thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from experts. And the decision hinged, in part, on the testimony of linguistics experts. The Redskins declined to comment through an attorney Monday, but an attorney for Ms. Blackhorse said the paucity of public input isn’t entirely unexpected despite the intense media coverage. “There are regimented procedures in which the USPTO makes its decisions, and there is no mechanism for input from the general public,” attorney Jesse A. Witten wrote in an email. “This is not at all like the notice and comment period that accompanies a regulatory rule making.” Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the patent office isn’t like the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration, where there can be a public comment procedure for individual cases. “If you don’t have a particular stake there’s no obvious point at which your input can be given,” she said. “I’m sure that doesn’t stop people from sending in correspondence, but I honestly wouldn’t know how to go about getting it read in an individual case.” The USPTO did not respond to phone calls Monday. The trademark appeals board based its ruling on part of the law that says a trademark can be canceled if it is deemed disparaging. In the case of the Redskins, the board said the drop in the use of the word in the last century showed it was becoming a slur. The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive. The agency’s decision doesn’t mean the Redskins are barred from using the team name, but it does make it harder for them to assert their brand against potential copycats. The same appeals board was overruled on appeal in 2003 after ruling against the Redskins in a similar case. Bob Raskopf, the team’s trademark attorney, said in a statement after the most recent ruling that he expects the same outcome. “This case is no different from the earlier case, where the board canceled the Redskins’ trademark registrations and where a federal-district court disagreed and reversed the board,” he said. Even if the public hasn’t been very vocal with the agency, politicians have been quick to let the media and Redskins know where they stand. Last fall, Mr. Obama said he would think about changing the name if he were team owner Dan Snyder. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to attend any games until the team changes its name. And Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said last week at an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting that while he doesn’t think Mr. Snyder should be forced to drop the Redskins’ name, he’d “probably” change the team name nonetheless. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/?page=all#pagebreak
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: You Can't Reason with a Liberal Mindset Laughing and Crying in the Kitchen 7/2/2014 12:33:12 PM
	What They’re Not Telling You: Democrats Pushing Constitutional Amendment to Change Bill of Rights While the nation, quite understandably, focuses their collective attention on the continual stream of scandals that spill out of the White House, too many remain unaware of the assault occurring on our Bill of Rights in the Senate. Senate Resolution 19, a resolution that calls for fundamentally changing the First Amendment, is being hailed by Democrats as a necessary measure to limit political influence in elections. It sounds dire- and it is. The proposed constitutional amendment is designed to give Congress the authority to limit fundraising and spending on elections as well as independent political activity. Though political expression is protected by the First Amendment, Senate Democrats are hoping to squash it, un-coincidentally carving out a narrow exemption for media outlets who, by-and-large, lean heavily-left. “So The New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Sen. Ted Cruz stated in May. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty; what it says it that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient.” The resolution has the support of an astounding 41 Democrats, including vulnerable Democrats Sens. Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Al Franken, Kay Hagen and Jeanne Shaheen. It’s also being championed by such liberal stalwarts as Sens. Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy and, of course, Harry Reid- the Senate Majority Leader who has dedicated himself to an obnoxious campaign against the Koch Brothers, private citizens who engage in the political process by supporting candidates. So who will fight for free speech? For our Bill of Rights? Several Senate Republicans have joined the fight and are pushing back against the Democrats’ nefarious push. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley outlined the consequence of the proposed amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, saying, “The proposed constitutional amendment would enable government to limit funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates. That would give the government the ability to limit speech. The amendment would allow the government to set the limit at zero. There could be no contributions. There could be no election spending. There could be no public debate on who should be elected. Incumbents would find that outcome to be acceptable. They would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them. Rationing of speech at low limits would produce similar results.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Benjamin Franklin noted that ‘whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.’ The First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom, and it has never been amended.” Poignantly speaking of the value of the First Amendment, Sen. McConnell reminded the committee, “I understand that no politician likes to be criticized — and some of us are criticized more often than others. But the recourse to being criticized is not to shut up our fellow citizens. It’s to defend your ideas more ably in the political marketplace, to paraphrase Justice Holmes. Or it’s simply to come up with better ideas.” As we near the midterm elections, Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid have worked tirelessly to try and distract voters from the numerous scandals and failures plaguing the liberal party, most notably, of course, has been the now-conspicuous failures of Obamacare. To help redirect the media narrative, Sen. Reid has ranted and raved ad nauseum against the Koch Brothers, ignoring the hundreds of millions of dollars coming from liberal benefactors such as Tom Steyer, George Soros and the large financier of Democrat candidates: unions. Nearly half the Senate now supports this crusade against the First Amendment, pretending to champion the measure as a means of “leveling the playing field.” The aim is to undercut not only the Bill of Rights, but also to undercut the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that determined that political spending is a form of protected political expression, the famed Citizens United decision that held that “it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” The Democrats’ effort selectively carves-out which parts of the First Amendment serves their purposes and which do not. Leaving MSNBC and CNN free rein to carry their messages, Democrats seek to squash the efforts of big and small donors alike- people like Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the recent Supreme Court case that served as a big win for free speech proponents, McCutcheon vs. FEC. Dan Backer, who brought the McCutcheon case, spoke with TPNN on the issue, saying, “A government that can deny one iota of political speech from its critics can suppress all political speech by its critics. John Adams tried this in the 1790’s with the Alien & Sedition Act, which granted the government the power to throw its critics in jail. It was un-American then and it’s un-American now.” Backer incredulously questioned, “Who in their right mind would trust this administration – or any government – with the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t?” http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/04/what-theyre-not-telling-you-democrats-pushing-constitutional-amendment-to-change-bill-of-rights/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Menu

Forums

Pro-Gun Commercial That’s Sure to Make Gun Owners Smile!

Are new Army fitness requirements more “wussification?”

The fix was in: Obama’s patent office got ZERO Redskins name complaints

What They’re Not Telling You: Democrats Pushing Constitutional Amendment to Change Bill of Rights

Like us on Facebook!