Skip to comments.Chuck Norris: Outlawing Opinion
Posted on 05/18/2009 11:16:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.
Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.
Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.
For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."
The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.
Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.
I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?
It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!
When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?
If Chuck Norris says it, nothing else has to be said.
Yeah, I’ve got one.
Why is it, Chuck Norris didn’t endorse Duncan Hunter when he should have, rather than Mike Huckabee?
And he’s not going to still be out there stumping for Mike Huckabee again?
Huck’s clearly already campaigning for 2012 on FNC.
Naturally, suppressing opposing opinion must be a primary objective of the Democrat party.
It is exactly the way the original version of the Nazi party operated in Germany in the 1930s.
But they ensure “free speech” for every kind of depravity, because that further undermines America’s foundations, which are cracked to the core already. Like queers committing public sodomy and depraved nudity during their “parades” or whatever they call those gatherings of perversion in San Francisco.
We still have free speech.
You are free to say anything that is pre-approved by your friendly federal government.
Have a nice day and keep voting Democrat. :)
I would like to say that the Cult of Obama is really freaky.
I wouldn’t want to be the poor sap who has to inform Chuck Norris that he can’t think.
What about stealing mail?
If we cannot read the Declaration of Independence and clearly see the guidance provided, there will be no happy ending for this nation.
We were repeatedly and explicitly warned......but to no avail. As Bill Klintoon would say..."put some ice on it"
The video, which Chuck Norris speaks of. Look in at 2:55.
Kind of amusing. Because of Republicans, Blacks are not slaves, can vote, can live where they want, can go to schools.
Democrat policies were against all that.
I grew up with Bruce Lee, who beat Chuck 3 of 3.
Why was FR all a-quiver for Fred Thompson when 94% said they really wanted Duncan Hunter? That is the real question to ask.
This is the Conservative grassroots of the entire internet. If we don't support the true Conservatives, how can we blame anyone else?
Bruce Lee never competed full contact...Chuck Norris did, and in general, Tang Soo do (Soo Bahk Do) Moo Duk Kwan, Norris' main style, outperforms Kung Fu (Gung Fu) in competition.
That is not to say that Bruce Lee wasn't great, but there are a lot of people out there who are seriously misinformed on what Bruce Lee actually did, and one of them was that Bruce Lee never fought full contact, especially against Chuck Norris....
“This is the Conservative grassroots of the entire internet. If we don’t support the true Conservatives, how can we blame anyone else?”
Duncan Hunter is much more than an economic conservative. He is not a Libertarian. FR has a large segment who are only economic conservatives, and some must really believe that the framers of the Constitution were interested principly in economic freedoms. They were much deeper men than that.
Here’s another thing. If you think Bruce Lee was fast, you should look up the career of a man called Bill “Superfoot” Wallace. He was the undefeated PKA full contact middle weight champion for almost two decades, if memory serves me correctly. I had the pleasure of attending one of his demonstrations once. He had a black belt stand there, and with a type of crescent, or reverse roundhouse, he literally parted the guys hair with his foot, before he knew what happened, If you blinked, you would have missed it. He was truly amazing....
What is missing here is the very Conservative notion of appealing to all three pillars of Conservatism. It is the time tested definition of a Conservative candidate. Everyone knew that Hunter was the Conservative choice (94% wanted him to be the next president), but instead of standing upon principle and actually having debates about the actual Conservative candidates (Hunter, Tancredo, and Keyes) and working to lift THEM up, the whole thing turned into a pissin' match about fame and 'electability".
How silly. *None* of the other candidates were actually Conservatives. None of the others deserved to bear the mantle of Reagan in th least little bit - and most importantly, *NONE* of the others could successfully bind all three of the conservative pillars together to form the mighty Reagan Coalition - So all of the rampant "pragmatism" was not really pragmatic at all. Without ALL of the Conservatives pulling together, we will lose. It is guaranteed. The real pragmatists were the ones who held out for those Reaganites.
Hunter, being the most obvious fit, because he was most able to embrace all three pillars, had he been lifted up here with great earnestness, might have lifted him into a position where the Christians would have been satisfied to stand with the Conservatives. Had that happened, Huckabee would not have happened, and his Christian Right followers would have carried Hunter through the RINO states into the RED states, where he would have been welcomed with open arms.
That FR was too busy pimping RINOs, and failed to stand immovably (as Conservatives ALWAYS do) upon her principles is as much to blame for the loss as any other thing, and maybe more so.
HANDING IT OUT.
Just viewed “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”
Not very Hard to Imagine Christians and Constitutionalists going to their Deaths in the Showers.
Obama’s Buddy has already calculated 25 Million would need to Die in the Camps.
Let’s also not forget the way that supporters of Prop 8 in CA have been hounded and harassed by homosexual activists.
Thank you for your comments on the necessity of all three pillars of conservatism, and the truth that there was an over-emphasis on electability in last November’s election.
Hunter was indeed the correct “fit.”
The only elections the Republican Party can win right now are those in which they run Democrats in disguise. . . which is what most of the party’s presidential candidates were. It would be good for the GOP if all of those would just follow Specter right on out so that we can see clearly again who the real conservatives are.
- - - - - - - - -
If they oppose the President they host TV Talk Shows??? Well, yes ... that's true! When Bush - or ANY Republican! - is in the White House. But when it a Huzzie Obama, not so much. Dey WUV da Democwaps!! And nary a word is spoken again 0b0z0 ...
Pingin’ my General Interest and TEXAS lists here!
Ping! Ping! Ping!
You have a GREAT profile page, my FRiend!
Keep up the great work ...
“Thought crimes” are totalitarian by their very nature.
“A blended nation” ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
And, just when did this miracle come to pass?
Take a trip into an urban black neighborhood - feel those people have “blended in”? Or, are you aware you are “Whitey”?
Take note of the “Black Muslim” influence, the remember that their view of whites is close to Reverend Wright’s “G*d d*mn America” sermon.
Then go to the Mexican slum and again walk around. Be brave (and armed, hopefully) as you notice the La Raza influences. LA Raza has the motto “For the Bronze People everything, for the rest, Nothing”. You do remember that, don’t you?
Take a trip on the savage side and visit a Muslim neighborhood. “New Joisey” has all too many of these. New York state also has far too many “neck cutters” as the Muslim who cut the head off of his wife when she filed for divorce proved.
As there is no way to know when a Muslim decides to ‘go Jihaddi’, arguably Muslims must be excluded from America. Their beliefs are antithetical to, and irreconcilable with, the American Founding Documents.
As you walk the streets, remember that you are the “kufir” - that means the unclean. That means those “blended Muslims” also believe they must either convert, enslave, or kill YOU!
Now, remember that illegal immigrant you saw on the streets in your non-border state? Those at Home Depot’s parking lot?
What about the Hispanics on the street with all the tattoo marks all over them? Ever heard of MS-13? Check the crime stats for Hispanic illegals. Still feel they have “blended in”?
Mr. Norris has written some good articles. This one is fatally flawed with the communist “Blended Nation” concept.
Today’s immigrants are NOT the immigrants of America’s past for two crucial reasons:
1. These immigrants are largely illegally here.
2. They have not accepted the core concepts that make a
mere person from anywhere in the world into an American.
CULTURE COUNTS. Remember that, lest our American culture perishes.
The present wave of illegals has already done far too much damage to America and its cultural core.
I do believe in American exceptionalism.
America is different from, and far superior to, any other culture.
As such it is worth defending.
Therefore, all temporary workers must be kept on a temporary status. All who desire to become Americans must prove their sincere acceptance of American core concepts.
Those with beliefs which are antithetical to, and irreconcilable with, the Founding Documents MUST be excluded from citizenship, and may well be too dangerous to allow onto American soil. This paragraph is specifically crafted to address the issue of Muslims in America.
Read the Koran, Chuck. Then, I will bet you will no longer write about “blended” Muslims.
Nesx, read the history of Muslim conquest of Spain and the pernicious influence of Islam upon Spain. Then note the similarities of Muslim perspectives of women and Spanish treatment of women. Ask any young female teacher of ghetto Hispanics should you not understand the differences between Hispanic and American views of, and respect for, women.
The Muslim word for bribery is “baksheesh’, and is the manifestation of a corrupt economic and moral system, as Churchill so eloquently wrote in The River War.
“Baksheesh” is found in Hispanic cultures, but is called “La Mordita”. Any bets on how well Hispanics will abandon the conditioning of a lifetime and accept American beliefs regarding bribery?
I’ll bet that only those who become citizens the historic way (legal immigration) will successfully drop their ethnic identities and the cultural behaviors like bribery, neck cutting, ad nauseam.
Bad premises make bad articles, Mr. Norris.
Hmmn - considering your earlier article perspectives, did someone use your name without your knowledge for this article?
As sovereign citizens, American regulate their own behavior. Hispanics come from lands where they are not secure in either person or property. Culture counts, remember?
I have a question. Does anyone know if Hussein Obama has sat down for any in-depth interviews with any white female reporters/correspondents since he has been elected President? Did he do so when he was campaigning?
I see the term “Hate Group” associated with the Knights of Columbus on Blogs that anti-Catholic.
And that is a great pic there in #4.
You make that ???
No, I did not. I found it on-line somewhere long ago.
It’s a good one.
Right on Chuck.
And then there is an obviously FLAWED nominating system.
It is so easy for ‘RATS to cross over in the Primary
elections and pick OUR GOP candidate. THAT stinks!
Here in Texas (our Primary election is in March), I
voted for Fred Thompson. At the time, it was quite
evident that McRINO was gonna get the nomination.
I said to he!! with that, and voted for Fred.
Under the constitution, no they are not, and that is the point he is making. As for illegals, the constitution says the states have the power to decide who is a citizen of that state. In other words the whole BS about states not being able to prosecute illegals is just that, BS. The states have every right, and the only right according to the constitution, to prosecute and punish illegal aliens.
Yes! Tis great. Thanks for posting it here...
Gotta head on out for the day.
Have a GREAT one! :)
I hear Chuck Norris’s tears can cure cancer. Too bad he’s never cried.
The Constitution also empowers congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution that power.
Dr. Paul also neglected to mention congress' power to punish felonies committed on the high seas other than piracy, and even "Offenses against the Law of Nations."
Oh there were more than that. Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations for example. I'm sure you could add tax evasion, smuggling (the same thing in the early days), and most anything else involving a violation of the laws passed under Congress Art.I section 8 powers. But that is still an incredibly short list, compared to the many volumes of federal crimes defined today.
I can think of several folks here that it's virtually impossible to imagine going to their Deaths in the Showers. Their deaths are easily imagined, anyone can be overwhelmed, but they'd be dead long before they got near any showers or "work camps". Even those with German ancestry would not be "Good Germans".
I did the same, but voted for Duncan Hunter. I'd do it again too, given the same sort of non choices.
Thanks for the ping!
And I don’t know about you, but I tell ya what.
I’d be more than tickled pink if EITHER one was
POTUS rat now!
Know whut Ah mean, Vern?? :)
I hope everyone will vote against Senate bill 855. And ask State Rep. Chris Turner DISTRICT96.TURNER@HOUSE.STATE.TX.US to vote against it 817-478-5096.
Well, I saw him whip CN Three Times. Three Movies! That has to mean something!
And yes, tongue is firmly in cheek. I have studied Tang Soo Do, Kung Fu, Kokishinkai, and of course Boxing and Wrestling.
But nothing beats Chinga Kapow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.