Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I'm offended - Vanity
Self ^ | 11/28/2001 | Brytani

Posted on 11/28/2001 3:42:21 AM PST by Brytani

I am offended

Daily, we are all flooded with news reports of people who are offended.  In each report, we are read how a person is fired or suspended from their job, forced into court or has their reputation slandered over some perceived or overt offensive statement or action.  Yet, nowhere in our Constitution or in the Bill of Rights are we guaranteed the right not to be offended.  Nonetheless, people of this national will try to convince us of some left-out inherent right never be offended.  Since a small percentage of the public has re-written the Bill of Right, I have complied my own list of what offends me.  

1.  The ACLU offends me. From their defense of NAMBLA, to their ridiculous notion that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens of this country, to their defense of the abortion industry.  I should file suit against them in Federal Court and force them to shut down, after all, I am offended.

2.  Abortion providers offend me.  Not just because they murder innocent babies, but their trampling on the free speech and protest rights of those who oppose them.  Again, I should file suit against every abortion provider in the country, after all, I am offended.

3.  Gun Grabbers offend me.  Their constant assault on the Constitution is an offense to every citizen of this country.    Filing suit is appropriate, after all, I am offended.

4.  Liberals and Democrats highly offend me.  Everything they stand for, from welfare for able bodied people to their ridiculous environmental-nazi laws, to their general "Blame America first" attitude.  I am offended that the wife of the most corrupt president in history is right now sitting in the Senate proposing spending and laws I must follow.  Democratic politicians like Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton should be made illegal, after all, I am offended.

5.  Feminists offend me.  The hypocrisy in the feminist movement is blatant.  While claiming to support a women's right to be free of sexual harassment they supporter an admitted harasser solely on the grounds he was a pro-choice president.  NOW and it's various off-shoots should be illegal, after all, I am offended.

6.  Those who claim African-Americans have no voice in George Bush's White House while two of his highest ranking advisors are black offend me.  Quite simply, I never realized a person was not African-American unless they were a democrat.  I am offended because I was not taught this lesson from early childhood.  African-Americans who make frivolous claims should be illegal, after all, I am offended.

7.  I am offended that the right to Free Speech as well as Freedom of Religion has been removed from anyone attending a public school.  Instead a perceived right, stating that the word God, if uttered in a public school setting will somehow make the ears of children bleed.  I am offended that my children's rights have been removed, it should be illegal to do this, after all, I am offended.

8.  I am offended by the words of the New Black Panther Party.  A group that supports terrorists and their activities while putting the blame on this great nation.  I am offended they are allowed the right to freely express their opinion without retribution.  I am offended that many others are not given this same right, The Black Panther Party should be illegal, after all, I am offended.  

9.  I am offended by hate crime laws.  It is illegal to threaten a person solely by the color of their skin, or their sexual preference but only if you are a heterosexual or a white American.  Homosexual groups as well as minority groups at will can offend, make death threats and cause general disturbances without the fear of retribution.  Again, this should be illegal, after all, I am offended.

10.  Finally I am offended that no lawyer or legal service is available to me to file suit against those who offended me.  After all, I am on the wrong side of the offense issue.  Being a conservative, married female, I am the offender, not the offended.  I'd file suit, but I'm offended I have nowhere to go.

Over the next few decades of my life, I am assured I will be offended even more.  Will I receive press coverage?  Of course not, after all I do not have the right to be offended.  That's reserved for only for those with special offense clauses in their personal bill of rights.  For this, I am highly offended.


TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 11/28/2001 3:42:21 AM PST by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brytani
1. The ACLU offends me. From their defense of NAMBLA, to their ridiculous notion that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens of this country, to their defense of the abortion industry. I should file suit against them in Federal Court and force them to shut down, after all, I am offended.

Our rights are not granted to us by virtue of our citizenship. They are natural rights which know no borders. At least that was the idea our founders had.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

2 posted on 11/28/2001 3:48:19 AM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Hope my statements don't offend you ;-)

Great post! Thank you!
3 posted on 11/28/2001 3:52:05 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Great essay.
The only thing (and it's small) that I don't agree with entirely is: "... notion that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens of this country..."
My views are the same as those of the poster a few comments back, with the caveat:
In the current instance I see the Arab detainees in question as not civil criminals but war criminals, and should be treated as hostile combatants who just happen to not be wearing uniforms (against the Geneva Convention mind you).
Other than that, I agree 100%
4 posted on 11/28/2001 4:02:20 AM PST by Psalm 73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
Currently the ACLU has filed suit in Federal Court to force the US Military to provide prisoners of war in Afghanistan with the same legal rights as prisoners in this country. First, in time of war the Geneva Convention applies (as you pointed out). Never in our history have we given prisoners of war the same civilian rights as American Citizens (ie, the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the right to request bail, the right to a speedy trial). Yet, this is what the ACLU believes we should be doing.
5 posted on 11/28/2001 4:25:25 AM PST by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Im offended no one has horsewhipped you for this vanity
6 posted on 11/28/2001 4:29:28 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Unfortunately, a group with media power and political muscle can manipulate public opinion to establish pc orthodoxy and pull politician's strings to enact its agenda into law.
7 posted on 11/28/2001 4:30:42 AM PST by ThreeOfSeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Didn't Ted Nugent write this? ;^)

Seriously, nicely done. I'm similarly offended...

8 posted on 11/28/2001 4:30:49 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Vanity posts deeply offend me and my dogs, Brytani. </ grin>
9 posted on 11/28/2001 4:32:03 AM PST by bwteim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Wanna hurt the ACLU? Stop buying Ford's who is one, if not the biggest, funder of the ACLU.
10 posted on 11/28/2001 4:33:56 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
BTTT
11 posted on 11/28/2001 4:34:22 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Bump!
12 posted on 11/28/2001 4:35:11 AM PST by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
In the current instance I see the Arab detainees in question as not civil criminals but war criminals, and should be treated as hostile combatants who just happen to not be wearing uniforms (against the Geneva Convention mind you).

This is a dead-on analysis of the current situation and deserves to be repeated. These people are not criminals in the manner of a thug who breaks into your house and beats your dog and kicks your wife; these are war criminals.

And they should not be treated as POW's exactly because they are not wearing a uniform which would declare their hostile intent.

13 posted on 11/28/2001 4:41:01 AM PST by calmseas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Our rights are not granted to us by virtue of our citizenship. They are natural rights which know no borders. At least that was the idea our founders had.

I agree with Brytani's post but I would have to disagree with your statement. I believe that the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the people of the country they were trying to create - this did not include the rest of the world. A citizen is granted the protection of the state or country in which they were born. If a citizen of another country comes to this country and commits crimes, they certainly are not entitled to the same "rights" of someone who was fortunate enough to be born in this country.
What do you think happens to a U.S. Citizen who commits a crime in Mexico and tries to claim their "rights".

14 posted on 11/28/2001 4:48:24 AM PST by Mopp4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
I think that the statement would be better served by changing the word 'rights' to 'entitlements'.... but of course, in the mind of the Left entitlements ARE rights, so I can see how the author might have been confused momentarily. ;^)
15 posted on 11/28/2001 4:50:07 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mopp4
Your views would make many a dictator smile. If our rights are granted to us by the constitution and not by the creator than they are not truly rights. They are merely "allowances" that our government makes for us. Fortunately, our rights are not given to us by the constitution or the government but are the natural rights of man. We give the government permission to take some of our rights in order to provide for a common defense and to provide order over chaos. The constitution does not give us rights but rather spells out what rights we allow the governemtn to "borrow".

You mention Americans trying to assert their rights in a foreign country. Just because a foreign government has usurped power from the citizens does not mean the people do not have those rights. It simply means that the government, through force, has blocked them from exercising their rights. Blacks in this country did not have the ability to assert their human rights in this country at one time but that is not the same as saying they did not have these rights.

I encourage you to read John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. He spells out these principles far better than I am able to.

16 posted on 11/28/2001 8:57:50 AM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
SV - you make some good points - I'd like to check out Locke's book. I agree that our "rights" have been granted by the creator. The founders acknowledged this and sought to guarantee that we would not be denied those rights by any form of Government. By being born in this country, we are entitled to that protection.
I still think that someone from another country is not automatically entitled to that protection. If they are, then there is no real meaning to "United States Citizen". Thanks for the reply and your opinion.
17 posted on 11/28/2001 10:26:38 AM PST by Mopp4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mopp4
The Library of American Freedoms

I have them and have read about half way through. An investment you wont regret.

18 posted on 11/28/2001 10:42:39 AM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
I'm offended I can't smoke in this laboratory. Oh well, that's what whiskey's for...
19 posted on 11/28/2001 10:44:40 AM PST by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
I am offended that the right to Free Speech as well as Freedom of Religion has been removed from anyone attending a public school.

I am offended that more conservatives don't realize that the very EXISTENCE of public schools violates our rights to free speech and religion.

Public schools rely on government force to make people pay for the advancement of ideas they do not share or condone. That is foundationally immoral.

If conservatives spent half as much time trying to get rid of public schools altogether, as they did trying to bend an inherently immoral institution to their own purposes, the world would be a better place.

20 posted on 11/28/2001 10:47:44 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
"I am offended that the right to Free Speech as well as Freedom of Religion has been removed from anyone attending a public school."

Why aren't you offended by public schools? I am offended you apprently believe I should pay to send your kids to school.
21 posted on 11/28/2001 10:51:50 AM PST by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
There are natural rights described in the Declaration, and then there is the Constitution, a social compact among We the People of the United States, that is intended to secure rights to citizens. Without that distinction, one demand that the US government secure rights deprived from citizens of other nations within their borders. The distinction among citizens and non-itizens regarding enforcement of and efforts to secure those rights must exist.
22 posted on 11/28/2001 10:52:45 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
If our rights are granted to us by the constitution and not by the creator than they are not truly rights. They are merely "allowances" that our government makes for us. Fortunately, our rights are not given to us by the constitution or the government but are the natural rights of man. We give the government permission to take some of our rights in order to provide for a common defense and to provide order over chaos. The constitution does not give us rights but rather spells out what rights we allow the governemtn to "borrow".

What are the human rights provided to us by the creator? Can you list as many as you can, if not everyone. What are the rights that the government has borrowed? Common defense against what? What order do we seek? Who defines this order or is it also defined by the creator? If we talk about a creator, then what happens to people who do not believe in a creator? I am not telling you you are wrong, but want to know understand what you are talking about, before I come to a conclusion. Thanks.

23 posted on 11/28/2001 10:53:10 AM PST by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
thanks for the post. did you know that conservatives are not allowed to rant and rave? did you know that liberals are not allowed to feel your pain? these are laws you know.

you are supposed to work your 16 hours a day from age 18 to 65, take a couple weeks off each year to see your family and hand over two thirds of your paycheck to fund the research of those who have been blessed with feeling the pain of others?

please quit whining. you are making the rest of us mad because we now know what it means to be offended.

24 posted on 11/28/2001 10:57:10 AM PST by mlocher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Im offended no one has horsewhipped you for this vanity

I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip.

25 posted on 11/28/2001 11:00:13 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ST.LOUIE1
"I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip."

I'm offended that you did not offer the use of yours....

26 posted on 11/28/2001 11:04:44 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
I have them and have read about half way through. An investment you wont regret.

Thanks! Very cool!

27 posted on 11/28/2001 11:06:07 AM PST by Mopp4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Brytani
I'm wondering how long this HATE SPEECH is going to live here on FR.

How dare you claim the ACLU & NAMBLA are offensive. Why, there's just here to help us understand homosexuality and help us be more "tolerant" of other people's views! (/puke mode)

Mega Ditto's to everything you said.

29 posted on 11/28/2001 11:09:00 AM PST by usconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
I like your vanity post, you have a good point.
30 posted on 11/28/2001 11:12:50 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
This is the best original piece I've read here in a while. Nice job!
31 posted on 11/28/2001 11:16:11 AM PST by Atticus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
I saw on tv this morning that some wife had an affair, then she told her minister, then the minister told her husband, then the husband divorced the wife, then the wife sued the minister because she said he destroyed her marriage. The jury took $65,000 from the church to compensate the woman. It is insanity. So in the future when a similar event occurs the minister will feel pressure to shelter the husband from this knowledge in order to protect the financial situation of the church. How just is it that all of those people who donated the 65 grand to the church have it taken like that.
32 posted on 11/28/2001 11:17:23 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ST.LOUIE1
I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip

I'm offended you presume I do not have one. Now, if I may offend you - what side of the river are you on ?

33 posted on 11/28/2001 11:22:08 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
"I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip."

I'm offended that you did not offer the use of yours....

I'm offended you didn't remind to offer it.

34 posted on 11/28/2001 11:23:41 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
Oh well, that's what whiskey's for...

methinks I hear a "pepsi syndrome" starting - DOH

35 posted on 11/28/2001 11:24:37 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
I find the notion of all of these things offensive, and the fact that I've been reminded of so many offensive things offends me deeply. The fact that so many people are offended so easily offends me. I'm offended by their offensive nature.
36 posted on 11/28/2001 11:24:56 AM PST by LaBradford22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ST.LOUIE1
"I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip."

I'm offended that you did not offer the use of yours....

I'm offended you didn't remind to offer it.

Well, I'm offended that you required a reminder. I bet you forget your anniversary, too? Fess up!

37 posted on 11/28/2001 11:26:42 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
GIANT OFFENSIVE (((BUMP)))
38 posted on 11/28/2001 11:43:16 AM PST by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
"pepsi syndrome"

???

39 posted on 11/28/2001 11:46:12 AM PST by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
"I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip."
I'm offended that you did not offer the use of yours....
I'm offended you didn't remind to offer it.

Well, I'm offended that you required a reminder. I bet you forget your anniversary, too? Fess up!

Nothin' to 'fess to. I'm single.

I'm offended you didn't know that.

40 posted on 11/28/2001 11:56:13 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
I saw on tv this morning that some wife had an affair, then she told her minister, then the minister told her husband, then the husband divorced the wife, then the wife sued the minister because she said he destroyed her marriage.

It all depends on the circumstances of the woman telling the clergyman. If it was in a circumstance where she was being ministered to, the minister committed a grave act. If in a casual way, then it is a different story.

41 posted on 11/28/2001 12:08:14 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
so it's your job now to pass judgement on a church's minister and say whether he did the right thing or not and then to further punish the church by taking money from them. Perhaps the minister felt it was his duty to tell the husband, perhaps the obligations that the minsiter feels are none of your business, nor of the judge that took the money from these people.
42 posted on 11/28/2001 12:16:46 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I'm offended you don't have a horsewhip

I'm offended you presume I do not have one.
Now, if I may offend you - what side of the river are you on ?

I'm offended you wouldn't know.

The West side. Beautiful Missouri.

Wole lot of offendin' goin on around here.

I'm offended.

43 posted on 11/28/2001 12:22:19 PM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
You should of named this post "I'm a offended American" it would've circulated around the internet, been e-mailed to half the people on the planet and reposted on Freerepublic about 100 times. ;)
44 posted on 11/28/2001 12:26:52 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Naw....it was George Carlin who wrote this piece! /joking
45 posted on 11/28/2001 12:27:17 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
"pepsi syndrome" ??? Omigod - I just dated myself - there was a scene on Saturday Night Live with Bill Murray in the early eighties where he works at a nuke plant - spills a pepsi on the control board and - thats how we got three mile island
46 posted on 11/28/2001 12:36:13 PM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cool Guy
What are the human rights provided to us by the creator? Can you list as many as you can, if not everyone. What are the rights that the government has borrowed? Common defense against what? What order do we seek? Who defines this order or is it also defined by the creator? If we talk about a creator, then what happens to people who do not believe in a creator? I am not telling you you are wrong, but want to know understand what you are talking about, before I come to a conclusion. Thanks.

We have right to do anything in nature. We surrender some of these rights to the community so that we can have order. By order I mean that me prevent someone from exercising their right to punch you or me in the face. The rights the government borrows are those we have agreed to allow them to have through the constitution. Our constitution (minus the bill of rights) specifies the government rights, not the people's rights. Its not neccessary to believe in a creator, simply think of them as natural rights.

Simply put some people view rights as being given by government and others as rights given by the people to government. The founders of this country believed in the second option. I suggest reading a comparison of the writings of Rousseau and Locke. Rousseau believed in government devolving power while Locke was the philosopher behind the thinking of the founders. He coined the phrase "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property."

47 posted on 11/28/2001 1:30:07 PM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
There are natural rights described in the Declaration, and then there is the Constitution, a social compact among We the People of the United States, that is intended to secure rights to citizens. Without that distinction, one demand that the US government secure rights deprived from citizens of other nations within their borders. The distinction among citizens and non-itizens regarding enforcement of and efforts to secure those rights must exist.

The constitution does NOT intend to secure rights of citizens. It describes what rights government may usurp. As a matter of fact Madison was reluctant to add a bill of rights because he felt that people would come to the conclusion that you (and in fact many modern Supreme Court Justices) have, namely that the rights in the bill of rights are the ONLY ones expressly protected. Madison included the 9th and 10th amendments for exactly this reason.

[Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

48 posted on 11/28/2001 1:37:28 PM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
so it's your job now to pass judgement on a church's minister and say whether he did the right thing or not and then to further punish the church by taking money from them. Perhaps the minister felt it was his duty to tell the husband, perhaps the obligations that the minsiter feels are none of your business, nor of the judge that took the money from these people.

It is not my job, and I would not even think to make a judgement based on the scanty facts you provided about the case. It's clear that you however,do think it's your job, and you have decided based on the same lack of information that it is ok for a cleryman to violate the confidentiality of a person who seeks his spiritual guidance.

I don't know if that is how this occurred and I stated that in my post. If it did however, then I'm confident that he acted against his own church's policy and certainly against every known precedent on the confidentiality that is assumed and rightfully expected in such cases. He could be defrocked in many denominations. The money that the judge found in compensation was from the church, not the people who belonged. They have no ownership of those funds after they give them away. The church certainly would be liable for damages if one of it's employees committed malpractice while performing duties related to his job.

I know none of this will change your mind, but Oh well.

49 posted on 11/28/2001 1:48:53 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Please don't preach thus to a person who has read ALL of Farrand's and Madison's notes. From that same Declaration you cite only selectively:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men... which was then followed by We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish. The comment stands.

BTW, as I recall it was Hamilton who criticized the BOR on the grounds of its propensity to limit rights, and we all know what a straw man that was coming from him.

The founders were good, but they weren't perfect. There are a number of things in the Constitution that should be changed.

50 posted on 11/28/2001 5:24:12 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson