NY Times Editorial Today
Does the subject even matter after this?
Perhaps we should restrict and regulate freedom of speech from suggesting impingement on the Bill of Rights?
Or eliminate or regulate birthright citizenship.
This is the kind of logic we are seeing from the NYT
Of course they want to deal with the 2nd Amendment of a Bill of Rights so important Jefferson told Madison the Constitution was unacceptable without the 1st 10 Amendments he worked with Madison on, being ratified WITH IT.
Why?
Because those rights are COMPULSORY to protect individuals and small minorities from BOTH the govt and the majority.
And the NYT wants to regulate the protection of individuals and minorities, and for that regulation to come from the EXACT INSTITUTION those Amendments exist to protect each one of us from.
Let’s start with regulation of the bona fides of editorial boards of newspapers by whatever govt is elected by the people that year?
How does that one grab you. you morons?
2 comments:
Turn the NYT venom on its head....
"No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."
Declare Islam NOT protected under the First Amendment.
USE PUBLIC LAW 414
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1952_immigration_and_nationality_act.html
Islam, by law, IS and MUST BE prohibited from US immigration
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States.
That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.
Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means."
This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.
Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.
All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life's guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion.
Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any "organization" that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.
Otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America, post World War II and in the early Cold War. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the US economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled. Furthermore, the most notable exclusions were anyone even remotely associated with communism which in the early days of the Cold War was seen as a serious threat to US democracy. The main objective of this was to block any spread of communism from outside post WWII countries, as well as deny any enemies of the US during WWII such as Japan and favor “good Asian” countries such as China. The McCarran-Walter Act was a strong reinforcement in immigration selection, which was labeled the best way to preserve national security and national interests. President Truman originally vetoed the law, deeming it discriminatory; however there was enough support in Congress for the law to pass.
The NYT may well have a valid point, there are some nasty scribblers about abusing the freedom of speech. An automatic 6 months bread and water to give an editor time for introspection could well change the many point of views.
Post a Comment