Video Podcast – Faux-Females to Ruin Olympics – New S.C. required Student Reading

Olympic Athletes train for two goals. First to be chosen by your country to represent them, and second to bring home a medal – preferably Gold. And to do this they train most of their lives to get this one shot at being the best. One Shot! And then some guy who thinks he’s a girl is allowed in to undercut the real womens’ life-long dream. That’s seems fair!

The South Carolina Reinforcing College Education on America’s Constitutional Heritage (REACH) Act requires students, at a minimum, to read the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Emancipation Proclamation in their entireties, as well as “a minimum of five essays in their entirety from the Federalist Papers” and “one or more documents that are foundational to the African American Freedom struggle.”

Well Hooray for South Carolina! read more

WND Exclusive – 2nd Amendment: What does ‘bear Arms’ really mean?

from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

Well, our vaunted United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case regarding the Second Amendment.

This is pretty uncommon, but it does happen – mostly because the Supremes over the years haven’t dared to actually do their jobs to the fullest, so their decisions seem to encompass a narrow scope and half-measures, never fully putting to bed that the Second Amendment clearly gives the right of an individual to “keep,” which means to own, and “bear,” which means to carry, arms on one’s person.

The Second Amendment makes no distinction between open and concealed carry, and thus any argument against either is moot. Nor does it make mention of licenses and/or permits, which is what this upcoming case is about, so these, too, are moot. read more

The Big 6 are limiting Free Speech

by: Brent Smith

Technology has proven to be a very worrisome double edged sword. On one hand, it has never been easier to disseminate your views and opinion.

You can self-publish an entire book for next to nothing, start your own news, opinion or entertainment website. You are able to “go live” on the internet whenever the spirit moves you.

But on the other hand, if your news, opinion or entertainment is somehow displeasing to the corporation providing you the platform, the corporation, not the government, is who you have to fear from them shutting you down.

It is a strange time we live in that we have to fear both the power of the government and so-called private industry. But which is to be feared most?

from the Federalist:

Is Big Business Now A Greater Threat To Free Speech Than Government?

As I wrote in a preceding essay, the First Amendment was written to limit the government’s power. In the 18th century, only the state was conceived as possibly wielding the power to keep free people from speaking their minds. Thus, if maintaining a free people requires free speech, it followed that the government must be kept from controlling speech. For a long time, no more was necessary, but that would change.

As the United States grew in population and prosperity, there was very little agitation against business. There did not need to be. Most businesses were small affairs, owned by one man or one family, employing a handful of workers. Relations between labor and management were dealt with between individuals.

In 1854, Abraham Lincoln summarized this small-scale economy, speaking of a system in which a man “may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Yet as corporations grew in size and power, that “true system” changed. Instead of one apprentice negotiating with an owner, a company that employed thousands would tell workers what they would get: take it or leave it.

In response, workers began to join together in trade unions, leveling the playing field, although diminishing their own independence. The balance between workers and management was restored, but the growing power of corporations still overpowered that of individual consumers.

Antitrust and utility laws were the response, but none of this much affected the realm of free speech. There was no news monopoly — newspapers were more plentiful than today — and restrictions on the new technology of radio came from the government, not the station owners. The biggest threat to the practice of free speech remained the state.

Read more

Is the Bill of Rights Absolute?

by: Brent Smith

Scroll Down for Audio Version

When speaking about the Second Amendment, Lunchbox Joe Biden recently said that “no amendment is absolute.”

Well Lunchbox. If you mean that amendments are not perfect and not beyond change – then you’re right. But if Joe, or whoever wrote what Joe was reading, means that amendments can just be restricted or limited by a single executive’s edict, by legislative action, or just ignored all together, he is dead wrong.

And we all know what he means. It’s the latter, not the former. read more

Just get Vaccinated and You can Keep Your Rights

by: Brent Smith

And if you don’t … well … we’re not quite ready to discuss that. Not yet anyway.

Just last weekend my World Net Daily article was about how America is sliding toward Despotism.

In it I quoted a pretty smart guy by the name of Benjamin Franklin. You may have heard of him.

No doubt, at least a few who read it, rolled their eyes, thinking that this is just more hyperbole from the Common Conspiracist. Here’s old Ben’s quote. read more