Papiere gefallen!

What has happened to free speech in this nation? It is a Constitutional Right guaranteed by the First Amendment to petition government and a Congressman has the nerve to ask for the identification of a constituent. It is reminiscent of those words heard in Germany in the 1940's "Papiere gefallen!" When a Congressman basically echo's "Paper's Please," then things have gone to far. It is time to return to the Constitution!

It Can Happen Here As Long As Nancy Pelosi Runs the Show

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/11/italian-bloggers-cal.html

At the risk of giving Congressional lefties any ideas, it is necessary to point out the attempt by the Italian government to license bloggers.

Italy's Parliament is seeking to get control of the country's network of free speakers on the Internet. Apparently the persistence of organized crime along with economic problems does not occupy enough time.

Europeans have a different view of rights than British and Americans, traditionally. Britain and the United States believe that rights come from God or nature and should be curtailed as little as possible. Other Europeans believe that rights are things that the government allows the people to do. A major difference of perspective separates these two conceptions of liberty.

Italy is currently controlled by a government labeled "right." It must be noted that in Italy, free market advocates are lumped in with those who pine for a watered down Mussolini. The fact that Mussolini resembles more the Communists than the capitalists apparently makes little difference.

The move is a mistake. Bloggers only stand to gain attention when their freedoms get threatened. Also, how does one patrol the internet?

Finally, it can happen here. Look at the aborted move to contain conservative talk radio. Look at the personal attacks on Rush Limbaugh. Left wing Democrats differ from plain old liberals in that their regard for the law and liberties is minimal. They want to banish conservative opinions from the air and prosecute President Bush. Conservatives must remain vigilant and not give in when the threat materializes.

I am now the liberals target

Many of you watched my appearance in a piece on "Hannity's America" on Fox News last Thursday night. The response has all been positive, but with any political discussion there are opposing views. That is what great about our country, we have the First Amendment, guaranteeing our freedom to discuss the matter openly.

I am descended directly from a Revolutionary War Solider that served five years under George Washington's command in the Continental Army. After the war he moved his family from New Jersey to the mountains around Keyser in 1782. I'm extremely proud of my heritage, my nation and my state. My ancestor took up arms against the British to form a nation based on freedom, even though he was only a foot solider, he took that same risk as all the patriots. Ben Franklin said it best at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately. " While I'm in no immediate danger of being hung for exercising my First Amendment rights, I do risk alienation from some friends and acquaintances that do not share my views. It is important that we have honest discussions of how government works and also just as important that you stick to your convictions.

Saturday on Facebook I posted a story entitled, "Military demands details on soldiers private guns." It is a story about infringement on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now I am a gun owner and strongly believe that everyone should own a gun, but I fully understand that there are people that do not agree. That is their right and it is their right to publicly oppose my view.

In follow ups to my Facebook post about the attack on the Second Amendment, one came from Jim Shumaker in which he said, "Gary ive never heaard you say a positive thing about our country or our state." Now Jim has every right to be opposed to the right to bear arms, but he should attack the message not the messenger. I will be happy to defend why I believe that people should have the right to keep and bear arms and he can explain why he disagrees with me. Questioning my love of state and country doesn't offer an opposing opinion, just a personal attack. In West Virginia and most of rural America where the owning of a gun is as much a right of passage as it is a civil right, it would be hard for Jim to offer an opposing argument that many would agree with.

That being said, the personal attack is something that liberals fall back on when they feel they are unable to defend their position. When a person begins to attack the messenger in an argument, then it typically means they have lost the argument. I would invite Jim to point out to me where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to defend the right to bear arms. For that matter to point out where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to disagree with public policy of any kind. In fact the opposite is true. It is very patriotic, if not a duty, to express your disagreement with government. The Founding Fathers wrote into the First Amendment the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to make sure the United States says a government of the people and by the people.

We must hold politicians accountable. We must challenge them on items with which we disagree. We must hold discussions amongst ourselves and educate ourselves on the issues of the day. If we do not follow politics, then politics will follow us. I invite Jim Shumaker to challenge my positions on the issues. He can make a follow up to this post and I will defend my positions as necessary, but leave the personal attacks at home.

Wvjohn and our First Amendment Rights

The internet is a great tool of receiving and providing information. This blog which has been a quite successful example of how the internet can be used effectively to provide information and opinion. The News Tribune allows people to follow up to stories that have been printed, which is a great service that they offer.

What I find funny is the lefts use of it to attack those on the right personally. People usually attack people personally when they are unable to attack the message. On the News Tribunes website I have a personal attacker that goes by the screen name of “wvjohn.”

Now when I write on News Tribune website, the Potomac Highlands Conservative or for various news papers I always use my own name. I don’t have a problem with people knowing exactly who I am when I’m stating my opinion. I want to be challenged. Through challenging my ideas you maybe able to change my opinion, but some people believe in the personal attack as a way to make their point.

Now I’m not sure what they are trying to accomplish through the personal attack. Take my follower wvjohn; he takes issue with me using my real name when I write letters to the editor. I find that strange, because when people know who you are it leads to discovery. A follow up by letter by Gerald Frantz on my comments on the water studies wasting taxpayer money, led to and invitation to speak with him personally on the subject. I want to take him up on that offer because it will further my education on the water systems in the county.

If a person chooses to hide their identity, then they are unsecure in their own opinions. They do not get to follow up on opportunities like the one presented by Mr. Frantz. Now it is clear to me that wvjohn is one of these people that believe government should control our lives. In a recent follow up on the News Tribune website he states, “Some people just want to pettition their government and get their name out there in the public eye.” He is absolutely right, I want to petition government! After all the First Amendment of the US Constitution says I have that right; Congress shall make no law abridging my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yet, wvjohn thinks it’s awful that exercise my First Amendment right, which speaks volumes. Maybe wvjohn only believes I should have the right of free speech if it is something he wants to hear?

Wvjohn, I invite you to write for the Potomac Highlands Conservative. Only rules are no personal attacks and you have to use your real name. You will have a state wide audience of over 13,000 to here your opinion and see what kind of follow commentary they have for you.

Britain Losing Its Traditions

Recently the British Government caved to demands that its court system recognize Islamic religious court decisions as binding upon Muslims. The legal system, known as Sharia, will now stand alongside that country's ancient common law as the law of the land.

This is frightening if you are British. Common law comes from a tradition that recognizes individual rights. It tore itself away from religious paternalism in the 1200s and made the English people the freest in the world at one point. Sharia comes from a tradition of social control for the benefit of the religion. Centuries ago, Roman Catholic canon law was abandoned because it was seen as incompatible with the "natural rights of Englishmen." Now the British have adopted an even more alien set of laws.

Britain will not stand for this. Most likely this move will push Britain towards a Conservative Party led government that will specifically strike this down. That being said, court decisions will be made and Sharia incorporated as precedents within the common law. Sharia has no place in the law codes of Western democratic nations that have centuries of tradition respecting individual rights.

Could this happen here? Likely not. The First Amendment so deftly used against Christian expression in public places would never allow the adoption Islamic law as a guide for our court system. America is a place where people come to escape oppression, not to recreate it. One wonders what will happen with Muslims that would rather take their chances with British law rather than religious law. Certainly many Christians would rather not be judged legally by the moral standards set by their religion. Britain, in an effort to tolerate a religion, has adopted one of the most intolerant systems of law on earth. They need to step up and get it removed before people's lives get ruined.

The Unrelenting and Mindless Power of Government

One man's weed is another man's salad.

A Keyser pastor, I won't mention his name, intentionally allowed high stands of chicory to grow at the edge of his yard along the sidewalk. Chicory is considered by many to be a weed, but the pastor explained how the roots could be ground into a decent coffee and the shoots used for salad greens. Over and above that, he simply appreciated the beauty of these plants with almost silver stalks and lovely small flowers. Did it look different than other yards? Certainly, but who cares. It is his yard.

Apparently the city cares. Cars speed up Main Street and drug use is rampant. Therefore the city has to go on weed patrol and threaten to cite individuals who choose to allow a few to grow in their yard. He complied and cut the flowers down, but the situation is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, it is a waste of taxpayer money to even use up the time to cite an otherwise well maintained yard. How can the city complain about shrinking budgets and even think about raising taxes when it uses its resources on this kind of garbage? Real criminals are out there, but we have to pay the city to harass preachers for what they choose to grow in their yard. The bigger issue is the loss of freedom. You don't lose freedom all at once, but in little slivers here and there. They count on the idea that it is more inconvenient to fight city hall than to assert one's right to grow a few harmless plants.

It all lies in the interpretation. What is a weed and what is useful? When did we grant the city the right to decide for us what is useful and what is ugly? The same danger lies in the enforcement of litter and cleanup ordinances. Government should never pass judgment on aesthetics. Most people may not like the commode used as a planter, but it is that person's right to use it as such. Not to mention the possibility that they could claim that it is art and get it protected by the First Amendment.

In cases where the public health is not directly threatened, no government should judge for the public what an individual decides to put in their yard or what they allow to grow in their yard. Government is the same in all times and places in that it is always mindless and relentless. Only a government properly restrained by the law can be trusted. Give government the power and they will use it badly in almost any situation.