Everything

Green Party calls for prosecution of white supremacist groups based on their beliefs

Published

2 years ago

August 16, 2017

Prosecuting organizations for their horrible beliefs is antithetical to the Constitution and will be more likely to strengthen rather than destroy them.

A core First Amendment right could come under renewed attack, by the Marxist-lite Green Party which seeks to use the horror of last weekend’s violent Charlottesville protests and the white supremacist groups involved there.

In a new press release, the national Green Party calls for the “vigorous prosecution of white supremacist groups responsible for the violence, injuries and deaths” which occurred last weekend. Three people, including two state police troopers and 32-year-old Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, died in connection with the protests.

However, the press release fails to distinguish between rightfully prosecutable acts of violence, which are bonafide crimes, and membership in groups which, however odious, is protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, the press release is titled, “Green Party urges prosecution of white supremacist groups for domestic terrorism in the wake of racist violence in Charlottesville.”

The question to be raised concerns the nature of the crime: Is it the violence itself, or is it the act of being in a particular group?

When tensions are high, the temptations to avoid the rule of law can become even higher. Human nature involves such passions. However, our Founding Fathers recognized the perils of those passions; indeed, that is why America is now fashioned as a constitutional republic.

To be sure, most people do not (and will not) grasp these delicate distinctions. However, such ignorance, by people who purport or aspire to be opinion leaders in society, cannot be excused or ignored. Whether this is an innocent oversight, or a more nefarious attempt to conflate and obscure the distinction between the felonies of murder or manslaughter, and membership in some of the most despicable organizations known to exist in our society, remains to be seen.

Responsible civic and opinion leaders must recognize and explain these distinctions. The tragedies of this past weekend, the results of indefensible acts by equally indefensible (and utterly repugnant) people, should not be permitted to become the pretext for a much broader wave of content-based restrictions on constitutional rights including, but not limited to, the criminalization of association by a minority which are disfavored, disapproved or merely opposed by the majority.

While today the target of such passions may be a clearly repugnant group, there can be no assurance that the precedent won’t be set for use against a broad array of groups, businesses, even churches, tomorrow.

Our Constitution, and our courts including the Supreme Court, recognize First Amendment rights as “core constitutional rights” which are not subject to restriction due to the unpopularity of any group.

Prosecuting organizations for their horrible beliefs is antithetical to the Constitution and will be more likely to strengthen rather than destroy them. The most effective way to deter future violence is to prosecute the “overt acts” of the people actually responsible.

Related Topics:First Amendment Green Party

Click to comment

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

7 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

JavaScript required We are sorry but without JavaScript enabled, this widget does not work. Please enable JavaScript in your browser’s settings and reload this page. Reload

Culture and Religion

Matthew 22:37 – ‘love the Lord thy God’

Published

9 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. – Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

We’ve all heard this verse, but have we really contemplated it? This is a verse that sits in the middle of many different things happening. The Pharisees and Sadducees were questioning Him. His answers were profound and defining.

This important portion of this message is echoed three times: all. Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the most important Commandment according to Yeshua.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Opinions

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

Published

9 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

It’s time for term limits. This has been on my heart for some time, but I have held back because there are so many other important issues to cover. Today, I realized if I wait until more pressing issues are solved, I’ll be waiting forever. There are always going to be more pressing issues than term limits, but here’s the thing. Our representatives realize this, too, which is why it’s never given the attention it deserves. They use these other issues as cover to prevent them from having to address the one issue that will affect them the most.

This is my first petition on Change.org. I’ll admit I’ve never been a fan of the site because it is mostly progressive topics on the table, but this is an issue that even progressives should be able to acknowledge as a problem.

Here’s what I posted:

Set term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators

Corruption is rampant in Washington DC. One of the biggest reasons this is the case is because lifetime politicians have become power brokers, making them the beneficiaries of favors, payoffs, and under-the-table deals. They live in a perpetual state of campaigning rather than focusing on addressing the problems that face Americans.

Term limits were never included in the Constitution because it was expected by the founders that those serving as our representatives in the legislative branch would do so as a duty to be fulfilled rather than a luxurious position of excess. They did not anticipate the electoral benefits of incumbents, nor did the realize the two-party system would polarize the nation to the point that positions could be made essentially permanent.

Power should not be accumulated over the length of a long career. It should be earned through action and earnestly held for a brief period of time. Today, too much power is consolidated in Washington DC, partially as a result of the extended lengths in which our representatives enjoy their tenure.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be there because they want to serve their country, not because they enjoy being part of the DC Country Club. Term limits are very popular among the people, but Capitol Hill continues to ignore our will by failing to address it. Why should they? Only they can be hurt by it, and it does not behoove them to hurt themselves.

Instead, they continue hurting us.

We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Imagine Capitol Hill without the perpetual campaigning. Imagine forcing our representatives to work within a time limit instead of working to stay in the DC Country Club forever. It’s time for term limits in the House and Senate.