Rural Lifestyle

Life in Rural America

Tag: freedom of speech

Can Not Legislate a Conscience

Kevin Felts political commentator

If there is one thing that should stop mass shootings, but fails, it has to be the conscience. The conscience is supposed to point people in the right direction. It is supposed to help us help us make the right decision. What happened to the conscience of mass shooters?

What makes mass shooters different from serial killers? Instead of killing a dozen people over the course of a decade like a serial killer, a mass shooter kills a dozen people in a few minutes.

After the Las Vegas and Parkland shootings, the gun grabbers were out in full force. The bodies were still warm when they were offered up as a sacrificial lamb to justify gun control. The bodies were held high, as if to impress the GOD of gun control.

Just as drugs and illegal immigrants slip across the border, so would illegal weapons. If border security can not stop millions of illegal immigrants, what is to assure us illegal guns can be stopped?

Rights Stripped Away

Free speech and freedom of religion

Over the past few days there has been a lot of talk on the internet about freedom of speech, and how that speech might anger certain religious groups.

If you are offended by what someone says about your religion, too bad. Being offended does not grant you special rights. Being offended does not grant you the right to restrict the rights of others.

The Muslims and the Jews say Jesus was not the messiah. That denial is offensive to me. How dare they say Jesus was not the messiah. I think Jews and Muslims need to shut the hell up, and accept Jesus as the messiah.

As much as we have the right to follow a religion, we should also have the right to be free from religion.

If someone chooses not to follow a religion, nobody should have the right to force their religion upon others. So where do Muslims get off killing Christians who renounce Islam?

Obama Congress and the NDAA

Until the people change the way they vote, we will never have real change in government. An example of this is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Part of the NDAA allows the government to detain US citizens with no access to due process.

In other words, the government can declare someone a terrorist, that someone could then be detained forever.

Why would a government that was supposed to be founded individual freedom wish to detain people without due process?

Article at RT – Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

This case will go all the way to the supreme court. I am willing to bet the supreme court rules the government can detain people that are deemed a national security risk.

The supreme court allows the government to play its “national security” trump card from time to time. All the government has to do is say the information is part of national security.

Re election of obama built on lies and deceit

Angelina river Jasper TexasThe rumor mill says that the assassination (or murder) of Anwar al-Awlaki is go9ing to boost the chances that obama will get elected.

Its a sad day for the USA when an elected official can murder US citizens without due process, and that official stands a good chance of getting re-elected. Anyone who applauds the murder of a citizen with no due process, has no place serving in public office.

This supposed “war on terror” that the US is supposed to be in, is no longer a war on terror, its a war on anyone that disagrees with US foreign policy.

The only reason why George Washington is not recorded in history as a terrorist, is because the British lost. If the red coats would have won the revolutionary war, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,,,, all everyone else that fought for freedom would have been labeled a traitor and put to death. 200+ years later, we might have even considered the founding fathers terrorist.

Assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki

Kevin Felts political commentator

Since when is it ok to kill US citizens without due process? With the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, I guess its open hunting season on people who speak out against the US Government.

Where do we draw the line?

Was Anwar al-Awlaki on the street shooting people? No, he was not. He was on the internet, talking. Since when is talking a crime? I thought political speech was protected for US citizens? Maybe freedom of political speech is only protected when its not “too” critical of the government.

Maybe the government has a sliding scale to judge if someone is “too” radical. If the person scores high in the scale, they will be put to death like a rabid dog? Who gets to make the scale? Who gets to determine who lives and who dies.

Kevin Felts © 2008 - 2018