Michigan Farmer is Allowed His 1st Ammendment Rights

[Grunt]

Democrat township officials attempt to silence a critic of Barry Barack Husein Sotoro Obama.

From FoxNation: Farmer Wins Right to Display Anti-Obama Signs on His Own Property | Anti Obama Sign | Fox Nation

 

[Expat]

Remarkable that we still have free speech in a case like this. Maybe it was a pre designated free speech zone...

 

[jwh20]

Again note the media-bias in reporting. The headline says, "Farmer wins right to display..."

The farmer already had that right but the law of the "state", or in this case the township, was an unlawful infringement.

Please don't lose sight of what the Bill of Rights actually says. These rights are pre-existing, inalienable, and granted by an authority higher than the government.

The US Constitution does not grant a right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or the right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution prohibits the government from passing laws that interfere or infringe those rights.

Perhaps you think I am nit-picking but this is a vital point.

If you forget where the rights come from, and many people today believe the government gives us these rights out of the generosity of its collective heart, then you can accept laws that infringe because you see both the Constitution and the infringing laws at the same level.

Of course the Declaration of Independence says it far better than I can:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

The source is "their Creator". This, of course, is behind the absolute insistence by the leftists on "separation of church and state." If people believe their rights come from the government, then they are dependent on that government. If people believe their rights come from a higher authority than the government (GASP!), then you have the real danger than a man will obey the higher authority rather than what is the currently fashionable "law of the land."

That creates the imperative to destroy that "higher authority" so that the state (and soon the world-state) is the highest authority.

 

[drillsgt]

Great story, I used to live around that Township, if you didn't look twice you would miss it, very small. The political demographic must have changed a bit over the years.

 

[spectre327]

Again note the media-bias in reporting. The headline says, "Farmer wins right to display..."

The farmer already had that right but the law of the "state", or in this case the township, was an unlawful infringement.

Please don't lose sight of what the Bill of Rights actually says. These rights are pre-existing, inalienable, and granted by an authority higher than the government.

The US Constitution does not grant a right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or the right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution prohibits the government from passing laws that interfere or infringe those rights.

Perhaps you think I am nit-picking but this is a vital point.

If you forget where the rights come from, and many people today believe the government gives us these rights out of the generosity of its collective heart, then you can accept laws that infringe because you see both the Constitution and the infringing laws at the same level.

Of course the Declaration of Independence says it far better than I can:



The source is "their Creator". This, of course, is behind the absolute insistence by the leftists on "separation of church and state." If people believe their rights come from the government, then they are dependent on that government. If people believe their rights come from a higher authority than the government (GASP!), then you have the real danger than a man will obey the higher authority rather than what is the currently fashionable "law of the land."

That creates the imperative to destroy that "higher authority" so that the state (and soon the world-state) is the highest authority.

WRONG. You are NOT nit-picking. You are stating a simple fact that most of us, were taught or supposed to be taught as a child. Our rights are God Given, Our Constitution was meant to define those rights and instill a means of defense to those rights. The Government has NO RIGHT to infringe on our God given rights as they are intangible and cannot be remove from us by force or penalty.

 

[ViperJock]

WRONG. You are NOT nit-picking. You are stating a simple fact that most of us, were taught or supposed to be taught as a child. Our rights are God Given, Our Constitution was meant to define those rights and instill a means of defense to those rights. The Government has NO RIGHT to infringe on our God given rights as they are intangible and cannot be remove from us by force or penalty.

ergo if you don't believe in God you don't have rights?

OR

if you don't believe in God, then you think that the constitution gives you those rights and changing the constitution can remove those rights?

Furthermore, don't confuse the fact that many of the FF were religious to think that they thought they spoke for God as prophets. While they say that certain rights were endowed by the Creator (their opinion/philosophy) It may be that they considered some of these rights to be self-evident apart from God. Finally, if you believe the Old Testament, God often had the "good guys" killing and/or otherwise violating the rights of the "bad guys." In that case, those "rights" were restricted to those who obeyed God's will. That makes things a little tricky, don't you think?

The world is full of people doing things in God's name that are surely causing him to Christ said His "Kingdom is not of this world." He allowed the Roman's to enslave and persecute his people, both Jews and new Christians. He never told them to take up arms. He did tell them to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." He expected Daniel to pray and Daniel did so, and was willing to die for it. He didn't Tell Daniel to raise a militia. He watched as his apostles were hunted down and slain, there is no evidence he ever told them to take up a sword. Kind of contradicts the way a lot of people's views of what God wants us to do?

**Mods: I'm not promoting or detracting from any religion, just showing how the argument of "God wants me to be free and armed" may not be entirely adequate.

As a deeply religious person I think that men who can let other men be free are better men. I think that self defense is generally ok. But, I think that God wants us to treat each other nicely, not necessarily that he wants us to fight for perceived "God given" rights. Too many Christians avoid Matthew 5.

 

[rambone]

The political demographic must have changed a bit over the years.

The urbanite anti-property rights crowd must have moved in and started calling the police on their neighbors.

Help! MEYE RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THAT SIGN! MOOOMMM.

Farmer Wins Right to Display Anti-Obama Signs On His Own Property | CNS News

 

[jwh20]

ergo if you don't believe in God you don't have rights?

OR

if you don't believe in God, then you think that the constitution gives you those rights and changing the constitution can remove those rights?

No, I don't believe anyone here said that. The founders and authors of the Declaration and the Constitution believed that these rights were pre-existing and were not something that governments could give but they realized, from first-hand experience, that government could and would take these rights away if it suited the "mob" of the day. That's why they wrote the specific rights they did into the Bill of Rights and made it quite difficult to change the Constitution.

So regardless of whether you believe in a "Creator" or not, you benefit from the ideas they had about rights. In the late 1700's the idea that common people (i.e. not royalty or nobility) had rights was actually radical.

Again the idea here is that rights are inherent not granted, they are universal not selective, and they can easily be lost if not protected. All too often in history people have willingly traded their rights for what they thought was a promise of "peace and safety." What most fail to comprehend is that peace and safety cannot be given except at the cost of all liberty.