Counter Culture 1 - Katie Hopins

Some of my fellow socio-political economic religious thinkers get almost depressed or feel hopeless, seeing our civilization being beat down. It seems no one is fighting back and speaking for the regular folks. This and a couple of other posts I’m setting up today is just to make a few of you on the edge of despair aware of a couple things and a few people that have the intellect, honesty, skills and abilities to effect change and push back.  

Katie Hopkins is a media presenter, commentator and journalist. She’s part of the counter cultural movement against anti free speech, anti-freedom, and the outrages of the elites that ignore our votes.  Some examples are ignoring the vote on Brexit, massive illegal immigration push into Europe, and in the US protecting our southern border. This is a half hour vid that covers just about all the issues of our own “leaders” killing western civilization. I first saw her on Tucker Carlson and on Stefan Molyneux’ YouTube program. Both interviews were great and worth watching. This is just full bore Hopkins. I hope you watch it. Leftists, secularists, elitists will hate it. They should watch it too; step out of their bubble. 



And of course the Left engages in mudslinging and hate speech against her.

Giving Up Liberty

Magna Carta Libertatum is the whole title to the document. It placed restraints on the king. The US Constitution placed restraints on the government, the political class. Both focused on the rights of people. The most recent attack on Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party, is beyond just that. It’s an attack on liberty.

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.” Danica Patrick

For those that don’t know, Patrick is a sexy race car driver and model. She has hit here on the mindset of a growing number of citizens that it’s okay to give up individual liberty and submit to the State. It’s severely bothersome and disconcerting to me that for the five thousand years or so of civilization prior to the founding of the republic of America, Man has lived under tyranny. Just look how long and slow progress was; spiritually and physically. Just look at all the cool stuff we’ve got in the last couple hundred years or so. There’s more progress in freedom and goodies than all the history preceding the US Constitution.

The primary reason, arguably the only reason, for this explosion of creativity, innovation, and personal wealth is the power of the State had its wings clipped. People were able to do things for themselves, family and community, and all have benefitted. Now the State’s feathers of oppression have grown back.

The latest, of course, is the attempt to control the Catholic Church and by extension Christians, so Freedom of Religion gets clipped. Even those not tolerant of organized religion should take note because every tyranny begins with the crushing of Christians and Jews (anti-Semitism is on the rise). Freedom of Speech is clipped by “political correctness” and name calling. If you disagree with Obama’s policies you’re a racist, if you don’t approve of homosexuality or gay marriage you’re a bigot, if you don’t think employees or taxpayers should be paying for someone else’s abortions or contraceptives, you're a sexist.

Case in point from Chris Matthews: “There are a number of people who have chosen to convert to the Catholic faith because they don’t like the liberal positions taken by their sectarian groups, that’s a fact, you can write that down. . . .I’m saying that some people who are bigoted against gay people have changed religions, yes.”

Then there’s Obama’s statement: “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It’s an anathema to these Statists that people actually believe in God because they believe, not because the government isn’t fulfilling some need in their lives. Statists want Religion out of the way because it creates a vacuum for the State to fill. They want all citizens replace their religion with the Religion of the State like they have.

Now the government tells us what light bulbs we can use, even though the one’s we will soon be forced to buy provide worse light and are dangerous and toxic. Some public schools are forcing parents to buy school lunches, deeming home made sack lunches not healthy enough. I read one incident where the school didn’t let a kid eat his lunch meat sandwich from home and eat at the school cafeteria; the replacement meal was “chicken” nuggets. Really? The government is installing “smart meters” on homes to control your house temperature, what and how many appliances you can run. They have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to ban smoking in cars and homes. They tell restaurants how much sugar and salt they can use in their recipes. The tax code is designed to limit your income; they are mandating how much you may earn.  In California parents have to keep their kids in booster seats until they are 57” tall. Some kids will be in them until they’re 10 or 12 years old. This was a safety problem? If the people vote on something, and the government doesn't like the outcome, they just get a judge say it's unconstitutional and overturn the will people and their representatives.

“We are only a few days away from fundamentally transforming America!” Barack Obama, November 2008

Obama’s “accommodation” to the Catholic Church is to have insurance companies pay for contraception and whatever else, so the employees will have these for free. Statists say things are for free, if only we give them more power and money. Power to not obey the laws the rest of us are forced to obey, and money so they can live large with the things we can no longer afford because they took our money.

The cost of all that free stuff? The U.S. government debt is currently $44,215 per person. Obama’s own budget numbers show it will rise over the next ten years to $75,000.

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.” Truly?

It's Okay To Talk Politics, Except If You're a Christian, and Especially If You're In Church

About the only time you’ll see Democrat politicians in church is at election time, and usually in Black churches. They’re all for separation of church and state the rest of the time. That’s because more Democrats believe in UFO’s than God (several polls over several years), and are mostly secularists and atheists that believe government should be more powerful than God; that people should bow down and submit to them.

The rest of the time, the rest of us, believe and a lot go to church. We live in an overheated political time, and by law clergy can’t make any political comments from the pulpit. This is an IRS rule made in 1954 because some minister criticized Senator Lyndon Johnson. Really, what was he thinking criticizing one of the most powerful Statists of the time?

Two questions arise from this. Where’s the free speech? Even though the government uses taxes to control behavior, what’s the government (via the IRS) doing in churches monitoring speech?

This Sunday is Pulpit Freedom Sunday. What ministers are doing nationwide (this isn’t the first year) is making political points in their sermons and sending the transcripts to the IRS; then daring them to prosecute.

Personally, I don’t want to hear political stuff from pastors when I’m in church. They do though have a right to say what they want. Something about that pesky Constitution. Going back to the time of the founding of this country, a lot of political observations about candidates and their behavior were made from the pulpit. Were politicians living or at least trying to live according to the word of God? That’s something important to Believers.

We should roll back the IRS rule to before when Lyndon Johnson was offended, kick the IRS out of the business of controlling free speech in churches, and make a new rule that when a secularist Dem goes to speak politics at a church during elections, they have to pay a hypocrisy tax. 

Dems and Straight Talk Campaign for 2010

Looking at how the Dems are activating their policies, wouldn't be great if they campaigned on what they were doing; not doing and saying they aren't doing it? I know, a bit convoluted, but you'll get the drift here in a minute.

They way they have attacked Arizona, trying to destroy and impoverish American citizens that live there, advocating for the violation of immigration law, and being pro illegal immigration. Here's what they should be saying during their campaign: We advocate for the repeal of existing Federal immigration law. We advocate for open borders so there won't be any illegal immigration. We think anyone that came to this country illegally be given citizenship and registered as a Democrat immediately.

Dems were and are for, TARP, the Bailout, stimulus package, largess to Goldman Sachs and hiring their execs into positions of gov't power, the buying of private companies with printed money and (not yet received) taxes. The US has the highest (maybe second highest) Corporate tax rate in the world. They should be saying in next election: We believe in a weak private sector controlled by government, and all corporate profits should go to the government.

Taxes go up for the half of the country that pay taxes for the non-producing half every time Democrats are in power. The campaign: The money you make belongs to the government, and we'll decide how much of it you get to keep. We have to keep our constituents housed and fed.

Dems are against drilling for oil, oil exploration, coal power, nuclear power, building refineries. They should run on: We know alternative energy sources are really expensive and inefficient, but we are stopping all production of traditional energy sources. Only Venezuela, Vietnam, China and Cuba will be allowed to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. We will agree to pay whatever price they set. GE will be the sole provider of Green Energy and Energy products and services.

Dems have been criticizing Israel and giving a pass to Iran's nuclear armament programs, and not really blaming Hamas, PLO and those guys for much of anything. Dems should just campaign on: We support Terrorist States, and do not support democratic states in the Middle East. We do not support Israel defending itself, and will require they disarm. They are the true threat to Middle East peace.

Dems are for the Fairness Doctrine, and their Supreme Court nominee doesn't think the Constitution allows free speech (really, it's in a published paper she wrote). The Fairness Doctrine is about killing conservative media outlets, and anti-free speech Kagan they wholehearted support. They should campaign: We advocate for an amendment to the Constitution enumerating powers to the government to limit free speech.

Dems passed health care. Honest people, ones that have read the bill, know that it removes all private/personal choice regarding health issues from people. They should campaign: Gov't medical care is the best way, that politicians and government workers know best what medical issues are most important, and how to deal with them. Abortion should be government funded because it is a health issue.

These and a few others, campaign on them, make them a part of the Party Platform, and Dems will absolutely be swept into power unopposed. They're already doing these things, they should just say this is what they're doing. Come on now. Be honest. It's good for you.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan-Anti-Free Speech

Seriously. She wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, titled 'Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,'that the free speech clause allows the government to limit speech if the government can show "proper intent" to limit speech. I've linked to the actual paper so you can see for yourself how she justifies limiting free speech.

Reminder of what the Constitution says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

It's pretty clear that 'no law' means 'no law'. That freedom of speech cannot be "abridged".

In her paper she advocates for just such governmental restrictions on free speech, as long as it can justify itself by presenting "proper intent".

She wrote that government can restrict speech if it deems that the speech may cause harm. She advocates governmental restrictions on speech that it thinks is an incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words. If the government decides that your words cause harm, in their view, you can be shut down and punished. Some of my Statist friends may like this idea, along with Obama, the Jurassic Press and Dems would like to shut down Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, etc., so this could be a good thing. Hmmmmm, how about a Conservative president and Congress that see's the Statist reporting of MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo etc., show harm in their view?

Kagan: “The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression.” “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.” Prez and his boy and girls see harm-based reason, as they define it, can shut down free speech?

Do you really what a Supreme Court Justice that believes the government should regulate speech?

This alone disqualifies her.

Cass Sunstein, Obama's Newest Wacky and Dangerous Czar

Okay then. This guy thinks animals should be able to sue humans, along with some other really, truly novel perceptions of reality. I'm thinking this guy lives in Carlos Castenada's 'separate reality' without the aid of peyote.

His own words:
"Representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children's behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property."

He's also mastering 'Newspeak". Check out this take on 'libertarian':
"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer."

"Libertarian Paternalism" This would be a funny oxymoron, except this guy is serious.

Like free speech? "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?" Fellow bloggers and other internet purveyors of info, are you ready for the heavy hand of government to come down on you?

Good Grief. These czars are for the most part radical academics, like our Dear Leader. Make no mistake about it, the reason this guy, Van Jones, and the other radical czars, answerable only to the Bamster, are being hired by him, is because they think and have the same values and belief system as him.

Obama Admin Campaign Against Free Speech Continues

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. Just appointed as 'Chief Diversity Officer' is Mark Lloyd. He was a Senior Fellow at the (Statist) Center for American Progress (CAP), and co-wrote, in 2007 for them, an anti-free speech screed "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."

Leftists on the radio can't get anyone to listen to them; unless paid for by taxpayers (NPR). Their talk shows have tiny audiences. Since the MSM is the media wing of the Democrat party, I really don't get their beef against Conservative talk radio. They have lots of Statist outlets...ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, NY Times, LA Times, etc. They present their Statists views as news. Talk radio is opinion, presented as opinion. Oh yeah! If you don't agree with them shut up or they'll shut you down! And use the government to do it. Used to be called "The Fairness Doctrine" which was exposed for what it was, so now it's called "localism". (Like 'global warming' is now 'climate change'.)

What this character Lloyd advocates are steps to stamp out Conservative talk radio. Christian radio is on the chopping block too. The free market is a problem for this guy, as it is for our Dear Leader and his Statist friends. Some solutions: Go back to limiting how many stations anyone can own, and control who owns them.
Require more local control and local coverage (the FEDERAL FCC will administer that of course). If a station doesn't have the proper (federally imposed) public interest or "balanced" programming, then a fine will be imposed to support (Statist) public broadcasting.

There you go. Can't compete in the free market, use the government to bludgeon and bankrupt the opposition.

White House Supression of Free Speech

White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

This statement has to do with the (un)Stimulus Package. See, if you criticize Obama, not only will you be slandered (racist, bigot, homophobe) but now your speech (criticism) will be shut down altogether. How dare you question our Dear Leader!