Freedom? Or Left Wing Thuggery?

* The US Patent and Trademark Office decided the Washington Redskins name was too offensive to allow them to continue with their decades old trademark. Never mind the potential impact on a multi-billion dollar business. Never mind that one should be able to name their business as they see fit. And never mind that it is a small minority of people who claim offense at the Redskins name.

* Here's an idea. Let's ban any use of the word "Indian" or related names. Let's say goodby to the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles, and on and on. The Cleveland Browns? That must be racist. All the teams and schools with "warrior" in their names. Even if not connected to an Indian logo, "warrior" must be offensive to any number of the anti-war crowd. In speaking with a liberal friend he indicated that the Redskins issue was of no concern to him. As Dennis Prager says, liberty is a non-issue for the left. Rather, they care about equality (and abortion and gay marriage, of course).

* But the anti-free speech crowd (aka the Democrat party) has a much bigger goal: the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Recall Obama criticizing the Supreme Court at his State of the Union Speech in 2010 for their Citizens United decision? That decision allowed unlimited expenditure of money for campaign ads as long as there was no coordination with any candidate for political office. It should be obvious that having money allows one to get their message (you know, speech) out to a large audience. The Dems also argued that corporations have no speech rights. Tell that to the NY Times, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and numerous other corporate entities whose business is, well, speech.

* The Dems believe that Congress (a group that I would always trust with protecting my liberty) should have the power to regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." (Information from a Wall Street Journal article by Senator Ted Cruz, 6/2/14.) If you think that amending the First Amendment is a non-issue, or will have no impact on you, think again. During the oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Citizens United case, the Obama Administration contended that the government could ban books containing political speech. Books, people!

* But who needs the Constitution or the First Amendment. That document is so old. We need a "living, breathing" Constitution, because today's politicians are so much wiser than the Founding Fathers. Right?

* Think students should have the right to hear various political viewpoints? Not in Woodbury, Connecticut. One student was preparing for a discussion or paper on gun control. Using a computer in his high school he had no problem getting access to anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment sites. Surprise! No access to the NRA site. Democrat Party site? No problem. Republican Party? Surprise again! No access. The best? No problem getting access to Islam-guide.com. But Christianity.com or the Vatican's web site? You're not still surprised, are you?

* I'm sure this lack of access to conservative sites was a pure coincidence, or maybe an accident. Just like the IRS losing 7 hard drives with 2 years worth of emails just when the agency was targeting Tea Party groups and other conservatives. (But I digress, and that's a subject for another post.)