Monday, June 25, 2007

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

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.

If you're one of those who doesn't know the names of anyone on the Supreme court, much less the name of the Chief Justice, perhaps it's time you learned. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on another loss for America to the forces of the Right. You voted for these people, you'd better learn to like what your got because we're stuck with them for a long, long time.

In the words of a TV judge from Texas, "what part of abridge didn't you understand?" Chief Justice Roberts probably knows what it means to "abridge." It means to cut short or to curtail which is exactly what has just been done by the Supreme Court ruling today concerning the constitutional right of Joseph Frederick to fly a banner expressing a somewhat enigmatic statement he claims he got from a bumper sticker: Bong Hits 4 Jesus. The courts sided with a disciplinarian high school principal who suspended him for ten days for doing it and another five for quoting Thomas Jefferson as saying "speech limited is speech lost."

Jefferson was right, the constitution is explicit and the judges appointed by our activist President have taken another step toward creating the sort of government Jefferson thought it would take the blood of patriots to overturn. I hope he isn't right again, but if the supreme court will allow someone to be punished for expressing an opinion in the public streets, they have today joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom and further established the illegitimacy of our current government.

UPDATE

Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion says:
“This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.”
The dissenting pro-freedom voice won't even be with us for much longer. It's just some old folks who remember freedom against the young dogs of Bush. I have to wonder how this activist court will continue to encroach on our basic freedoms using the ancient excuse of protecting the children. Since it's illegal for minors to use alcohol, will they be subject to punishment for reading about Jesus changing water to wine or talking about it in Sunday school? Will wearing a picture of Bogart with his perennial cigarette get them expelled?

Don't laugh, the history of cyrptofascism in the Court suggests this isn't fantasy. The court has been trying to shut us up for years and now that Bush has sent in reenforcements, I can't hope to live long enough to see them gone.

Look what you did when you voted for Bush - just look at what you did.

10 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Is there anything left in the Constitution or has 6 years of Bush pretty much rendered it moot?

Capt. Fogg said...

Nah - it's just a quaint old document from before 9/11.

expatbrian said...

The freedom of speech violation is so obvious here that it is amazing it ever made it to the Supreme Court. BTW, you mention that we "voted for" these folks. Aren't the justices nominated by the Pres and confirmed by congress?

Capt. Fogg said...

Sure - we voted for the bozos who appointed them and the bozos who confirmed them. They were put there to further the agenda of the fascists who hate us for our freedom.

Janet said...

Tired of inaction? Corruption?
Sorry this is off topic but we have devised a plan to put pressure on the press. They think we are not out here seething. Well, we are. Please check out my homepage to see what we are planning

ej said...

Why don't you just shut up!?

Wait till we get the Internet this Fall...then all you keyboard komandos and pontificating bloggers will know what it is like to live in China today.

Then again, you could get off your lazy butts, shut off the computer and take it to the streets...

Only 100,000 of us NATIONWIDE marched weeks ago against the madness...were you there? Well, were you? Prob not, prob too busy for real activism hey?

Capt. Fogg said...

What the hell are you talking about? I already do know what it's like to live in China, hao ba?

I've done my marching and probably before you were born - it doesn't work and it never did and it never will when there is a government that not only doesn't care what you think but prides itself on not caring what you think.

We need a revolution, not a demonstration. Fortunately we have a mechanism for quiet bloodless revolution built into our constitution and we need to use it before it's too late; while there still is a constitution; while it can still grow from the will of the people and the power of the law and not from the barrel of a gun. I'm ready for either.

What about you, big shot?

ej said...

To capt. fogg

First of all the "shut up, etc." was obviously dark humor based on the subject at hand.

Secondly marching isn't about affecting change in the government thinking it is to inspire our fellow citizens to action. When only a football stadium worth of people get out and take a stand, it tells our fellow citizens who are asleep it doesn't mattter.

Third I have been a social and political activist since the free speech demonstrations at Berkeley. I've been shot at, followed, phone tapped and much more for my political envolvement with AIM, and other groups. In my work I've met the Kennedys, C. Cahvez, Dennis Banks, and many more.

I covered the first Women Take Back the Night march in 1980 in Minneapolis for KPFA radio and made documentarys on my work. So before you make rash judgements and name call you should ask, not tell.

And regarding your "revolution" bravado, as a vet I can guarantee you it is not like the movies. In all the martial arts the last thing a real warrior wants is to fight.

One of the best things a person can do today is help support Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination. He is the only adult running.

Peace

Capt. Fogg said...

Well, nobody likes to be told to shut up. Sounds more like fighting words than dark sarcasm in the classroom and it doesn't normally elicit anything but anger.

But sorry, I don't think a million people out in the street would do much more than consolidate support for the government. My preference is for impeachment and criminal prosecution but if Bush is willing to leave office rather than to declare marshal law, we won't need guns. If he follows through on the plans he has set up to make himself a dictator, things might be different. They might have to be.

Paul appeals to my libertarian side and so far I have been saying good things about him here.

ej said...

Capt. Fogg said...
>>Well, nobody likes to be told to shut up.>>

True, and like I said, it was my bad.

>>Sounds more like fighting words..it doesn't normally elicit anything but anger.>>

I hang with folks who have that ascerbic side and talking about freedom of speech, well, couldn't pass on it.

>>But sorry, I don't think a million people out in the street would do much more than consolidate support for the government.>>

Don't know how that would happen if they were yelling at the government?? It takes a very small percentage of the people to be the fighters, but they need to know others have their backs. To me, that is what a huge turn out would provide...confidence in the tribe.

>>My preference is for impeachment and criminal prosecution>>

As is any rational person's hey? But we are dealing with neo-con, New World Order, murdering, sociopaths who have hard nipples from pulling off 911, the war, the patriot act, "clear skies" act, etc.

>>but if Bush is willing to leave office rather than to declare marshal law, we won't need guns.>>

Totally agree.

>>If he follows through...to make himself a dictator, things might be different. They might have to be.>>

That is why I feel/felt a bigger turn out would validate we'll have folks at our side when our back's to the wall.

>>Paul appeals to my libertarian side>>

He appeals to my grown up, rational, humanitarian side as well. He's not perfect but he is NOT the better of x amount of evils...he truly is a patriot at heart.

>>and so far I have been saying good things about him here.>>

I'm new here so I haven't any histroy of bloggers in my head. Some sites I go to have "alpha bloggers" who dominate the posts with their negative rants and pissy BS.