Whose Rights?

Whose Rights?

Free Speech

Reading the summary of Hillary Clinton’s recent interview on CNN, I discerned vague verbiage that implied the Democrats desire to control our Constitutional rights. She was particularly critical about section 203, the Communications Act of 1934, a 70-year-old law. This section of the law gives immunity for social media platforms regarding the content posted by the general public. This exception was meant to protect free speech which is already protected in our Bill of Rights. Posts that are a threat to children, their innocence or integrity need to be controlled as support to parents. Ultimately it is the parents’ responsibility to monitor what their children view.  It is not the government's job to monitor its citizens unless they are the subject of a crime.

Mrs. Clinton believes people should be judged on the content of what they post. That is censorship! She stated,” these platforms, if they don't moderate and monitor content, we lose control!” I want to know who is we? The Democrats? What right do they have to control our speech? Perhaps clearly stated threats or treason should be monitored and immorality, like pornography, should be blocked for the protection of children.  I agree there needs to be guard rails to protect children but there should be no liability for a citizen expressing  personal opinions.

Freedom of speech freedom, of the press and freedom of religion are safeguards built into our Constitution.  Christian posts are too frequently taken down, but posts that offend various religions remain posted. Hate speech is only censored if it offends some groups and not others, mostly Christians. Senator Eric Schmidt commented, “the real threat to democracy is the democrats unquenchable desire for censorship.”

Mrs. Clinton further stated, “So hopefully the election will turn out the right way and we can go back to getting our communities on the right track.”  It seems obvious that the “right” way refers to a democratic win. Who defines which track is the right one and who is it right for?  The country or the Democrats?  That is probably a personal decision for each voter and that the election will turn out the right way according to what she implies to be a democratic win because are only the Democrats right?

In a previous article of mine “Catholics 4 Kamala”, I itemized my reasons why Catholics cannot morally vote for a candidate that blatantly opposes everything the Catholic Church stands for, the Church of Christ. To do so is sinful. If the Democrats win I believe they will initiate a campaign against not only Christian posts, but against churches, ministers Christian authors, and anything or anyone that opposes the government controls that will likely be forced on the country.

Patrick Henry once said,” Give me liberty or give me death!  Our Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights for just such times as these!  Jesus and the martyrs literally gave their lives to uphold truth. What are we willing to lay down our prejudices for?  We are forced to choose between people who blatantly oppose the Gospel and have gotten nothing accomplished for the good of the country in four years? Versus a candidate who does has a shady history of personal relationships and the use of his personal wealth. He too had four years in office where he stopped our enemies, demanded payment on the debts owed since the end of World War II, brought US industries back to American soil and won the respect of foreign governments (even if they didn’t like him) and left office with a sound economy in place. Government isn’t about being  right as much as it is about upholding the Constitution. For this they took an oath before God.

He was framed for January 6th events and election irregularities that have since been proven false. Millions of American tax dollars were spent to destroy his reputation and his finances. Then two assassination attempts were made to prevent his election. We can dislike a person, but it is sinful to do what has been done to an ex-president or anyone else. It is also sinful to elect someone who promises to devalue new life and devalue American citizen’s intelligence by promising what they won't deliver, based on their past history.

One candidate promises hope as we experienced 4 years ago: the other promises multiple violations of the 10 commandments. Even if God had a vote, I believe he would choose the one whose promises are more moral then immoral. We should not vote by personality but by the record of their past political record. Actions speak louder than words.

 Let us pray for God's will to be on earth as it is in heaven. He is the Lord of history.