Turns out Tom Brady has deflated balls after all....

Tom Brady, enamored with his own celebrity, and completely ignorant of the extent of his intellectual paucity, has referred to President Donald Trump as "divisive" for asserting that NFL Football players should observe respect and proper protocol toward the United States Flag and the National Anthem.  See here.

Of course, President Trump is correct:


"Proper protocol for Star-Spangled Banner is found in a separate code under Title 36 of Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies,and Organizations, and listed under Chapter 3, Section 301 on the National Anthem:xx During a rendition of the National Anthem, when the flag is displayed, (a) all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (b) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (c) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (d) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed."

Source:

http://legionstuff.blogspot.com/2011/11/proper-protocol-for-allegiance-natl.html?m=1

But for sniveling simps like Tom Brady, who understand nothing of the sacrifices made by professional soldiers such as my father Joe Melanson and my uncle Arthur, whose body was never recovered, "freedom of speech" includes dissing the United Stated Flag and the National Anthem.

I think he may have received one too many concussions.

Pauline Hanson once said, "To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag."

To individuals like Tom Brady, infected by a sophomoric philosophy, the flag is nothing more than a useless symbol, so why respect it? And our national anthem is something to be pissed on in the name of political expediency and appeals to "freedom of speech," akin to Serrano's display of freedom of speech with his "Piss Christ."

Boycott the NFL.  And while you're at it, Tom Brady.

Plano Independent School District wants to ban First Amendment rights of elementary students who want to reference Jesus or God

An article from World Net Daily is reporting that, "A hearing is scheduled Monday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that could determine if students in elementary schools have the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced 'God' or 'Jesus.'

According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banned 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.

'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'' the Institute reported.

But that's not all, the group said.

'They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq.'

The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their 'immunity' failed.

Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.

The school officials are arguing 'that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students,' explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute."

Well then, Plano Independent School District officials are wrong.  The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact...The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech.  This provision means what it says.  We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances.  But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom."

What the Supreme Court said in Tinker is that free speech rights of students can only be "carefully restricted" or "reasonably regulated" by school administrators.  And only if these school administrators can show that such free speech rights would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission. Is there anyone out there - who is sane - who can argue that a pencil which mentions God or a candy cane with Jesus' name on it constitutes a substantial disruption of a school's educational mission?

It is my firm belief that the Plano Independent School District officials in question could benefit greatly from a mental-health checkup.  Not to mention a brief primer in constitutional law.

Stuart Reid gets it wrong...

Stuart Reid over at The Catholic Herald, one of England's leading Catholic newspapers, isn't very happy with the new website founded by Deacon Nick Donnelly entitled Protect the Pope. Mr. Reid writes, "What troubles me especially is that they seem to encourage a ghetto mentality among the faithful....On their website they encourage frightened and intimidated Catholics - when was the last time you met a Catholic who was genuinely frightened and intimidated? - to register complaints about hate crimes with their local police force.." (See full article here).

I don't actually have to look very far Mr. Reid. I was personally threatened by a homosexual activist who promised to execute me with his high-powered rifle simply because I promote and defend the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person. Does that work for you? One could just as easily ask how many homosexual persons have been genuinely frightened and intimidated. And yet the homosexual community continues to claim victim status as part of its propaganda campaign to advance the homosexual lifestyle. There is more than ample evidence of a mounting Christianophobia throughout the world. See here for some specific cases.

Mr. Reid would appear to defend a freedom of expression which is divorced from Catholic teaching. He writes, "The Protect the Pope website declares: 'Of course people in this country have freedom of expression, but this does not mean they have the right to create a climate of hostility and fear.' But that, of course, is precisely what it does mean, in practice..." This might indeed be the accepted notion of freedom of expression 'in practice," but Mr. Donnelly is correct, such a notion of freedom of speech is distorted. Reid continues, "It is by creating a climate of fear and hostility that press barons sell newspapers, political parties win votes and Boots the chemist sells deodorants."

But are we not called to something better Mr. Reid? Or have you bought into the secularistic-materialistic mindset to such an extent that you see no problem whatsoever with such manipulation carried out by the media? Inter Mirifica, the Decree on the Media of Social Communications of Vatican II, had this to say, "Since public opinion exercises the greatest power and authority today in every sphere of life, both private and public, every member of society must fulfill the demands of justice and charity in this area. As a result, all must strive, through these media as well, to form and spread sound public opinion." (No. 8).

The Decree continues, "The principle moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communication falls on newsmen, writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critic and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations. It is quite evident what gravely important responsibilities they have in the present day when they are in a position to lead the human race to good or evil by informing or arousing mankind. Thus, they must adjust their economic, political or artistic and technical aspects so as never to oppose the common good." (No. 11).

In short, freedom implies responsibility Mr. Reid. There is an intimate relationship between freedom and truth. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to 'the slavery of sin." (CCC, 1733).

The choice to do evil is an abuse of freedom. Which is why Deacon Donnelly said that people have a right to freedom of expression but not a right to create a climate of hostility and fear. There can never be a right to do evil. Such a notion is an abuse of freedom.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so eloquently warned that: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. This is considered to be part of freedom, and theoretically counterbalanced by the young peoples' right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil." ("A World Split Apart," Commencement Address at Harvard University, June 8, 1978, reprinted in National Review, July 7, 1978).

Which is why we are now facing what Pope Benedict XVI has rightly termed a "Dictatorship of Relativism." It is this dictatorship of relativism which is gradually placing Catholics in a ghetto. Not the actions of devout Catholics like Deacon Donnelly who love the Vicar of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts: Elena Kagan claim "startling and dangerous."

In an article written by Jacob Sullum entitled "Elena Kagan Looks Wobbly on Freedom of Speech," Jacob Sullum explains that, "Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. 'Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,' she wrote, 'depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.'

Writing for the 8-to-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim 'startling and dangerous,' adding: 'The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.'"

Knowing that socialists view orthodox Christianity as an enemy and an obstacle to their program, how would Christian speech which expresses moral opposition toward abortion and homosexuality fare under Elena Kagan when placed within "a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs"? We know that socialists make special efforts to gain control of key communications media in society. Already, FCC "Diversity" Chief Mark Lloyd, who is inspired by Saul Alinsky, has argued that government is the "only" institution that can manage the communications of the public. See here.

The Obama administration, as this Blog post details, is overrun with socialists, communists, sexual radicals, Alinskyites and globalists. Where is all this leading? It was Pope Pius XII who warned, in his Encyclical Letter Summi Pontificatus, that, "Once the authority of God and the sway of His law are denied..the civil authority as an inevitable result tends to attribute to itself that absolute autonomy which belongs exclusively to the Supreme Maker. It puts itself in the place of the Almighty and elevates the State or group into the last end of life, the supreme criterion of the moral and juridical order, and therefore forbids every appeal to the principles of natural reason and of the Christian conscience." (No. 53).


Related reading: Vatican Cardinal: New World Order gaining ground.

Proposed Bill would give Obama "emergency" control of the internet

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."

- Joseph Goebbels.


A proposed bill would give President Obama "emergency" control of the internet. See here. Is there really any doubt that such after such legislation is passed, an "unexpected emergency" would require the President to exercise such control? Obama's FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd has praised Hugo Chavez for shutting down dissenting media: See here. This is the same man who wrote, '...blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." (Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, p. 20).


In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

There is an eerie similarity with Nazi Germany. The proposed bill which would grant Obama "emergency" control of the internet reads, "The President...in the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network...may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and...if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network..."

I'm sure restoration would be "timely." But what would the internet look like after being "restored"? We have reason to be concerned given Mark Lloyd's attitude toward free speech. Under Erich Scholz, Minister of the Interior for the Third Reich, the Reich Broadcasting Corporation became nothing but a propaganda tool where dissenting ideas which were deemed dangerous or "degrading" were simply excluded. In the words of Erich Scholz, "The German radio serves the German people. That which degrades the German people is excluded from German radio."

And who decided what would "degrade the German people"? Three guesses baby.

Persecution Watch

As explained by the Associated Press, "Americans entering the military often receive Bibles, courtesy of the Gideons International. But the Gideons have been told that while they can leave complimentary Bibles at most military induction stations, they cannot stay there to proselytize or preach to the recruits."

Remember Navy chaplain Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt and his battle with the U.S. Navy over praying in his naval uniform and invoking the name Jesus? See here. As I stated in a previous post, "In the name of 'tolerance,' the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power."

I served this nation honorably in the United States Air Force. I have always been proud of my service to America and proud of the United States military. But this new policy doesn't fill me with pride. It only makes me sad.