Loretta Lynch understood this... Unfortunately, she did not have the moral conviction to retain the wisdom in practical usage. When she encouraged former F.B.I. Director, James Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton unsecured E-mail investigation, not as an "investigation", but to refer to it as simply a "matter", Comey testified before Congress that it made him feel, "queasy" (presumably because she was asking him to do something that might be interpreted as impeding the investigation.) Yet, true to his self-serving moral, and perhaps legal, perspective, Comey acquiesced, and began to call it a "matter".
Actor Johnny Depp recently "joked" publically about an actor assassinating a sitting president, a la John Wilkes Booth, who killed President Lincoln. While he tried to "backtrack", later, in something that was apparently meant to be an apology, He said it was meant to be a "joke"! Excuse me? What's a "joke" about killing a President? I guess Kathy Griffith could answer that question, at least with her twisted form of logic! I guess you need a warped head to figure that one out: perhaps that's why she has two!
There is apparently still a law on the books, though it is interpreted so narrowly, these days, that it is essentially invalid, that was used to quell such speech. It was called, "inciting to riot", and it was used to charge H. Rap Brown , in the 1960's. I don't think he was convicted, probably because liberal attorneys, bring such cases before known liberal judges, who can not distinguish between society's right to be protected from dangerous slander, and a violation of a citizen's first amendment right to free speech. (No matter, Brown was later convicted of murder, for killing a cop in a shoot out, and is serving a life sentence.)
Was it Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the first amendment didn't give a person the right to shout, "fire", in a theatre, just to see it start a stampede for the exits, causing injuries and even death? He knew there was a difference between the right of "free speech" and irresponsible, and outrageous slander, that can have terrible consequences. The decisions of Justice Holmes would probably not sit well, in today's society. Liberals would probably try to get him impeached, as they are desperately trying to find some impeachable offense to charge President Trump with. now.
The shooting of congressman Scalise, at the Alexandria, Va. baseball practice was probably incited by all the vitriol that the Liberal media has been spouting since Hillary lost the election. This would probably have brought about criminal incitement charges, 100 years ago. But, true to form, we have Liberals crowing that they were, "glad (he) was shot", with impunity. Where is the moral integrity of the Left, any more???
Yet, perhaps there is hope! There seems to be some small fracturing in the armor of the Democratic party. The recent calls, within the party itself for leaders, like Nancy Pelosi, to step down, and some Democrats talking about supporting the Republican health care bill. This is but a small step in the right direction. But it is a start! Let's hope there is a return to sanity among the Democrats, and then maybe we will see even the Liberal media return to a more responsible rhetoric. Remember, there are probably some Evangelical Christians in the Democratic party, though that sometimes seems hard to believe! Perhaps when they have had a belly full of all the evil rhetoric that has been spouted by their party leaders, they will decide to, "throw the rascals out", and replace them with more responsible people!
"Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!"
No comments:
Post a Comment