Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

Phone Apps!

All good things must come to an end

HAPPY NEW YEAR FELLOW PATRIOTS!
As we prepare for change here at PAO, I want to thank each of you for your Patriotism, because that's the whole reason why PAO was created.
We will continue to discuss the events of the day, but at least through these last 10 years, we have put ourselves in position to defeat the globalists once and for all, and restore the country and the world to a peaceful place that we've never truly known in our lifetimes.
And in so doing, we will leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. So a big pat-on-the-back to each of us for collectively fighting for a better America.
And on a personal note, to my lovely wife who is still in the hospital since mid December, I will move HEAVEN AND EARTH to get you better and to bring you home, for you are the love of my life ♥️
MAY 2025 BE A GREAT YEAR FOR ALL OF US!!!

Frederick Meekins

Blogs » Society » Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

Posted by Frederick Meekins January 13, 2019 - Filed in Society - 1,352 views

Legislation has been proposed in New York that would require applicants wanting to purchase a firearm to submit three years worth of their social media postings for review as well as their previous years online search history.

The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.

This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.

It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.

However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.

For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.

However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?

An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.

However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.

By Frederick Meekins