There is a point to all of this… Isn’t there?
It seems we’ve missed the original point to this boycott of the National Anthem by black athletes who were calling attention to the Black Lives Matter initiative and protesting against police brutality. Ok… All life is precious, and police brutality is wrong. Correct? Can we all agree on this?
There are hundreds of trillions of stars, and many have orbiting planets and any number of them may have life. But, we are the only one we are sure of with life on it. The odds are slim that there is intelligent life on many of them, so it follows that life is precious so all life, ALL life matters. Allowing the police or military to brutalize anyone is wrong… Always wrong! Those points are conceded.
Somehow the media hijacked this protest and demonstration and turning into an affront aimed at the American public. It is now Anti-American, Anti-Military, Anti-Everything under the sun and an insult to every patriotic American. The battle lines are drawn so that you are either for or against America if you take sides. The Constitution hangs in the balance. That’s how the media portrays the issue. They have misconstrued the point; twisting it into a matter of patriotism. They seek to further divide the populace by subverting a simple protest.
The issue here is not about the First Amendment to the Constitution it is about their misuse of their power to corrupt and misinterpret the facts to their purposes and agenda. The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
What strikes me about this amendment is the “prohibition” or “infringement” of freedom of speech. I don’t see anything in the verbiage that allows us to flaunt or demand these rights in every situation. It seems clear that this is to prevent the enactment of laws or other statutes that limit this freedom. Taking a knee or failing to stand for the National Anthem is not covered here, which supports my interpretation of the medias culpability. No one has suggested the creation or enactment of any law or statute prohibit or limit personal rights to stand or not to stand for the National Anthem. You are free to do as you will while they play this tribute to American Patriots. It is up to you.
We’ve taken this out of context, and I believe we have taken several of these amendments out of context. We look at the Bill of Rights as our guarantee and support for acting like flaming assholes and our license to act as we please without recourse or responsibility. I don’t find the release of personal responsibility for our actions anywhere in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution at all. Taking this document at face value seems to indicates a call to personal responsibility and common sense. What the amendment does is limit the power of our government to usurp or legislate away our rights. In fact, I’m not even required to react to someone’s decision or how they chose to exercise their freedoms.
Our liberal interpretation of these amendments and the Constitution to support our agenda is just wrong and violates the intent and purpose of the document, but it is the definition of freedom. Consider the US Constitution the 10 Commandments for our country. The Israelites asked God for a set of laws to follow. So, Moses was given the 10 Commandments. We needed a guide to run our new country so, we wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and created a process to amend our constitution. Even though it was penned a few hundred years ago, the concepts are as valid and applicable today as they were when they were written.
What we suffer today is the interpretation by the media who twist these ideas to fit their agenda. Look closely at the words and try to understand the concept of freedom as written in this document. Then weight it against the acts of a few people who are exercising what they believe to be their rights to interpret it for us to create a media event on a slow news day. What is the real purpose here? Are they trying to better or strengthen this country or are they creating a tempest in a teapot? The legality of their actions is not the point. Their right to speak their minds is. They have as much right to boycott the national anthem as we have the right to stand to honor it. The media have as much right to misinterpret and misuse the constitution as we have to deify and revere it.
That’s this the whole idea of freedom? Just consider the source…