Click on the Image above
Click on the imahe above
Freedom Includes the Right to Choose
The Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence affirmed that all men have rights which were granted to them by their Creator. One of the most basic rights is the freedom to choose what to buy and who to buy it from.
When engaging in commerce, the buyer and the seller enter into a voluntary contract. In order to facilitate the exchange both parties must agree on the terms of the transaction. Neither the buyer nor the seller can be compelled to buy/sell anything without the mutual consent of both parties.
The government has no lawful authority to nullify the rights of either the buyer or the seller.
We discriminate every time we go to the grocery store. Some of us choose Cheerios and others select Rice Krispies. Some of us choose Coke and others choose Pepsi. The right to choose what to buy and where to buy it, is one of our God given rights.
If the government can force you to buy Coca Cola at a particular market, the government would be violating your freedom to choose.
A man who makes cakes has a right to sell his product to whomever he wants and the man desirous to buy a cake has the freedom to select the vendor of his choice. It would be wrong to force the customer to buy the cake from one particular vendor and it would be equally unfair to compel the baker to sell his cakes to people he does not want to serve.
Laws which rob individuals of their freedom to discriminate violate the very principles upon which our nation was founded.
If a baker wanted to sell his cakes to only left handed albinos, I believe it would be his right to do so. I believe that by limiting his market he would have a difficult time succeeding in his business.
If a gay baker wanted to sell cakes only to gay customers, he should have the right to do so. If a heterosexual baker wants to limit his sales to heterosexual customers he too, should have that right.
A righteous man does what is right because it is right, not because he is compelled to do so. If the government has the authority to compel us to buy our products from a particular vendor or requires the vendor to sell his products to whoever wants them, our God given rights have become privileges granted to us by the state.
If I knew a business owner refused to serve people because of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, I would personally boycott the man's business and I would encourage all of my friends to do the same.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Randal W. Howard on
-
The POTENTIAL is there if you have CABLE. But the TV, as mentioned, MUST have a camera of some sort. And a means of sending picturres back out the cable. This takes some processing and a segment of the TV that makes a 'tv channel'. And since the spectrum is limited, a means of addressing a particular set. Random viewing is out of the question, since there are SO MANY! Of course, Satellite delivered is NOT able to send picturres. There is NO 'up-link' capability in a satellite receiver. Sit down, rrelax, and enjoy your TV to the extent you can. 'THEY' ARE NOT WATCHING YOU!
-
-
Please do more research....
-
-
The capability is there though ...Technology is a (nearly) ultimately amplified two edged sword, or tool, depends which end you are holding ...they can watch us or we can watch them, winner takes all.
-
-
No doubt about it, discrimination against thugs, creeps and their kind is a God given right.
-
-
Of course! You are 100% correct!!
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on
-
When laws created my men contradict the natural laws of God, the man made laws need to yield to the laws of our Creator. We can not be free if our government has the right to tell us what we can and can not do.
-
-
- He (Jesus) said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:3635 He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without purse or haversack or sandals, were you short of anything?’36 ‘No, nothing,’ they said. He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one,
37 because I tell you these words of scripture are destined to be fulfilled in me: He was counted as one of the rebellious. Yes, what it says about me is even now reaching its fulfillment.’
38 They said, ‘Lord, here are two swords.’ He said to them, ‘That is enough!’
-
-
Most everyone considers the right to choose to be a good thing, but the government wants to determine what we choose. God gave us freedom and governments are passing laws to deprive us of our God given rights.
-
-
Man's laws always end-up contradicting God's laws, man's laws are like treatments for behavior (symptoms) of the few, spread / distributed over many, in effect making many misbehave (sick) ...like a "doctor" forcing medications prescribed for one ill individual onto everyone else, to prevent the individual's (behavior) symptoms on everyone else ...therefore the gov't in charge ("doctor") is much sicker than the ill individual, because IT is mentally sick and spreads it.
-
-
This article is so important that I emailed the author for Copyright Permission to copy and paste it everywhere I could. She gave me her permission as long as I kept her name and url on the article.
Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech
The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.
I. Definition of Political Correctness
Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. TheFreedictionary.com defines PC as
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.
One author sums up this idea:
Political correctness has 3 features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes & beliefs divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think & what they are permitted to discuss. Third, & most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, & which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, & become focused on the cares & concerns of minority groups.
Yet, when peeling back the layers of the onion of PC, one cannot help but notice a strongly socialist or Marxist bent to these rules. And this is no coincidence. As Bill Lind says,
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
So PC is a method for transporting Marxist ideas into traditional cultures.
II. History of Political Correctness
Political Correctness seems like the type of thing that would arise of its own merits. How misleading! Instead, the Frankfurt school of Marxism, from Frankfurt Germany, created PC as a way to disseminate their ideas in the Institute for Social Research. Bill Lind gives a brief history of this,
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. This created Political Correctness as we know it today. This institute, associated with Frankfurt University was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. So instead they decided to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Then, when these Marxist professors fled Hitler, they applied to emigrate to America and were accepted. The Germans brought PC with them. As Lind says,
Members of the Frankfurt School were both Marxist and Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany. Not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. Its members fled to New York City, were the Institute was reestablished in 1933 by Columbia University. These shifted their focus from Critical Theory about German society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.
III. Multiculturalism
Related to PC is Multiculturalism—but what is that? Dictionary.com defines Multiculturalism as “The preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
Multiculturalism is a philosophical theory regarding the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group falls short of making minority groups equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights.” While multiculturalism is an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities, minority nations, and indigenous peoples.
The West is beginning to understand the problems with multiculturalism, as described in the article The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism. States the author:
A new integration bill (covering letter & 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”
IV. Effects of Political Correctness
So it is clear that PC is a Marxist ideology which is meant to help ripen the West for socialist takeover. But what are its impacts? Here are some pernicious effects of the PC movement which prove we must drop this false standard.
A: PC Opposes Freedom of Belief
Clearly, if PC blocks the expression of “bad” statements—this is because these ideas are inherently unacceptable. In other words, one should be ashamed at having these thoughts. As individuals lose their freedom to express their beliefs, they lose their ability to think freely, as well.
B: PC Allows an Ideology Without Standards of Right & Wrong to Establish Morality
There is no locus of morality in Marxist or socialist thought—merely a demand to equally distribute all world goods. Therefore, PC beliefs, rules and judgments can only be subjective.
C: PC Assumes Moral Excellence is Achievable Without Debate
The chief presumption of PC is that all serious moral debate about the human condition has already taken place and arguing about it is redundant. This is related to the philosopher Hegel’s (Marx’s role model) insane idea that history was over now that Hegel had come on the scene.
D: PC Presumes Moral Bravery is Unobjectionable
An absurd result of the PC fiction is that all moral struggles have now been solved, and the outcome is not only clear, but unremarkable. Yet, if this were assumed in the past, many irreplaceable debates would have never happened, including over democracy, sufferagism, slavery, women and children’s rights, etc. But this is a nonsensical conclusion.
E: PC Sanctions Mere Words
PC seeks to make illegal every insensitive use of language. Yet only for socialist or Marxist causes.
F: PC Predetermines Truths & Stops Honest Moral Analysis
Perhaps the most audacious presumption of PC is that all truths are already known and have been processed by PC thinkers and writers. So it eliminates the idea that truth be debated since it has already been decided beforehand. In doing this, it makes all moral debates redundant.
G: PC Keeps People From Talking Honestly so Cripples Free Debate
PC means one cannot freely discuss any controversial topic since such a debate presumes honesty. But if moral positions are predetermined, then it is simply unacceptable to announce or advent for any positions not already blessed by PC. This stops people and societies from dealing with the most pressing problems.
H: PC Forces Individuals to Accept Ideas Against Their Conscience
Even a few years ago, a person of a religious mindset could espouse opposition to things of which they disapproved. Now to do so would mean public sanctions and possibly criminal penalties. All for merely disagreeing with certain thoughts or activities.
I: PC Makes Certain Groups Above Criticism
A dangerous aspect of PC is the tendency to defend the actions of individuals not by virtue of their inherent morality, but instead by association of their tribal source.
J: PC Makes Logic, History & Ethics Subservient to Lesser Concerns
PC forces socialist mores and standards upon individuals even though history reveals such ideas always fail, and common sense indicates these beliefs lack all ethical soundness.
K: PC Creates Distrust Between Races & Cultures
Since the PC movement has created special categories and rewards for those of exemplary status, other groups feel suspicious of these persons. This refusal to accept meritocracy can only breed unsoundness and destruction in such sacrosanct groups.
L: PC is Anti-Efficiency, Rewarding Status Over Achievement
If groups are rewarded not by their good works, but merely by being a passive member of a protected class, this action will certainly increase indolence and incompetence.
M: PC is Backwards Looking
The PC movement seeks to repay groups on the basis of things denied their predecessors which is not just irrational, but also unfair to those amongst the living.
N: PC Breaks Down Potential for Democracy
Since PC opposes free speech, it harms democracy since democracy is based upon free political choice.
O: PC Claims Coercion More Important Than Persuasion
Clearly, since PC spends so much time and effort to silence “insensitive” speakers—it cares more about shutting people up as opposed to persuade them. Therefore, PC can lead to conflict by bottling up anger, ignorance and misunderstandings.
P: PC Invalidates All Religions Which Claim Timeless Morality
If the PC movement is correct, all traditional—meaning biblical religions—must be false, since they regularly argue against PC standards. Therefore, PC is not just anti-religion but also against traditional morality. Therefore it is very destructive of society.
V. If Not for PC, Barack Would No Longer be in Office
It is obvious that Obama has received many kudos for being the first true minority elected president. Yet, it is also doubtless that he gathers enormous sympathy and pity for this status, as well. Yet, if we are honest, we must admit that another president would not have received the same support and forgiveness for his many mistakes. So, since Barack is destroying America through ignorance, laziness or even ill-will, the PC movement is likewise dissolving the US.
Therefore, we must destroy PC before it destroys us. And the only way to eviscerate this intellectual parasite and moral blight is to demand Free Speech be regarded as more important than PC and its countless restrictions. Further, that PC is the mortal enemy of Free Speech and only one of them can survive. These leftist codes must be permanently dismissed in favor of our ancestral liberties and rights, or bondage will be established as surely as night follows day.
Kelly O'Connell
Most recent columnsKelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.
Kelly can be reached at:hibernian1@gmail.com
-
-
Interesting "chain of thought" However the author GLIBLY slides past the PC of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP or NAZIs) The Nazis ALSO controlled thought
political thought of Germany, in a mush more violent fashion than the German Marxists.
What every human on this planet needs to understand is the concept of "race" based on
physical morphology and the amount of melanin in a humans skin, is:
1) UNSCRIPTUAL; It does not line up with the WORD of YAHWEH (GOD)
2) It's Unscientific, All anthropologists and medical researchers agree that "race" is more of a
sociological concept with no foundation in scientific fact.
Race is the root cause of all humanities social ills.
Now I agree that we need to freely speak our minds and discuss how we truly feel. This is the
beginning of addressing perceived "wrongs" and the start of cultural understanding.
If anyone has any understanding of History, PC is actually a very old concept.
Take the phrase "The King's English" not in much use today. But 1000 years ago in England,
Wales, and Scotland, at court one had better use the "King's" English and agree with the "Kings"
view of the world, or one was subject to get one's head cutoff.
Not too long ago in Western Society it was PC to think of so-called Negros as inferior to so-called Whitemen, the same was true of so-called Red men, Brown, and Yellow men.
So it was PC to say "...Murdering Redskinned Savages.." (as opposed to Murdering Whiteskinned Savages)
IF one stops and reflects on it you will see that "race" is a crock of fecal matter and whoever
is deluded by it is NOT wise.
Here Endeth the Epistle...go in peace Hue-mans!
-
-
Fabulous post, Guy....very informative! What you said about "race" is so true and it is so sad that most people don't realize the fact that there is no such thing as "race"! That concept is a very old LIE perpetuated by those who wish to compartmentalize and control other people! The fact is that all of mankind were created as "tribal" people! No matter where or when PC first began to rear it's ugly head, it is indeed EVIL and must be obliterated completely! I often wonder why many individuals are so easily made to feel guilty about things that they have absolutely nothing to do with! Whenever they are confronted about having said something that someone else may find unacceptable, why do they not simply ask, "Says who?" or otherwise defend their own idea or statement as their God-given right to have? It totally bewilders me that the scourge of PC is so easily accepted and perpetuated in today's society! In spite of that however, I agree that those of us who think for ourselves must oppose PC head-on at every opportunity! If the morally and intellectually bankrupt notion of Politically Correct speech has caught on, so can those who value freedom vigorously defend our right of free speech!
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
