MARISSA writes in response to the post about a ruling by a Texas judge protecting “up skirt” photos:

It sounds terrible to the liberal’s ear (and yes, I count the vast majority of Americans as liberals, either classical or modern), but this is one of the many problems with the First Amendment, which incidentally receives more love and recognition than the First Commandment. No one has the right to engage in pornography or in spreading it. No one has the right to practice worship of Satan. That the decadent Western world has enshrined these disgusting practices as rights only shows how the system founded on the Constitution and Bill of Rights leads to corruption and enslavement to the basest forms of human sinful expression. The American nation was founded on rejecting any form of objective Truth and Beauty for a banal, beige “neutrality” which has devolved into massive immigration, child-murder and forced acceptance of homosexuality. Thank you, Freemasons!

— Comments —

Joe A. writes:

Where does one begin?

“America” does not equal “The United States” let alone “The Constitution of the United States.”

She bears no relationship whatsoever to the “civilization” imported straight from the ghettos of Europe.

If alleged Americans can’t bother to distinguish this, why did my Patriot and United Empire forefathers bother to fight and kill each other over a similar set of words: “American” and “English Subject”?

They should have agreed to disagree and lived long, peaceful lives, free of the squabbling nationalities and foreign loyalties of the huddled masses of wretched refuse that seem to enjoy their degradation.

 Laura writes:

I gather by ‘”civilization imported straight from the ghettos of Europe,” you mean the civilization that existed for more than 1,500 years in Europe and nine hundred years in England, a civilization that was based in part on the Incarnation. That’s a real kick in the teeth to your exalted ancestors.

Paul writes:

Arguably, the First Amendment need not be chastised.  My impression is the judge inappropriately invoked the First Amendment, which seems inapplicable.  The Constitution does not address the overwhelming number of legal issues, as the Founders wisely intended.  The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”  In modern times, the liberals and their dominating legal institutions have largely ignored the Tenth Amendment.  Federal judges, liberal and most conservatives, reflect modernity.

Although this is a matter for state law, to the extent a state can control its citizens behavior on the Net, this is not a significant problem because the females’ faces are not revealed.  If their faces were shown, the states have a world of laws to come down hard on the idiot publishers.  If faces are not shown, states need to enact privacy laws, which already exist in most states.  Even the upskirt fetish is barred in most states.

It is mild pornography no more, no less and should be treated as such rather than as some heinous act deserving of jail.  Hysteria is not warranted.   Are we to jail or to ruin the lives of adolescent boys who might go out of their way to view the white cotton panties of females?  Recall the 60s-70s miniskirt which was tight fitting, and contrast it with the inexplicably breezy modern miniskirt.  Goodness, a slight wind can reveal all.

Considering the failure of our fellow citizens to reject vehemently liberal devotion to antidiscrimination such as co-ed dorms, unisex bathrooms,  and unisex locker rooms, it is amazing this is newsworthy. How can liberal adults criticize boys for ogling every part of the female anatomy however obtained?

Perhaps an appropriate analogy is God’s gift of free will. The Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment being a part of the Bill of Rights is an integral part of the Constitution, allows or is supposed to allow states to enact the overwhelming number of laws.  States should decide when this behavior should be controlled by law, criminal or civil.  The Constitution is there to allow this decision making, for good or bad.

 Laura writes:

Many judges have “inappropriately invoked” the First Amendment when it comes to pornography. But their rulings could only be considered inappropriate if the Constitution spelled out certain moral premises, which it does not — and indeed no document could address all the moral issues that underlie social order. Upskirt photos are not the most important issue here. The pornography industry is. And it has received full approval in the courts under the First Amendment. There is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution to prevent pornography from becoming mainstream once the public accepts it, or judges embrace it, under First Amendment protections of speech.

Paul T. writes:

I’m not sure I understand your response to Joe A. It seems clear to me that his references to “the ghettos of Europe” and “foreign loyalties” point to Jews as the cause of decline in the constitutional order. (Specifically to secular Jews, though I doubt that Joe A troubles himself much with such distinctions–Naomi Klein, Lawrence Auster, what’s the difference?). One of the problems with this view is that even given the influence of secular Jewish cultural Marxists, there has to be a buyer as well as a seller, and the fact is that many millions of non-Jewish Americans signed on to the liberal project because they saw benefits in doing so. It might be somehow reassuring to pretend that a statistical handful of foreigners hijacked the naive American people, but the reality is more complex.

Laura writes:

Yes, okay.

I read it quickly and thought he was referring to Catholics. I agree, the reality is more complex.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote in reply to Paul that “But their rulings could only be considered inappropriate if the Constitution spelled out certain moral premises, …” Were that the case neither you, nor I, nor Paul would have any way of knowing that such rulings are inappropriate, and yet we all seem to grasp the concept well enough. :-)

All jokes aside, though, I realize this is the world we live in (God help us all!), and that, therefore, we must take this into consideration when such as this unfortunately arises.

What I don’t understand is why we need some explicit statement of moral premises enshrined in the Constitution to inform us that the application of the first amendment – on the basis of “federal free speech rights,” as if to say that, indeed, “federal law trumps State law” simply by virtue of its being law, and/or, to embrace the false and dangerous premise that Congress need only “occupy a field,” and “intend a complete ouster” to eliminate State authority on any given subject, which is not the case at all according to the Constitution and history I read – in this case is inappropriate.

I don’t see how an explicit statement of moral premises added to the Constitution would be of much benefit to us, other than it might have (might have; probably would have) prolonged the inevitable. Which I suppose is your point? But then again, none of us was at the Constitutional Convention to offer up such a statement of inviolable moral principles, which I’m sure would have been unanimously adopted without debate. ha, ha.

Laura writes:

My point wasn’t that an explicit statement of moral laws should have been included in the Constitution. No document can serve as an adequate moral authority. Too many ethical conflicts arise in a commonwealth.

As to your point about states’ rights, leaving aside the fact that it is conceivable that states also would not act to limit pornography, it is unrealistic to expect that a government can act on such neutral terms and not be animated by principles. The idea that it would simply hand over to the states jurisdiction over issues that define the country’s collective purpose, principles fundamental to its existence, as is the idea of complete freedom of expression to the American government, is unrealistic.

Dr. Heather Hauser writes:

The founders all realized that the form of government they envisioned was not possible without a “moral and religious” (as John Adams put it) population.  Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Fisher Ames, and many others expressed similar thoughts. Even those who were not members of a formal religion, such as Franklin, knew that a strong foundation of common morality and civic virtue must be cultivated, if only in the Classical sense, for a Republic to flourish. Without these things, we get what we have now. The same sort of thing happened to the Roman Republic. There is no need to invoke the Freemasons or the Illuminati to explain the failings of unrestrained, fallen human nature.

The full Adams quote is : “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

From his letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia in 1798.

Laura writes:

There is no need to invoke the Freemasons, but it is helpful in understanding the naturalistic ideas that inspired the Founders. They did indeed believe that the new republic required a moral people, but they also believed human beings could remain moral without the help of a State that recognizes the Last End of each human being on earth. God had no rights over society in their vision. They believed virtue is attained purely by the aid of reason. Freemasonry promotes this negation of the supernatural order.

As Pope Leo XII wrote in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

“As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from ‘The Way.’ The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. ‘And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him’ (Daniel vii., 14). ‘I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession’ (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God’s providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men’s minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.” [emphases added.]

The only way the law of Christ can prevail over society is when Church and State are not wholly separated as they are according to the quasi-Masonic vision of the Founders.

Please follow and like us: