Third Party & Independents Archives

Who's business is it?
Radio ad refuses service to Obama supporters, Muslims

Rand Paul’s campaign duel about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave him national attention. The Media onslaught to paint Rand Paul a racist was it’s motivation.

This radio ad is parallel to Rand Paul’s position. The government’s constitutional boundry does not extend into a private business’s preference.

I hope it comes out that the local business owner will continue to deny his knowledge to Obama supporters and non-christians. Did you notice I didn’t say the owner will be “allowed to continue”?

This businessman’s and Rand Paul’s experiences have demonstrated how far we have detached our laws from our constitution. It also demonstrates how much the Judicial branch of our government is totally lacking in it’s responsibility to protect the constitution. Politicians are using our money to pay lawyers to write the laws for them. It’s no wonder the judicial system upholds these laws! They were all written by lawyers, not the People!

Ninth and Tenth amendments.

We are in need of a Judical branch of our government that adhears to the Constitution. The debate as to whether the constitution is a “living” document, “open to enterpretation” has become a license to ignore it.

This businessman has the fortitude to support his ownership of his constitution. He, and his neighbors, support his business decision.

Who actually gave the fed a license to interject into this local community’s affairs, and this property owner’s business, in the first place?

Can we get some input on the 11th amendment?


What is the 11th amendment? Why was it amended to our constitution?

Posted by Weary Willie at October 29, 2011 3:50 AM
Comment #331172


“The government’s constitutional boundry does not extend into a private business’s preference.”

Except for the fact that his ability to do business as a certified trainer requires him, under Texas law to train anyone that meets the Texas criteria.

Perhaos you should read your own link;

“The Department of Public Safety said in a statement that certified instructors of handgun training are required to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, and added: “Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor’s certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation.”

It appears that his Texas certification is a privilidge, not a right. Not that he is likely to see many non-christian liberals out there in the middle of BFE Texas.

Apparently even the a**holes are bigger in Texas.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2011 9:58 AM
Comment #331218
Are you refering to an armidillo burrow?

This businessman made a valid point. He said he would not train people to use a dangerous weapon if he disagreed, in any way, with his potential customer.

Who gave the federal government permission to shut down this business?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2011 1:40 AM
Comment #331227

Well, the issue is what sorts of rules we live with, not whether we follow the Constitution or what-not…

What matters is that we work out our many conflicts over what rules govern us with the same give-and-take non-perfectionistic spirit that the US Constitution was worked out under, rather than polemic against each other’s “racism” or “anti-constitutionalism”.

Methinks, the best way to make the system work better is to make it not “winner-take-all” through the use of American forms of Proportional Representation(PR) for “more local” elections, like US/State representatives and city council members. The use of 3-5 seat forms of PR wd have 3 immediate effects: 1. There’d be more competitive seats, attracting more attention to “more local” elections. 2. Neither major party could get a “permanent majority”. 3. Economic/Ethnic/Ideological minorities could get more voice on more issues through the greater respect given to third parties and their increased chances of being among the likely swing-voters in important elections.


Posted by: dlw at October 30, 2011 10:32 AM
Comment #331232


“This businessman made a valid point. He said he would not train people to use a dangerous weapon if he disagreed, in any way, with his potential customer.”

No, he didn’t.

The minute he signed up to be a certified trainer with the State of Texas he agreed to stow his prejudices and train anyone that meets the criteria under the laws of Texas. He has to deal with everybody.

If he didn’t read what he was signing he’s ignorant, and ignorance is no excuse under the law.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #331235

Most businesses have a sign in their extablishment that says:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

The businessman also said to train someone who is going to use his training to kill him is suicide.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #331243

While gov’t strives to project an image of race neutrality politicians/parties fall all over themselves in pandering to ethnicity.

The GOP is using Rubio as a pawn in suggesting him as VP candidate for whoever wins the primary. A number of incumbents play to ethnic groups for support. The President just finished a swing through the SW offering ‘good deals’ for those underwater with a mortgage, and so on.

But, gov’t can’t pander to ethic groups above the table, without drawing the ire of the public at large. Gov’t can’t assume a muslim is more apt to be a hardcore jihadists than any other person on main street. The ethic person gets the benefit of the doubt until that person crosses the line and is then subject to justice same as all lawbreakers. That is - - - most of the time.

Illegal entry into the country might be judged on ethnicity. IE, a muslim sneaking across the border vs a person of Latin origin. I would submit that any nationality, other than Latino, coming in illegally would draw more scrutiny. especially european and middle eastern individuals.

In many situations the gov’t gets to decide what the law is and/or what laws will be enforced, to what level, etc. If few complain the world is their (gov’t) apple.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 30, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #331255

I believe background checks should suffice…

And if one has a student who seems “suspect”, I believe one could suggest that gov’t authorities do a deeper background check on him/her.


Posted by: dlw at October 30, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #331273


“The government’s constitutional boundry does not extend into a private business’s preference.”

Except when the private business is doing work for the government. This man is training people to be certified in the State of Texas to carry a concealed weapon, therefore he MUST follow the government guidelines.

“Most businesses have a sign in their extablishment that says:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.””

C’mon, willie, one last time.

If this fool wants to sell shoes, or pie, or jock straps he can tattoo that statement on his forehead for all I care, but if he wants to remain a certified trainer for concealed carry in the State of Texas he has to, as required by Texas law, follow the guidelines he agreed to follow when he signed up.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #331301

I’m glad we live in a free country. The debate must be what a free country is!

Are we free to share our cow’s milk with our neighbors? Are we free to own gold bullion? Are we free to let our children be illiterate? Are we free to own property? Are we free to tell a person we hate them?

The answer to all of these questions, and many more, is no.

So, why do we insist our country is free?

I would address this question to Ron Paul, and I would ask Newt Gingrigh to follow up.

Why do we insist our country is free?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 1, 2011 2:59 AM
Comment #331386


For once, I agree with Rocky. He is free to sell guns. He is free to have his opinions. What he is not free to do is be a certified trainer and refuse service based on his opinions. If he does not like that, then move into another business. This is no different than if he worked at the DMV. By becoming a certified trainer, he worked for the state of Texas, and has to follow their rules. Otherwise, he is free to find another employer!

As to your last set of questions. Yes I can share my cow’s milk with my neighbor, yes I can own gold bullion, no you can’t let your children be illiterate (besides sending them to public schools) but you also can’t starve them either, yes you are free to own property, and yes feel free to tell anyone you wish that you hate them.

None of that has anything to do with employment. There is nothing the government does to impede your right to free speech, but you have to remember that your employer has that same right, a may not want a bigot representing them.

Posted by: adam at November 2, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment #331407

Adam, you don’t get out much, do you?

The federal government has been insisting providers of raw milk from cows be treated as poison. The federal government has insisted neighbors who centralize their dairy herds on one property be considered a “dairy farm” and subject to the laws established for “dairy farms”.

You cannot own gold boulion. FDR made it illegal and consfiscated the nation’s supply of gold boulion. Psnumatic coins made of gold are exempt.

Why can’t I let my child be illiterate, adam? Why should my child be subjected to the indoctrination that goes on in the public school system? What you call illiterate is a person who has not met the standards set by our federal government. That’s not saying much! I’ve known four-year olds who are more responsible than many school aged children. They don’t stay responsible when they get into public education. Did you see the shirt a local police dept. is wearing? “You make ‘em. We cage ‘em.” Why shouldn’t I, in this environment, let my children be illiterate?

but you also can’t starve them either

I’m all for a government that will punish a person, who would bear a child, just to watch it starve to death. I can agree with you, adam. We can’t starve them. Do you watch “Scare Tactics”?

Adam, I am not free to own my property. I pay rent to my local government. I must report to them when I upgrade my property. I cannot let my grass grow longer than what my government deems proper. I am not allowed to keep a pet if a licence is not purchased from my local government. I cannot sell any of my junk in a yard sale unless I purchase a permit from my government. If I tell my government I hate them, they take offence and they follow me when I drive thru town.

The employer didn’t hire the employee to represent his business. He hired this employee for a specific purpose, as most employers do. This employee still has a first amendment right to speak because no contract was signed to forfiet the first amendment right. Any contract would state explicitly if the first amendment would be forfiet.

Be aware, adam. I have been subjected to an agreement that forfiets my fourth and fifth amendment rights. It is included in the application for employment your corporations insists I sign before hiring me.

OH! Did I say Corporation? I meant government, insurance company, shareholder, bank.

It’s called a drug screen. I’ve been told only certain people are subjected to this requirement. So much for equal protection under the law, eh, adam? Fifth amendment for bankers but not for janitors, right?

Yep, only certain people are subjected to proving their innocence to their employer. Employers don’t subject themselves to this same procedure, do they? Maybe if they want to reinforce their position, but they are rarely first before anyone else on a consistant basis. It’s not cost effective. Our elected officials do not publically subject themselves to a drug/alchahol test when they come to work, do they? The operative word is “when” they work, yes?

There is nothing the government does to impede your right to free speech

Posted by: adam at November 2, 2011 12:55 PM

No, adam. You don’t get out much.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 3, 2011 2:25 AM
Comment #331408

adam, maybe we forget we grew to an empressive height and an empressive weight because of the inovation and incentive guaranteed to us by our U.S. Constitution.

It was the individual that established this county. Not a collective. Not a majority. Not a government. For the first half of this country’s existance no person ever thought of paying taxes to a federal government! It wasn’t needed!

Let’s think about that for a while!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 3, 2011 3:42 AM
Comment #331409

Ok, I give. It was a collective.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 3, 2011 3:44 AM
Comment #331410

But, taxes to a federal government….WTF???

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 3, 2011 5:13 AM
Comment #331421


Stay on subject for a while, this jumping from one subject to another just becuase they all seem like grievances with the government doesn’t make for a constructive debate.

You say that “the federal government has been insisting providers of raw milk from cows be treated as poison,” but this is actually false. Whereas we probably agree on the fact that the laws against raw milk sales are junk, I only take issue with the fact that you target is wrong. States have made these laws! Not the federal government. Per this NPR article eight states still allow the sale of raw milk—hence their isn’t a national law prohibiting it.

As for gold ownership, you are right that FDR made it illegal to own or purchase gold in 1933. What you either missed, or neglected to pay attention to is that President ford nullified that executive order (with the help of congress) on December 31, 1974. You can now own, purchase, even hoard as much gold as you would like!

On the education issue, we agree more than we disagree. Although, I’m not so content with the way you phrased the original question…I don’t think government should force your child to attend school. And even with the caveat that you can home school you child, they still have to test to some arbitrary standards established by the government. I’m not a fan of this situation. My reference to public schools was that if you want your child to actually be illiterate, the best means to achieve this end would be to let them go to public schools (where the education they receive is so poor that coming out of the system illiterate might be the best you could hope for).

That being said, you didn’t ask “are we free to educate our children as we see fit,” you asked if you “are allowed to let your children be illiterate”—as in unable to read. That has nothing to do with arbitrary measurements of education. That is a specific area where I don’t have a problem with government dictating that somehow, someway…you provide your children with the tool and opportunity to learn to read…much the same way you agree with punitive standards for feeding the child.

As to property, you are mixing and matching grievances with a plethora of organizations ranging from state governments all the way down to neighborhood associations. The federal government doesn’t tax your property, nor require permits for yard sales, nor require pet registrations. These are all things required of you from the state/county/city. Unfortunately for you, unless explicitly denied the right in the constitution, these local governments are free to do anything they wish. Hence, if you don’t like the local laws and regulations—move to another part of the ‘free country’.

As for whether they follow you through town after you tell them you hate them, it makes no difference. Seems you are conceding the point. The fact that they are merely following you means they didn’t arrest you, and thus you are still free to do it.

Now, finally back to the issue at hand (like I said, I really wish you would stay on subject)…

Every employee represents the business. As my mother always said, you are judged by the company you keep. The janitor represents the business, the executive represents the business, etc. He is not ‘forfeiting his constitutional right’. The constitution specifically says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”, but never limits individual business owners for restricting speech at all. In other words, speak your mind all you want, but nothing guarantees you will still have a job when you are done! The constitution was not written nor intended to protect you from all consequences. It was (and is) only intended to protect you from legal (i.e. jail time) consequences.

As for your complaint against drug screens, it goes to the same thing. Besides protecting you from any legal liabilities, the constitution does not weigh in on the job application process. You don’t have to submit to the drug screen. You don’t have to work for that company. You make the choice, and you live with the consequence.

Say it with me now. The constitution is the framework from which the United States GOVERNMENT was created. It is intended to define and limit GOVERNMENT powers and authority. It is not intended to limit any personal or individual from imposing consequences within the law (meaning they can’t kill you, attack you, take your property, etc. for speaking out).

And just so you know, I get out plenty Willie. I’m starting to believe it is you that doesn’t get out much…Scared that ‘the man’ is watching you, so you stay inside with you foil hat to protect against the ongoing brain scans…

Posted by: adam at November 3, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment #331472

You’re right, adam, I do jump around alot. Maybe it’s because many of the subjects I land on are symptoms and not causes. I’m interested in solving the problem, not accomodating the problem.

I know! You’re thinking, “Another tangent?!”. No, same problem, government. A government that insists it do everything for everybody. It isn’t working. We’ve been at this for over two centuries and it has never been this close to a nullification of our U.S. Constitution. No one is paying attention, except lip service, to the constitution. The aged have sold their children into slavery and they didn’t even realize it. I’m not talking about you, or your father, I’m talking about your dead great grandfather. He sold his children into slavery.

Before you discount that statement, consider the fact that it has been done before.

Why can’t I just knock on my potential employer’s door and ask him for a job? Obvious reasons, of course, but why do we need to involve a government? Why can’t I ask my employer for all of the money, instead of him paying the government in my name?

I’m told this amounts to 150% of the wage I receive!
I get 10$. Government gets 15$! ??WTF! Why can’t I get 25$? Why am I denied access to this money in my name? Why is this money being taken from me without my consent?

The U.S.Constitution is moot. Now, in our lifetime, the U.S. Constitution is moot. Government has control of a vast majority of people via social welfare programs originating in the Progressive era. Government has control of the world with our superior military capability. It’s hard to stay on topic when you’re being bombarded with contradictory evidence each and every day of your life!

“We’re a free and independent country!”. Prove it.
“We’re the most prosperous nation on earth!”. Prove it.
“Live free, or die!”. Prove it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 4, 2011 3:28 AM
Comment #331518

What are you going to do when this “instructor” gives up his license?

Are you going to intimidate his neighbors?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 5, 2011 5:03 AM
Post a comment