Previous post
In an interview with Dax Shephard on the podcast Armchair Expert, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex said that while he doesn’t understand it, the First Amendment is “bonkers”. Considering that we fought a war to free ourselves of the yoke of the monarchy of Great Britain, we really don’t give a large crate of tea what he thinks. But, bear with me here, Harry’s take is instructive and popular with the educated, but ignorant. social media types.
Prince Harry has always seemed to be the somewhat dim, but good-natured one of the two sons of Prince Charles and the late Diana, Princess of Wales. He was a cute ginger child, made some horrible youthful mistakes, but went on to serve ten years in the Army and fly an Apache helicopter. He founded the Invictus Games for international wounded warriors. Well done, Harry.
And, then our sweet, lonely lad met Meghan Markle. To be honest, the Victory Girls Blog found the Royal Wedding of these two proper cracking (very well done). The cracks appeared almost immediately after, and Prince Harry and the Duchess lit out for California by way of Canada.
If the infamous Oprah interview was bad enough with Prince Harry trashing the Royal Family while his grandfather Prince Phillip lay dying, Harry has now tripled down.
He went on the Armchair Expert and criticized how his father raised him and by extension Queen Elizabeth and the late Prince Phillip. Isn’t that the worst manners you have ever heard of. You are raised in the lap of luxury and then criticize your Gran while she’s is mourning.
But, Prince Harry wasn’t done. He had the utter temerity to criticize the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America. What a twatwaffle! Criticizing the First Amendment while taking advantage of the First Amendment. It all started with a discussion of the trials of living in the digital age:
“As I’ve said, the experience of today’s digital world has us inundated with an avalanche of misinformation, affecting our ability as individuals as well as societies to think clearly and truly understand the world we live in,” Prince Harry said about his new job. “It’s my belief that this is a humanitarian issue and as such, it demands a multi-stakeholder response from advocacy voices, members of the media, academic researchers, and both government and civil society leaders.”
It’s not all about you, Harry. Stop gazing at your navel and look at the real world. Infrastructure cybersecurity has been in the news lately. That’s kind of a lot more important that people talking (well-earned) smack about you on Twitter.
Prince Harry went on to call the First Amendment bonkers:
“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers. I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time,” Prince Harry said. “But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.”
I am not even going to try to parse out that horrifying string of words. I am going to focus on three words: “First”, “Amendment”, and “bonkers”. James Madison, Founding Father and fourth President, wrote the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was first because all the other rights flow from freedom of speech, religion, free press, freedom of assembly and right to petition. If that’s bonkers, then I am down with bonkers.
From the Bill of Rights Institute:
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.
The Bill of Rights is a proscription on what the government can do. Remember, that we had just fought a war against a government. We wanted the yoke off of us. We wanted to be free. The First Amendment gives you the right to be you, as the song goes:
I think those words are small enough for Prince Harry to understand. And, I love this tweet from the leader of Brexit:
For Prince Harry to condemn the USA's First Amendment shows he has lost the plot. Soon he will not be wanted on either side of the pond.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) May 15, 2021
And, here is a final bit of advice. You don’t want people making mean tweets about you. Don’t go on Oprah. Live a quiet life. There are very famous people that do, both here in the United States and in Great Britain. Trust.
Featured Image: Eva Rinaldi/flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)
SFC D says: Harry, it’s time you did a little google search on this little event called “The American Revolution”. It’s the reason you’re in America as a resident alien. Your lot lost the war, so now you play by our rules. You don’t have to like them. In fact, you’re free to leave if you don’t like them.
Dietrich says: Prince Harry is the perfect example of why my English-Ulster/Scot ancestors fought in the Revolution. On the winning side.
Taylor says: He’s a wretched and dumb individual and if he’s unhappy with the first amendment then he should find his way back to the land where he was born.
Scott says: He is the definition of a cuck.. a perfectly decent male ruined by a leftist female…
And as stated above, the little ginger bitch can go back home if he doesn’t like it here.
Randy Martin Pochel says: Like most rich elites they don’t like that we the common people have rights from GOD. They think they are the only ones who should have.
Cameron says: Shut the fuck up, limey.
American Human says: Hey Harry, over here you’re NOT royalty, just remember that!!!
American Human says: Hey, also, I heard a brit. call Oreos “Chocolate sandwich cookies” and I understood fully why we had to fight the revolution.
mer says: I guess he’s never going to pass an American citizenship test.
GWB says: You’re not an American, Harry. You’re a guest here. So, shut your trap. Or go the heck back home.
Joe R. says: “The Bill of Rights is a proscription on what the government can do. Remember, that we had just fought a war against a government. We wanted the yoke off of us. We wanted to be free. ”
The “Bill of Rights” as delivered to Congress [namely “the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution”] had the 2nd Amendment as “Article the fourth” [the 4th Article] [https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript ] not because it wasn’t “important” per se, but because it, like all the other “Amendments” to the Constitution were being “thrown-in” as, once the damn was broken by the ‘inclusion’ of the first ‘amendment’ [dealing with the ratio of the number of Representatives to that of the population] then, an ‘inductive’ [cumulative] approach to delineating “rights” demanded of / by / for / and from / each other under The Declaration of Independence was then necessitated. The “Article the fourth” was elevated to the “2nd Amendment” in its inclusion, however, it should be noted that, at that time, most of the U.S. population and the people comprising our Congress did not think the U.S. “government” could [had the power to] usurp the populaces’ “Right to Keep and Bear Arms”, AND THAT INABILITY WAS THEREFORE ONLY LIKELY TO COMPOUND OVER TIME WITH TIME AND THE GROWTH OF THE POPULATION.
In any case, the 2nd Amendment demands parity of arms (not just “guns”) with our government (due to the provisions of the 2nd Paragraph of The Declaration of Independence which states it’s our “duty” to replace our government “whenever” we deem necessary, and LOGIC states that you cannot accomplish that if you have to ask, the government that needed replacing, for the means or the permission to obtain the means to do so), and it’s not our fault what that parity might entail.
FURTHER: Since all “rights” are protections AGAINST government, then government cannot also be the protector of those rights, nor the gatekeeper to the means to that protection. THEREFORE All rights are protected by an armed Society, comprised of armed individuals.
Joe R. says: . . . And Harry can get bent.
12 Comments