First Amendment

 

It’s a good thing we have a First Amendment to protect us from Senator Debbie Stabenow’s ideas about “accountability” and “responsibility.”

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

She doesn’t need to go looking for some other phrase than Fairness Doctrine. There is already one in the dictionary: censorship.

Accountability, responsibility, and standards in speech: Those are things that are prohibited by the First Amendment. Transparency we already have.

Maybe if she didn’t have such a crappy ideology that won’t stand up to scrutiny, she wouldn’t feel such a need to stifle the speech of dissidents.

 

You know, Church and State are supposed to be SEPARATE in this country. That is the way the Constitution was established.. SO PLEASE, STOP SPREADING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SERIOUSLY.

That was a comment in response to an anti-abortion ad featuring the President of the United States. The person who wrote the comment is probably one of those who was never taught the difference between church & state on the one hand and religion & politics on the other.

Actually, this one seems to be an even more serious case than that. The ad isn’t even political.

 

Michelle Malkin says there is bipartisan talk of a bailout for the newspaper business in Connecticut. No, really. Yes, there have been spoofs about the need for newspaper bailouts, but in this case they really mean it.

What next? Bailouts for mainline Christian churches whose fat endowments are getting skinny? All in the spirit of the same First Amendment that covers the church as well as the press?

I wonder what these people think about the principle that there is no such thing as federal aid without federal control. But who knows, maybe that’s exactly what they want.

 

The 17th century isn’t over yet. The Inquisition is still going strong.

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. (URL)

Or is this instead an example of the scientific method?

 

Republicans at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard are putting a lot of energy into bashing conservatives who refuse to support John McCain. According to Newsweek, there’s a semi-organized effort to work over those conservatives.

Here’s an idea, though. What if for every hour these Republicans put into bashing and hectoring McCain’s conservative opponents, they match it with an hour spent convincing McCain to support the First Amendment, starting with a repeal of McCain-Feingold?

That would be a force to be reckoned with.

 

I don’t get this at all. Johnnie B. Byrd says conservatives should get to work to support John McCain; otherwise the Democrats will win and will re-institute the Fairness Doctrine.

Where did he ever get the idea that Mr. McCain-Feingold would be any different? He hasn’t exactly expressed any respect for talk radio in particular or free speech in general. In fact, he has been badmouthing both.

If conservatives want to have any impact in defending the 1st Amendment, they need to work hard to defeat McCain. That’s the only way to show that free-speech advocates are still a force to be reckoned with. It’s not much, and it would be better to have some sort of positive effect, but it’s about all that we have.

And it’s not just enough to defeat McCain. The media will try to spin his loss of the conservative base in any way BUT as a Bill of Rights issue. Defeating McCain would be only the first step. The 2nd is to make sure everyone knows why he was really defeated.

If McCain wins, conservatives who support him will bear much responsibility for whatever assaults on the 1st Amendment he decides to pursue.

If Hillary wins, she will control the media machine through the usual tactics of intimidation, and it won’t do much good to have defeated McCain. But Obama might by temperment be disinclined to pursue the shutting down of dissent that most in his party desire. The knowledge that conservatives managed to defeat McCain on this issue might give have a salutary effect on him.

It’s not much, but with free speech under assault around the globe –Chavez shutting down radio stations, Democrats wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Putin having journalists murdered, Bill Clinton (who ordinarily cares a lot about what kind of photos of him get printed) getting hugs from the guy who had a dissident journalist decapitated, Ezra Levant being hauled before a tribunal — the list goes on and on. We have to use what little is left in our arsenal to defend it.

 

As a conservative who will not vote for John McCain, I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of conservative vitriol.

John Hawkins says there is nothing conservative or principled about me.

Daniel Henninger of the WSJ says I need to grow up.

Kathleen Parker says I’m a cannibal.

Linda Chavez says I’m truculent.

A commenter at In The Agora says I’m a political terrorist.

But I won’t be voting for McCain.  It’s a shame, because there are a couple of important points on which I  agree with him.  I think he would handle the Iraq war better than any of the other candidates, and that is huge.  I agree with him on protecting the ANWR (though would gladly have the whole place strip-mined if that could somehow keep him or Hillary out of the presidency).

It’s too bad, but his stance against free speech and the First Amendment is a show stopper.

I doubt I’ll vote for Barak Obama, but I would much prefer a liberal Barak Obama to an authoritarian/fascist John McCain or an authoritarian/fascist Hillary Clinton.   The question for me is, is Barak Obama really a liberal?  I’m not sure if it’s possible for a liberal to exist in American politics these days.  But if Obama is one and the worst he wants to do is destroy the economy through redistributionist tax codes, I think we could survive four years of it.

 

An article by Lee Harris in The Weekly Standard got me to checking for the latest news on the Ezra Levant case in Canada.

Ezra Levant has a blog which he tells us is getting a lot of hits:

in the past month, I’ve had 152,000 “unique visitors” of whom 49,000 are “returning visitors”. According to Haloscan.com, I’ve had more than
1,500 comments. And then there’s the YouTube videos, 471,000 views amongst them.”

(That happens to be more hits than this blog gets.)

And a liberal MP (Keith Martin) has submitted a motion to remove the section of the Human Rights Code that allows the sort of inquisitions undergone by Levant and Mark Steyn. But it sounds as though his party has been pressuring him to withdraw it, though there are the usual denials, etc. News item about it here.

If you google for information about Ezra Levant, you will see that while this topic is getting a lot of attention in Canada, the U.S. news media are paying no attention to it. These would be the same news media types who attack Bush for his unilateralism and for ignoring world opinion. These would also be the same news media types who want us to look to Canada for lessons on how to handle health care.

I say it would be worth asking our presidential candidates about it. There are people clamoring for hate crime laws in the U.S. There are concerns about McCain’s attitude towards free speech. There are those who complained about Bush’s unilateralism, and those who threatened to move to Canada if Bush was re-elected in 2004. It would seem to be about as relevant an issue for discussion as you could find (and probably one a lot less boring than the usual gas about “change.”)

I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: The U.S. media will continue to ignore it and will NOT ask our presidential candidates about it.

 

In the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last told of an incident that almost made me want to vote for Barak Obama. It was an instance of a Liberal actually being liberal. When is the last time that happened?

The Clintons would have snarled about right-wingers as a justification for refusing to answer their questions. But Obama tried to engage anti-abortion protestors in a dialog. And he reprimanded his supporters who tried to shout them down: “Let me say just this, though. Those people got organized to do that.   And that is part of the American tradition we are proud of. And that’s hard, too–standing in the midst of people who don’t agree with you and letting your voice be heard.”

Jonathan Last in his blog at First Things later expressed disappointment that Obama hasn’t modified his position on abortion. His subsequent words show him to be just as doctrinaire on that topic as any other Democrat. But I still think Obama deserved his praise. He was willing to listen and was liberal on the topic of free speech, at least. These days when the First Amendment is under assault by the Democrats (campaign finance regulation, fairness doctrine) it’s a rarity for something like this to happen. I had almost forgotten what it’s like for a politician to say things like Obama did.

 

When I say that the next president will be Hillary Clinton, even though s/he won’t necessarily be named Hillary and may even be a Republican, I’m trying to make a point somewhat like John Andrews made in this article, “Who’s President Isn’t the Main Thing.”

He makes many good points, but I’ll quote this one because it’s especially relevant to the issue of Ezra Levant vs the Alberta Human Rights Commission:

Freedom won’t work unless enough of us practice four essentials of citizenship, writes Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute. We need self-assertion to defend our liberties, self-restraint to behave responsibly, self-reliance to avert dependency, and civic knowledge to participate constructively.

What’s more important than who the next president is is who we are. Are we going to be people like Ezra Levant, or people like his persecutors on the Human Rights Commission. It could go either way. And whichever type predominates will determine what a president can and will do. As Andrews said, “Whoever wins will govern largely between the 40-yard lines.” People like Levant can help determine where those yardline markers are located.

Although this blog is very political, you won’t see a lot about electoral politics here. You especially won’t find a lot about vote counts and predictions of who might win what state. Electoral politics are mostly boring to me. What I like are real politics of the kind John Andrews is discussing.

© 2011 The Reticulator Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Easy AdSense by Unreal
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE