This link might not be available for long:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
See all the usual suspects at their best.
If the link does not work, Google -- the-progressive-cimate-of-hate-an-ilustrated-primer
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tea Baggers Choose Freedom
A Seattle radio talk show host Friday evening asked each caller for the first thing that came to their mind when he said "Tea Party." Callers had some good comments about taxation, truth, and the constitution. I have to answer that question too. What comes to mind for me is Freedom. An overwhelming love of freedom along with a fear of loosing it, it seems to me, is what the tea party goers have in common.
Lower taxation is of course a form of freedom. The government enslaves us to the extent that it demands the fruits of our labor. Truth and freedom also go hand in hand. When he said, "the truth shall set you free," Jesus probably wasn't talking about freedom of speech, but he could have been. Despots, tyrants, and dictators, not only use force for control, but must first gain support through lies. They must create enemies and denigrate their political opponents. The principal and purpose behind the constitution is freedom, freedom through law. Would-be despots will always attempt to circumvent the restrains on their power of the constitution.
High taxation, lies, disdain for the limits to government power imposed by the constitution; these constitute threats to a free people. That is what the brings us to the tea parties.
Lower taxation is of course a form of freedom. The government enslaves us to the extent that it demands the fruits of our labor. Truth and freedom also go hand in hand. When he said, "the truth shall set you free," Jesus probably wasn't talking about freedom of speech, but he could have been. Despots, tyrants, and dictators, not only use force for control, but must first gain support through lies. They must create enemies and denigrate their political opponents. The principal and purpose behind the constitution is freedom, freedom through law. Would-be despots will always attempt to circumvent the restrains on their power of the constitution.
High taxation, lies, disdain for the limits to government power imposed by the constitution; these constitute threats to a free people. That is what the brings us to the tea parties.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Business and the Right to Free Speech
The president used the occasion on the State of the Union address to denounce the recent Supreme Court decision to allow freedom of speech protection to corporations. His disingenuous rationale was that it would open the door to foreign manipulation of American elections. The truth is that he knows business does not like his policies and he wants to limit its ability to fund political ads contrary to those policies. Lawyers, legislators, and political commentators have since come forward to state that the decision keeps in place the various regulation against foreign contributions to domestic political organisations.
Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?
Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)