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?

Republican Conservatives: The Time is Now

The demos, the president, and politico.com say that the Republicans have a “responsibility to govern.” So be it. That does not mean that they should rubber stamp every BHO, Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi proposal. Why don’t they introduce stand-alone bills to address healthcare issues, such as state-to-state portability? There are a myriad of other issues that can be addressed by legislation. They can introduce bills to give the unspent and repaid stimulus and TARP funds back to the treasury to reduce the deficit. They can introduce a real spending freeze bill to take affect this year. They can reopen oil drilling, coal power production, and nuclear power licensing. That could be for starters, then tomorrow they can work on eliminating any spending motivated by global warming. Bank regulation? Why not common sense requirements such as loan documents that can actually be read and understood by borrowers. The list of real reforms is endless and can be proposed in bills of five to ten pages. Get to it Mr. McCain et al.

Rerun: Socalized Medicine

"If all I am given for an option is socialism [or the stutus quo], which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars."

/This quotation appealed to me. I found it in of one of my posts from last year/

While we're at it, here's a rerun of another quotation:

"We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom." (Frederic Bastiat)

One of the economists whose theories led to the Austrian School of Economics (See von Mises Institute for the definition of this), came to the conclusion that the then current bad economic idea (socialism) had so much support that it must run its course. Then from the ashes of the destruction that would result, more sensible ideas would gain acceptance. Unfortunately, it seems he was predicting World War I and II. There must be a better way to a solution.

Local Photos

The Left Not Playing with a Full Deck

The Democrats, the radical left, and the press are always playing the race card, however ineptly. The truth is they do not have many cards to play. Journalist Chris Mathew's comment that during the Sate of the Union Address, he forgot for an hour that Barak Obama was black is a case in point. Since the campaign began, race has been the most important issue for Chris Mathews. Contrary to what he and Democrat politicians are always telling us, based upon the history of the last two centuries and on a lot of recent comments from Democrats, it is obvious that racial prejudice is a significant characteristic mostly of the left. Biden said candidate Obama was "clean." Democrat Senator Ried said he had light skin and no negro dialect. The liberal apologists in the press, i.e., most of the press, explain these remarks as clumsy compliments. On the other hand they never tire of stating that America is still a racist country. I would submit that comments like 'light skin' were calculated messages to racist Democrats that this black boy is OK. They knew he could usher in the most radical measures that this nation has ever seen. With him they had the black vote and the far left vote, they just need the old boy vote. They wanted to let their own party members know that it was OK to vote for this black. The only person I know who did not vote for him on account of race was one of my uncles who had never voted for a Republican in his life. I guess he had to skip the last election.

Race is no issue at all for conservatives and Republicans. At least, they never reach the issue of race in their deliberations. The choices are so stark already, why worry about race when there is so much wrong with just being a modern Democrat? I forgot that BHO was part black a long time ago. During the speech, I could not forget for five minutes that he is a communist. He spoke about one aspect of society after another which he wanted government to take a leading role in. A leading role, as we have seen, can quickly transform into near total control if not outright ownership. He wants to go from the current government assistance for student loans to government takeover, and give a repayment break for 'government service' while he's at it. Are ACORN members 'government service' workers? Probably are, according to BHO. He has already taken over General Motors and Chrysler. He has taken over AIG, the largest US insurance company. He has, for most purposes, taken over control of energy and he wants complete control via cap-and-trade. He wants virtual control, through regulation, over the financial industry and healthcare. The unions, especially government unions, and the press are already at his beck and call. Unfortunately, we can only imagine the extent of infiltration of radical socialists into all levels of government agencies. The Republicans are not racists but they are intimidated by the race card. They need to trump it with the truth.

Sunday Night Wrap Up

Allan Hunt is a radio talk show host who says that it's not about right or left but it's about right or wrong. His show has a Christian slant. Tonight, before launching a telephone forum on the second half of his show for discussion of some celebrity's marital infidelity, he talked about national politics and economics. He said that President Obama should fire Rohm Emanuel and get a business friendly adviser. Really, aren't we way past that sort of discussion? Mr. Hunt believes that BHO could revitalize his ratings and the economy by coming out strongly with some pro-business proposals. He thinks he should start with ideas like low taxes, less regulation, and cessation of his verbal attacks. Wouldn't that be nice? This is like suggesting to the President of Iran that he could improve international relations by reversing his stance against Israel. Mr. Hunt is either naive or trying to be sarcastic. However, he is a good example of a commentator who is starting to see the light. He can see the obvious economic absurdities of trillion dollar 'stimulus' spending and borrowing but he still doesn't see that BHO is at best a devoted socialist and at worse an pawn for international communism.

Michael Medved is a local radio personality who tends to give liberal callers at lot of air time. He tries in vain to reason with many who pretend to be conservatives who only want to point out a few faults that they just cannot go along with. It should be obvious to Mr. Medved what they are doing: advancing their propaganda and trying to chip away at the expanding conservative advances. They usually start out with a false premise, which Mr. Medved doesn't adequately challenge but instead addresses their fake issues. The other day he finally got totally irate regarding a plan of King county, the State of Washington, and Seattle to build more light rail. Not only would this be immensely expensive, take at least ten years, and expand a system that hardly anybody uses already, but it would also completely disrupt the one east-west freeway in the Seattle area that does not have chronic traffic jams. Local planers figure if they can screw-up traffic enough, people will finally start using their multibillion dollar trains. Mr. Medved was extremely incensed with the unmitigated stupidity of the plan which he says helps no one but those building it [editorial note: and the politicians on the take]. He probably commutes via that freeway. Fortunately, this uncompromising indignation lately has extended to his discussion of national issues also.

Billy Cunningham, who has a national talk show on Sunday's does not need any encouragement. Kieth Overbite has for the sixth time awarded him the worse person on earth award, or some such thing. Mr. Cunningham goes a little overboard treating this like his sixth Medal of Honor. It's more of a distinguished service cross. Mr. Cunningham keeps the pressure up on several neglected fronts, the 'Obama birth' cover-up for example. There is definitely a lot of details about the Precedent's past that are being covered-up. We just do not know exactly what. The press should make them come clean They won't of course, which brings us to the mrc.org site (Media Research Center). Mr. Cunningham (aka, The Great American) referred interested listeners to that site for the latest Obamaphilic and Limbaughphobic quotations from our wise, objective media gurus.

Lastly, Glenn Beck Weekend is aired on Sunday. (That's why you see so many people with earphones in Church.) Glenn pulls no punches. He may irk Mark Levin (and me) with his remarks about Republicans being as bad as Democrats, but it is clear where his sentiments are. He does not like what is happening to our great nation and he feels certain there is much more of the same coming. "Feels" is the key word for Glenn. Although he has perhaps the best mind and instincts of any commentator, his feelings are more often than not what he discusses. He feels foreboding. With history and common sense as a guide, who can argue with him? However, Glenn's fight is not against BHO, for it transcends mundane politics. He does not struggle against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness. I hope he has on the full armour required for that fight. Humor may be his best gift and weapon. (It was through oversight that he was not included in the list of radio commentators earlier in this blog; he deserves a high place on the list.)

Air America Bites the Dust

Liberal radio talk network, Air America, has gone out of business. The reason for this according to radio show host Michael Savage, is that America is tired of hearing over and over the same liberal drivel. Savage describes the typical tone of their discussion as"...snide and sneering..." toward the traditional views and attitudes that makes America and Americans great. On one of their programs a few months ago, a conservative caller questioned the liberal view that government can and should provide free health care to everyone in the country. After the two hosts asked him a few questions about his background, they proceeded to psychoanalyze him. They seemed to believe that to question liberal policies, one had to have a mental disorder. They were quite understanding of this poor soul who, because of his early travails, had developed a psychological disorder that caused him to be insensitive. They made no attempt to address the issue he had raised. (Does the phrase "effete impudent snob" come to mind?)

Recently, all media outlets have experienced business difficulties. Many liberal print news outlets have gone out of business. Conservatives have explained that not only is there internet competition, but the public no longer blindly support the liberal editorial policies of most newspapers and magazines. This is only partially true. Many reading and thinking individuals in this country, unfortunately, do support liberal editorial policies. However, most commentators neglect the explanation of supply and demand. If the country is divided 50-50 between liberal and conservative, then there should be about that distribution of attitudes in the media. However, the division seems to be about 95% liberal medial outlets and 5% conservative. If the same commentary and spin on the news is available on the television news outlets for instance, then why should the liberals bother with getting it from the liberal newspapers? In other words, there is an over supply of liberal media. The conservatives have only Fox television, talk radio, and a handful of newspapers. (Even Fox news, in this writers view, accepts many of the liberal assumptions of the lamestream media.)

Besides on the traditional editorial page, most liberal outlets put a slant on every aspect of the news. They still talk about Obama changes as 'reform.' Commentators on the right may call them measured and cynical tactics to bring about socialistic control, but they do not claim to be unbiased disseminators of objective facts. There are also entertainment shows that satirize both the left and the right (with the same 95-5% split). How often does AKA Liebowitz (John Stewart), Colbert, or Overbite-Countdown to No Ratings satirize the left? With so many and varied liberal mouthpieces, many are bound to be nonviable economically, especially if they depend upon advertising from a highly depressed business sector. The movement to have taxpayer funds support failing news outlets only serves to embolden newspapers in their liberal leanings. Government support would only discourage them from giving a voice to both sides of the issues. In spite of the US Constitution, government funds for newspapers seems just fine to most liberals. (Give me a break.)