The bedrock principle of the First Amendment is to protect political speech from government censorship. That is what the Founders intended as a way for the citizens to disagree with their government without fear of reprisal.
Speaker
Nancy Pelosi is not feeling the love. After all she has done for us, we ingrates are not showing our proper appreciation. So, Speaker Pelosi is in talks with Steven Speilberg to see if he can help remake the image of the Democrats.
Whether you call it an iceberg or a torpedo, ObamaCare just struck something or vice versa and it doesn’t look good. The ship is taking on water and you can hear the orchestra tuning up as they rearrange the deck chairs.
The injustice of it all. Poor Charlie Rangel ran out of money for his attorneys and stomped off saying he wasn’t going to play anymore, because his fellow House members were being unfair to him. As many a parent has said to their recalcitrant child, “You should have thought about that before you [fill in the offense here].” It is most likely that Mr. Rangel will be censured, just like his predecessor in that same Congressional District, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was censured.
Please enjoy this audio podcast
Click to PlayYour comments and feedback are welcome. Please feel free to share your thoughts below.
[click to continue…]
We all know by now Tim Bishop’s position on outsourcing. Rather than being a response to conditions of full employment and poor quality work, it can only be described as despicable. One problem with his view is that he voted to bail out GM who turned around and outsourced good manufacturing jobs to their overseas plants increasing production there by 50%, once the bailout was approved. You don’t hear Mr. Bishop talking about that vote very much. He also doesn’t like to talk about his vote on TARP that sent billions of dollars to French and German banks. He only wants to talk about outsourcing. Not the outsourcing that he has done but only about his opponent.
The Democrats like to point to the Clinton presidency as proof of their fiscal responsibility. It was a period of strong growth, balanced budgets, and prosperity. They then point to the Bush presidency, all eight years of it, and deride it for deficits, and ultimately a very severe financial crisis. But it is worth taking a moment to recall that the federal government is made up of three co-equal branches of government with built in checks and balances. The Congress is not subordinate to the president and it does not work for him. It is an equal branch of government that checks and balances the power of the presidency. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave out the third branch, the judiciary.
Despite the famous 1992 Clinton campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the recession had already ended in March 1991. When Clinton took office he had a Democratic Congress and he pushed through a massive tax increase in 1993 without a single Republican vote. We know what happened to Congress in 1994, the Republicans took over for the first time in 40 years. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which was included in the Republicans’ Contract with America. It passed in the House but failed by one vote in the Senate. After losing this round, Gingrich met with the Republican leadership and put forth the idea of acting as if the amendment had passed and just start submitting balanced budgets. They succeeded in the last three years of the Clinton presidency to produce budget surpluses and decrease the national debt. This included a tax cut by the Republican Congress in 1997, and the economy grew much stronger after the Republican takeover of Congress than under an all Democratic government.
In the 1996 election, the Democrats regained control of the Congress under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Up until that point the economy had grown steadily under President Bush despite two wars. With Bush in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress we had tax cuts and seven years of economic growth. In December of 2007 the economy went into recession, almost one year after the Democrats regained control. Now with a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats in control of Congress we are looking at massive growth in government, a whopping tax increase bearing down on us that will hit on January 1, 2011, and a growing debt that may eventually bankrupt us.
So what is all this talk about eight years of failed Republican policy? Under Clinton and a Democrat Congress it was two years of a tax increase and modest growth. Under Clinton and a Republican Congress it was six years of tax cuts, budget surpluses and strong economic growth. Hmmm….same president, different parties controlling Congress. Under Bush we had seven years of growth and tax cuts with a Republican Congress. Under Bush and a Democratic Congress, recession, fiscal crisis. Hmmm…same president, different parties controlling Congress.
But don’t expect honesty on the campaign trail from the Democrats. It’s just not the Chicago way.
“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
So reads the opening paragraph of Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals.” Barack Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky taking his first job out of Columbia as a community organizer in Chicago and tutored by a man named Mike Kruglik. Kruglig described Obama this way:
“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.” — “Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu,” American Thinker, January 8, 2008
Democrats Facing Threats After Passage of Health Care Reform
While wading through a crowd of protesters carrying a massive gavel, Nancy Pelosi was joined by several prominent black Democrats. A racial epithet was called out from the crowd evoking a reaction from Pelosi’s companions. The cameras caught the reaction, but not the provocateur. Neither the police or any news organization caught the individual, but the “main stream media” immediately started linking Tea Party protesters with racism.
In the following days, CNN and others reported threats to Democrats who voted for the health care bill, including a graphic voicemail to Bart Stupak; an anonymous fax picturing a noose was sent to a black Democratic Congressman James Clyburn; Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter reports a brick being thrown through the window of her district office in Niagara Falls, NY. Very troubling indeed.
Having walked down Pennsylvania Avenue with thousands of Tea Party protesters last year, I can say they were the most orderly, principled, polite, helpful gathering of people you could imagine. Naturally the “main stream media” reported nothing of this demonstration other than a sign or two that linked this administration to the Nazis. So was I surprised to see this vitriol suddenly sprout up? While I could understand the frustration with this arrogant Congress and President ignore the overwhelming will of the people, I still couldn’t grasp them going that far.
When I heard about the broken window in Congresswoman Slaughter’s district office, I thought of other protests with broken glass. Protesters smashing windows in Seattle at a meeting of the World Trade Organization in 1999. The G20 summit in Scotland in 2009 had protesters smashing windows. These violent protesters represent the left, not the right. Hmmm…
Last night in Ottawa, the police cancelled a speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa, because the threat of violence became too great:
After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois’ letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.
Ms. Coulter received a letter, before her speech, from the provost of the University that she could potentially be criminally liable for hate speech in Canada. Who else spoke at the University without such admonishment? How about Communist Angela Davis? Hmmm…
Rules for Radicals
So what are Saul Alinsky’s instructions to radicals? Here he outlines the purpose:
In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3
“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….”
Everything is relative and changing. Doesn’t that sound like the left’s view of a “living and breathing” Constitution? The Constitution is not what the Founding Fathers intended when the wrote it, but what the words mean in today’s context. In other words, there really is no Constitution, because the Constitution means whatever you say it means today.
“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriated weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36
Clothe it with moral garments. Did the Democrats argue the merits of health care or did they continually fall back to stories of, for example, “a woman who had to wear her dead sister’s dentures,” said Louise Slaughter. Or, they said that when people were asked about the details of ObamaCare, the public overwhelmingly supported it, so they are not opposed to the whole package. Really? I’m sure that if you picked through the programs of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you could get similar reactions: lower unemployment, self-respect, prosperity, etc., but the full package doesn’t work, it’s a lie.
Rules for Radicals: Tactics
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Can you say racism? How many times has this trump card been played? The epithet hurled from the crowd immediately sparked cries of racism and the “main stream media” tied them to the Tea Party protesters.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
The Democrats squeaked through an ugly health care bill. The next hurdle is to get this far behind them and try to salvage the 2010 election before they are thrown from office. Recent polls show a significant uptick in Obama’s approval, but it is all coming from Democrats. Republicans haven’t budget and Independents are even worse. Hmmm… what do Democrats do now? Read Rule 13.
Pick the target: The Tea Party protesters are the most energized potent force in politics today. They must be stopped. Freeze it: Have some left wing radicals, maybe some SEIU members mingle among the Tea Party protesters and shout the racial epithets and melt away. Pelosi’s parade route was known among the Democrats. They staged it to look like a Civil Rights march from the 1960s. They knew the media would be there and they could see, once on site, where to stand to be heard by Pelosi & co., but not be caught on camera. The lap dog media would immediately launch into grave concerns of the Tea Party turning ugly, “as we knew they would.” Freeze them.
Personalize it. What is more personal than racism? How do you defend against a charge of racism? Polarize it: Paint the Tea Party as a bunch of hateful, racist, violent rednecks with guns and fair minded people will not want to associate with them. They will drift away from the Tea Party and in the absence of another group to organize them, they hope these folks will become dejected and not turn out in November, and Nancy Pelosi can dodge a bullet and tighten her grip on the Speaker’s gavel.
Battle Back
The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws. Press them to find out who did these things. Put forth the theory that it is the left trying to discredit the Tea Party people. After all, which is the more plausible explanation, radicals being radicals or law abiding citizens becoming crazed and dangerous? Make them disprove the case.
This appears more dangerous and grave every day. It’s eight months to November. Stay vigilant and don’t let up.
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Presidential Oath of Office, Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.
“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010
Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election. In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention. Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.
Obama Weighs In
As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution protects free speech. So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech? Is that what he is supposed to be doing? Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.” He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party. Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.
If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House. Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him. If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby. If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture. Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about. Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers. His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument. In part:
“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….
The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech. I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon. It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed. Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.
