The Violence Worker!

John “Cougar” Mellencamp - Constitutional Scholar

Who knew?

I've enjoyed some of Mr. Mellencamp's music over the years.  Even is kinked up "Hurts So Good" is listenable.  During an interview with CMT discussing his influence in Country Music, Mr. Mellencamp drifted into discussing the First Amendment:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an asshole whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

“When I was growing up in the 50s, to be a good neighbor, you minded your own business,” he said. “You were polite to other people. You were polite to their kids. You looked out for the kids. Now, none of those things mean anything. … I don’t think the founding fathers died so that you could call me or you or her anything you want to say about it. I think you have to be accountable for what you say and do. People just don’t believe that anymore — (and they think) ‘I can say whatever the f- I want.’”

At the risk of being mean, let me politely disagree with Mr. Mellencamp.  People have a right to be mean.  However,  I believe in civility.  You will not see the "F" word here much, if at all.  I try to keep the tone somewhat civil, but there are a fair share of bloggers from all sides and topics that have no such convention.  And that is their right.  I do agree that civility is becoming extinct.

Where he errs is in his idea that only a spokesperson, speaking for a collective, is the only form of free speech intended by the Constitution.  It doesn't say that, nor is it implied.  That kind of view, held by the wrong people, could be dangerous indeed.  Who decided what groups have sufficiently good ideas?  Who decides which groups even have a right to exist, let alone speak? 

I speak for me.  Bobf and MOGS (when he returns from exile) speak for themselves.  It's my blog, I pay for it and I pay for the domain name, but when I invited Bob and MOGS to write, I told them I would not interfere and I don't.  They speak for themselves.

But because this blog is my property, I could change my mind, I could delete or edit their posts, or I could just delete their access.  I wouldn't do that but because it's mine, they would have no recourse if I did.

Anyone can start a blog - for free even.  Blogger, WordPress and some others offer free blogs.  After a few keystrokes and clicks, you can sit in your bedroom and be as mean as you like.  Indeed, millions fought, bled and died for that guy's right to sit in his bedroom and  be mean whether either of us like it or not.

Certainly, slander and libel should be avoided.  That stuff can get you into some real trouble.  But on the web, it's somewhat of a free for all and if you are a famous person, the rules are pretty loose when it come to those kinds of things.

Yeah, I kind of dissed Michael Jackson and yeah, I can get bothered by some of the idiots that walk among us, it's my opinion and if you don't like it, you are free to not read my rants.  On the other hand, if you come here to this blog and act reasonably civil, civility will be returned.

The First Amendment reads:

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice, Mr. Mellencamp, that the right to assemble is in a separate and distinctive clause.  Just like that troublesome freedom of religion clause.  It doesn't say that I can only worship with a group.

Give a guy a guitar, a couple of hit songs, and they think they are ready for the Supreme Court.

VW

Hat Tip:  Newsbusters

PS.  I did the uncivil thing and filed this under "idiots"

Left Wing Thuggery

A law was passed by the state legislature called the "Everything but Marriage" bill and subsequently signed by the governor that essentially gave gay couples all the benefits of marriage without the ceremony.

There is a group of people circulating a petition to have the law repealed.  In order to get on the ballot, they need to gather 120,000 signatures.

The left is against it, of course, and they are outraged.  Since Leftists don't believe in freedom (It's their way or the gulag) they are organizing to publicize the signers of this document.  From KOMO-TV News:

In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights. (emphasis added)

What this means is that they will publicize their list and try to extort money and/or apologies.  They did it in CA with proposition 8 supporters.  I'm certain that if some of these whack job extremists had their way, they'd open their own brand of "Gitmo" and send the signers off for more than just waterboarding session.

I've been on record saying that since the state has already hijacked marriage, it should either get out the business, or everyone gets a civil union and marriage would be left to the churches.  My wife and I have a civil union.  We were married in front of a judge.  Heretofore, I was rather ambivalent to the petition drive.  Not any more.  I will oppose thuggery wherever I can.

I tell you now, if I see a person asking me to sign one of those petitions, I will sign it.  Bring it you left wing goons!

VW

It Should Not Happen In America

When I was a  kid, we'd all tune in to watch the Miss America Pageant.  They'd walk across the stage in a bathing suit and high heels, then an evening gown,  The finalists all had to answer some insipid question and usually did so with an equally insipid answer.  There would be the runner's up named, building up to the crowning of the new Miss America by the last year's winner.  Bert Parks would then croon "Here she comes, Miss America" as the newly crowned beauty walked down the runway wearing her tiara and holding a few thousand roses.  A month later, most of us probably couldn't even remember her name, let alone what state she represented. 

Today, in order to placate the Feminists, pageants are not supposed to be just about beauty - although you won't see an ugly chick among them..  It's all about talent and scholarships, with the winner emphasizing her personal cause. 

The insipid questions they ask are still insipid and the answers are usually just as vacuous.  You may recall Miss Teen South Carolina's infamous answer to why one fifth of all Americans can't find America on a world map.

Miss California (Carrie Prejean), in competition for the title of Miss USA, gave an honest answer to a politically charged question.  The question, asked by a contestant judge by the name of  Mario Lavandeira, was about gay marriage.  In essence, Ms. Prejean gave the wrong answer.  The next day, Lavandeira showed his class and breeding by calling Ms. Prejean several unrepeatable names and saying her answer was why she did not win and if she had won, he would have ran up on that stage and ripped her tiara off and ran out. 

Whether he would have or not is open to speculation.  I imagine he really doesn't have the eggs to do much more than name call from a long distance.  Since then, some people have demanded she have her California title removed.  Others have joined Mr. Lavandeira's lead in classiness and called her names, etc.  "Objective" journalists have excoriated her.

Freedom is in danger.  Regardless of your opinion concerning gay marriage, or even of Barack Obama, you should be able to freely state it.  You should be prepared to defend it in a discussion or a debate, but you should be able to state it with out fear of some two-bit gossip monger and freak like Mario Lavandeira calling you filthy names.

Freedom is under assault.  Every day, conservatives are being told by liberals (and those same objective journalists) that their views are too extreme and must be modified.  Those of us who support the Tea Party movement are being called racists and even un-American.

As Ms. Prejean said at her presser today:  "It should not happen in America".  But it is.  Leftists are not about freedom of speech or freedom of anything for that matter.  They want to tell you what you can say, where you can live, work and play.  It's only going to get worse.

VW

Newspaper Bailouts

You had to know this was coming.  Newspaper bailouts have been bandied about here and there, but not much has been done toward that end.  That's all changed now.  A bill was introduced today in the Senate to provide a form of bailout for newspapers.  It's not exactly a cash infusion like AIG, but it does offer them a lifeline of sorts.  From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

So much for a free and independent press.  It's not like we've really had that in awhile, but this would certainly be the death knell to an industry already choking on their own effluvium.

A newspaper owned by a larger company would be ineligible unless the newspaper was sold to a non-profit to run.  Once run as a non-profit, some different rules would apply.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Somehow, I derive little comfort from that part of the bill.   Reporting can often be slanted and facts either left out, or distorted just enough to make your side look better.  The fact that they would be barred from making endorsements is a minor impediment.

Gone would be any pretense that the newspapers were some kind of a watchdog over the government.  My dog is a good watchdog, but he won't bite me and presumably the press would not bite the hand that was feeding it the tax breaks it needed to survive.  All it would take would be an accusation of impartiality and a prospective loss of tax-exempt status and the watchdog would quietly remove its teeth.

There are a lot of reasons why newspapers are failing and although I've speculated as to the cause of death, my guess is probably as good as anyone's.  If there was a better guess as to the reason for failure, one would think the owners would be be fixing the problem rather than shutting down the presses.  Even if this abomination passes, I think it's only postponing the inevitable. NPR is not all that popular and making a newspaper into some kind  of print version is not going to save the industry.

No respectable newspaper should even consider something like this.  It goes against everything a free press stands for.   Hmmmm...check that, they shed that respectability cloak years ago.

On the other hand, ACORN will soon be flush with a few billion from the stimulus bill.  One might speculate that purchasing the Seattle Post-Intelligencer woul be something they may want to look at.  If you can control the news, no one will notice you are rigging the vote.

VW

The Weekly Awesome: Update 1

Two links for you to view and reflect on. (NOTE: some links for further study provided at the bottom, which may spark some serious commentary in the future, special thanks to RightWingProf a blog well worth your time).

Guilt: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America and why it's a harsh dose of reality to burst the bubble of la-la-land coating a huge chunk of this country.

By the way, I love Ann Coulter - I love the fact that she has the guts to actually say what millions of people actually think but don't have the guts to say - someone has to do it, and if we didn't have her, we'd have to invent her.

Andy Breitbart's Big Hollywood - my new favorite blog, because the worst mistake the conservative movement in this country has ever made, was to cede the arts, academia, and the public forum to the far left.  Well, to be honest, I'm not sure if it's really so much ceded as much as "sucked so bad that it left a gaping hole the other side rushed in to fill."

I'm not going to sugar coat things, the reason why a lot of conservative culture lost out over the past 30-40 years is that it was guilty of the same things leftist-driven culture in America has since come full-circle to suffer from as well

1) The number one rule of cultural endeavors: entertain.  If you don't entertain on some level, you lose people's interest, and quick. 

2) Don't suck (see rule one).

3) Don't assume that "silence is agreement/compliance" or that everyone in your desire audience is on "the same page."

4) The echo-chamber/preaching to the choir effect.

Let me illustrate this as best I can, awkwardly and incompletely.  I'm 31 years old, and growing up, I think nothing did more damage to image of Christianity in America and its subsequent devaluation than the following things: Christian rock, and an overreaction to media-driven fake controversies (re: heavy metal music, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, and throw a hand up if you remember these - Jack Chick pamphlets) which turned out to be chasing shadows more than anything else.

On the first - the reason why for most of its existence Christian rock has been mocked and ridiculed has been first and foremost, it was bloody awful as far as being "rock" music goes.  It was parodical.  Treacly, mealy-mouthed, saccharine to the point of encouraging diabetes, it promoted less an image of a loving God than a Peter, Paul and Mary sleepover guaranteed to do one thing:  get your child beaten up at school.  Seriously, what it did was contribute to an image of "Christianity is for wusses" and "Christianity makes your kid into a passive victim" or, come to possess a "persecution complex" as my dad used to put it. 

Christianity in America, Catholic and otherwise, was in a long downward trend because it turned off its young men, and still does in many ways.  Nothing has been more harmful than the image of "Jesus, the guitar playing-sandal wearing wandering hippie."  That's not what I was looking for in a God, and trust me, scratch deep enough of just about any other man in this country who's lost his drive for Church, and I bet you'll hear the same thing.  If I have to self-describe my religious views, well let me put it this way - Military Chaplains get the idea that "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean "be a passive wuss" - something that I think far, far, far too many mainstream preachers and parents believe.  In another life, I would have made a good Templar Knight, Hospitaler, or Teutonic Knight perhaps.  There's a reason the Norse worshipped Odin, and Yahweh of the Old Testament had a penchant for well-earned butt-kickings too don't forget.

Now to be fair, Christian rock has finally started to come into its own, mostly in the form of Christian metal (no, not Stryper) but honest-to-god metal bands like ZAO and Living Sacrifice, who might scare the pants off of many parents, but I guarantee you have probably done more to rehabilitate the image of Christians among the young than any number of sermons, crappy cartoons, horrible young adult novels, especially non-offensive to parents, etc, which typically fail because they end up being pale attempts to model successful works which succeed because they seemed to capture real life and all its fun and faults to a greater degree, contained some not-so-Christian themes and ideas.

It was Christianity's run for cover, fleeing from reality and retreating inside a plastic bubble in the post-'60s era, that did so much damage.  Nature abhors a vaccuum.  Ironically enough, as Breitbart's new site really demonstrates, the Arts driven by "liberal" points of view, have fallen into the same trap.  I think it's great to see the other side, for once, in its annoyingly self-righteous, moralistic, and arrogant way, hoisted on its own petard.  Much like the conservative movement has been (and I think often deservedly so) for the past 35-40 years.  

Here's some things to ponder about, for cultural conservatives, Christian, libertarian or otherwise.

NO ONE likes to be beaten over the head with message.  Message also doesn't make up for poor art.   Poor art is poor art, I don't care what your politics are, but unfortunately, there's a population of various fanboys who will buy stuff because it fits their "scene" or their "lifestyle" or whatever they call their little club of everyone non-conforming together these days.  As a self-proclaimed punk rock/indie kid, I couldn't stand the way that punk bands, especially "Straight-Edge" or "Hardcore" bands would sell records just because they were straight edge or hardcore, having little to do with the actual quality of their work.  (Re: I'm talking to you Earth Crisis, in particular).

Here's another, and I am really taking aim at (insert) fundamentalists (because they're the most well known for it, fair or not) here.  Draconian, fearful condemnation of things like books, games, etc, aimed at scaring your kids or warning your kids always seem to backfire don't they?  Why do you think that is?  Here's why:  music does not make your kid kill anyone, themselves included.  It's a cop-out. It's looking for the easy target, and it avoids self-reflection and self-analysis.  If you want a good case in point, just go listen to Jack Thompson (he of the ban videogames fame) sometime, and really listen to what he says - even if you think (as I actually do) that Grand Theft Auto is cultural trash, the guy is a grade-A idiot.  If you really don't like a particular cultural artifact, I have a novel idea - stop funding it.  Stop making it attractive by turning it into the forbidden fruit.  Stop supporting fundamentally un-American idea like censorship because you don't approve.  Stop adopting the same dang tactics that you claim the Left uses on you (lawsuits, bad legislation with a HOST of even worse unintended consequences towards the First Amendment or other fundamental freedoms).

If you don't like something, then don't buy it.  Don't watch it.  Understand this though, that the more you try to stick a kid in a hermetically sealed "bubble" of reality, the more and more of a disadvantage they are going to find themselves in the world. 

Like it or not, they have to interact with the world at some point, even if you send them to religious schools, live in a religious town, etc.  Overprotectiveness and overbearing hostility to the world sets otherwise good kids up for failure - rather than teaching them how to deal with the world and make good choices, instead it makes them the awkward outcast which you know?  There is no such thing as "individuality" when it comes to adolescence.  Telling kids that they are somehow "better" than their peers because of their suffering doesn't make for better kids, it makes for arrogant little snots - don't believe me?  Go check out the kids in a creative writing, journalism, or art class sometime and see what it does to the "other side" of the equation (here's a hint - they grow up to be the tired, poor souls who churn out the same movies over and over "the suburbs suck," "jocks are evil" "traditional values are all wrong," "America is bad") - I guarantee you, if those kids had gotten more dates in high school, we wouldn't be suffering through their pathetic attempts at revenge via the Multi-Plex and Barnes and Nobles right now.  Overprotective, "seal off the world" types do nothing but turn our more fodder for the Stuff White People Like crowd - aka, I love hipster Buddhist and Taoist kids especially, or as I like to call them the "ANYTHING BUT CHRISTIANITY kids because my parents did everything possible to make me hate Western culture, my fellow teens, and create nothing but resentment because I had no friends and coudn't get a prom date."  They adopt a religion-of-the-month because they want something in their lives, but got turned off not by reasonable, legitimate objections to bad cultural artifacts, but because their parents, peers, teachers, etc were, well, asinine about it.

The bad news of it is this;  unless they suffer from some unfortunate physical deformity or handicapped, most of the kids who get picked on in school really did or say something to bring it on themselves  It's time we stopped kidding ourselves about that, and about bullying too.  Bullying serves a great purpose, and I think we actually could use more of it in todays anti-septic cry-baby world (ever notice that you see fewer and fewer men as school teachers, at any grade level? Ever stop to wonder WHY for a second?  Ever wonder why there's fewer and fewer men in the "helping" professions?)

But back to my main point - if you think you're doing kids a favor by shielding them from all the bad influences of popular culture, I think you're making your kid a naive sucker waiting to be sucked up into a bad crowd, who'll REALLY do damage that a session of Grand Theft Auto or listening to some old-school Judas Priest can't do.  (Also, I should have made this clear earlier, I'm really talking about "teenagers" when I say "kids" here) - Point out to them first that the movie, or book, or whatever really isn't all that good come to think of it (a perfect case study - try the ultimate 20th Century "cool stuff" that seems awesome when you're 17, and unbearibly horrible by the time you hit your mid twenties, unless you're one of those losers permanently stuck in Stuff White People Like mode - "On the Road" and "Catcher in the Rye" are great exampels of this.  "American Beauty" and now it seems "Revolutionary Road" are new ones - "really, the suburbs are just SO horrible.  You never went to bed hungry, you had a roof over your head, but it was just so, so, sould crushing wasn't it." - When you point this out to a group of teens or smug 20 and 30 somethings, they seem to shut up pretty dang quick).

When you take the approach of ridiculing, or exposing the weakness of popular stuff, rather than pulling the reactionary "no, burn and ban it!" you actually have a real impact.  You make the kid able to think critically and decide what's good or not good, instead of becoming a fearful, rodent-like wuss always looking over his shoulder for fear the "devil is gonna git ya" if you play a session of D&D (hey, once upon a time I was a Level 12 half-elf ranger too), or listen to Motorhead (I'm smart enough to know that Lemmy's lifestyle would kill and normal human being except Lemmy apparently, and maybe Keith Richards, who I am convinced is a zombie).

I don't know how much sense I made in this post, or how many people I ticked off.  But if I made anyone think, then mission accomplished.

Now if you'll excuse me, time to boot up my rank 10 Witch hunter, and listen to some Maiden while I'm at it.

Update 1: These links, which Prof sent me, do a good job of encapsulating the theological and more interestingly, liturgical points I'm trying to make here.

Strange Places Pt 1.

Men and Church 

Facing East  

On Being Good

I'm about to wander into territory most people think should be best left to philosophers and theologians, not high school educated, blue collar types like me.  However, I think it's important that guys like me think about and even discuss these things because ethics and religion effect us too, not just poker-faced academicians and cross-looking vicars.  At some point, someone or some group is going to get in your face and force you to think about what you believe and how deep that belief may run.  If you are in Washington D.C., that point is now.

From CNN News:

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington buses starting next week and running through December.

The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.

In lifting lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the Washington-based group is wading into what has become a perennial debate over commercialism, religion in the public square and the meaning of Christmas.

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group.

I've never struggled with the question of whether or not there is a God.  The matter's been settled with me for a very long time.  I thought through the process and I believe what I believe.  I will admit to questioning Christianity a time or two, but that is also settled and I am comfortable as a Protestant Christian.  I've come to my beliefs in my own way and by my own study. 

And probably because of my faith, I have a hard time understanding those who don't believe.  I have no problem with them taking out the ad.   I've always been a free speech and religion kind of guy.  This is America and people have a right to believe or not and they have a right to tell people whether they believe or not.  I've often observed that if we never talked about religion or politics, no one would ever get elected and everyone would be on the fast track to hell.

As a believer, I understand that God is the ultimate arbiter between good and evil.  God, in his Word, has given us the basics in which we construct our ethical behavior.  God gave us the Ten Commandments that are the foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic.  Our entire moral system is distilled in that set of ten thou shalt and shalt nots.  What is good and what is bad is codified for us and all we've done since then is try and improve on them with varying degrees of success.

What I don't understand is what do the Humanists base their system of ethics on?  Those of us who believe in God can point to the Decalogue to show the foundation of our morality and we can say because it was given by God, we as humans, cannot change God's law.  Even if a person of faith violates God's law, he does so at his own peril and understands that concept.  He may also be breaking the law if it involves theft or murder.

The Humanist need only fear the law.  Outside of that, there is absolutely no solid foundation to their morality.  As a matter of fact, their ethics are based upon religion whether they want to admit to it or not.  They say it's wrong to murder, but where did they get that idea?  Hint:  It wasn't an original thought with the Humanists.  They might wrap it in all kinds of ethical mumbo-jumbo, but religion and the sanctity of human life predates any argument the Atheists have.  Still, because it is only based upon their own logic and reasoning, there is nothing holding them to any of it.  "For goodness' sake" sounds rather thin when you come right down to it.

Being good is fine and everyone should strive to "be good" but basing your whole moral base on nothing more than the thinnest of foundations doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

VW

Revenge Of The Liberals

When Liberals lose an election, they think one of two things,  One, someone cheated and second, they will avenge the obvious theft of what should have been theirs.  However, if liberals cheat, it's because we cheated first and if we didn't, they still get a right to cheat to get what they want because they know what is better for us.

To Liberals, their ideas and concepts are so good and so logical, they transcend any and all debate.  If a liberal thinks something or someone is good for you, that's all you need to know.  If that something or someone is on a ballot, then your responsibility is to vote for it or that person.  Mind you, they are not pleased that you have a choice in the matter.  It should be automatic, but they don't control everything yet and they are forced to work within a system populated and sometimes run by people who are not yet as highly evolved, i.e. Conservatives.

Such is what happened in California with Proposition 8.  Obviously it passed because the Mormon Church cheated.  Lawsuits are flying and boycotts are threatened.  While the Mormon (LDS) Church didn't fund the campaign, the encouraged their members to fund it and work for its passage.  All of that is perfectly legal, but liberals don't see it that way because...well because  they lost.  Now, Mormons and the hated red state of Utah are going to pay for having the audacity to challenge what should have been theirs in the first place!

From Fox News:

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

Defy us and you will PAY!!!!  The line they crossed was defying the liberal California establishment and the ensconced gay elitists

It strikes me as a little ironic that the Sundance Film Festival is the brainchild of one Robert (Sundance Kid) Redford.  Old Bobby R. is as left as they get.

There is no outcry from these people over the shady campaign financing of Obama.  There is no cry of foul over Obama and his Rezko connections.  There is, however, this huge outrage because they lost in California.  Never mind it wasn't all Utahans. Never mind that Park City and Sundance are probably as gay friendly as any place.  These hate-filled people want revenge.  They want retribution.

How far evolved is that?

VW

What Would It Take?

The vast majority of the MSM are for Obama.  They've made no bones about it and even revel in their worship of him. They've spent more resources investigating Governor Palin and some Joe Nobody in Toledo than they have the whole Obama-Ayers relationship.  I'm guessing that the MSM's toadying probably gives Obama at least a 10% or better boost in the polls.  To hear Obama cry that Fox News cost him a few points in the polls was almost laughable.  However, all of that is old news and you already knew that.

As I sat here pondering that bit of truth, I wondered if Obama is elected, how long would the marriage last?  I wondered if there would come a point that the press and Obama would ever have irreconcilable differences? 

What would it take for the MSM to leave the altar of "The One"?  What would be the issue that would send the MSM in search of another darling? 

Traditionally, the press sort of gives the new Administration a few weeks or more to get geered up before they start lobbing hardballs.  But what would be the difference if the Dems manage to eek out a Senate super majority on top of a house majority?  Would the Press act as a rubber stamp?  Would there be any kind of honest and objective reporting at some point?  What would be the tipping point, or would there be one?  Where is that "gone too far" point?

I imagine the press would only start to cry foul if they felt that their new masters were trampling on their rights.  And it is conceivable that the Democrats would come down heavy handed.  They have a lot of pent up anger over talk radio and the way they think it it was responsible for their sojourn into the minority party desert. 

I'm just guessing like everyone else.  I have a lousy crystal ball.  When I gaze into mine, all I see is the word "Brunswick".  I'm not sure what that means.  Despite my lack of clairvoyance abilities, I think the Democrats will push to limit the press.  How much of that push the press actually allows before they get their feathers ruffled is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, if McCain ends up winning this thing, there will be no honeymoon.  They will be relentless in their attacks on him and anyone associated with him.  It would be worse than their hatred for Bush.  That prediction, I would put money on.

VW

Powered by ScribeFire.

Speaking Truth To Power

"Speaking truth to power" is a catch phrase the left likes to throw out when they think they have a "gotcha moment" when confronting a Republican.  Oh how they preen and congratulate themselves for daring to confront "the man" like they are risking jail or a beating or some such nonsense.  The tout their courage across all across the realm.

Oh, but let one lousy working stiff confront the messiah with a question that accidentally coaxes an honest answer out of him and it's not speaking truth to power, it's heresy!  Tricking "The One" into admitting he's a Socialist was somewhat akin to getting the emporer to admit he was naked.

The left has gone after Joe the Plumber with a vengeance matched only by their anti-Palin crusade.  They have turned this poor guy's life into a living hell!  The Brown-shirted Kos Kiddies went into overdrive and published every facet of this guys life.  Other lefties chimed in and now, it seems that not only will he not buy the business, he probably won't even have a job in a day or two.  If I were him, I might look into suing somebody.

The left, and more to the opoint, Obama can't deny what Obama said.  Joe the Plumber might not have been the best person in the world to ask the question, but it's the answer that is important.  The left will destroy anyone they see as a threat.

It's one thing to go after Palin.  She's a politician. She didn't deserve the hatchet job the left unleashed but her record is certainly open for scrutiny.  Joe is a private citizen whose only sin was to ask a question.

The lesson there should be obvious.  If you are going to speak truth to their power, the left will ruin your life.  Stalin would be proud.

VW

Powered by ScribeFire.

Truth Squad, Or Goon Squad?

UPDATE: Missouri Governor weighs in on the Missouri Obama Police State

_______________________________________________

Political campaigns are a blood sport.  Both sides will try and twist and spin things to their advantage and both sides will take a big huge gulp of that umbrage brew when it happens.  It might sometimes border on the unethical, but it's not illegal.  Even if a candidate puts out an out and out lie in a campaign, it is considered protected speech.

In Missouri, we are learning that Stalin Obama has organized a posse of prosecutors and police called "the Missouri Truth Squad" to intimidate remind people and groups that they had better not "lie" or they will "target" them.

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

Now I don't presume to know what these law enforcement officials mean when they say they will "target" them, but the implication is that they will bring the force of the law to bear on any recalcitrant campaigner who runs an ad against Obama. 

Here's my problem with this.  First they are law enforcement.  Second, they are WORKING for the Obama campaign.  They might not be getting paid directly, but they have been recruited by the Obama campaign to do this.  Third, there is absolutely no hint of impartiality from these public officials entrusted to enforce the laws of the state of Missouri.  This is tantamount to political repression!  Isn't that against the law too?

If McCain did this, there would be calls for his resignation and accusations of Fascism - and they would be justified!

If Obama is willing to do this kind of thing during the campaign when he carries no official authority, what can we expect if he has the full weight of the Presidency and the Department of Justice behind him?  Obama may not plan on being a dictator, but people, this is how they  operate.  For example, look no further than Hugo Chavez and his attempts to stifle free speech in his country!  Even closer, look at Cuba!

Whether we like it or not, lying is not against the law in a campaign.  Last year, The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed that point in a 5-4 ruling in a case where a Green Party candidate lied about her opponent.

OLYMPIA, Wash. A sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a law which bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

State Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, invoked the law in 2002 after his Green Party challenger, Marilou Rickert, distributed a flier that asserted Sheldon voted to shut down a state institution in his district. In fact, he voted against a budget that included closure of the Mission Creek youth camp, although critics said he didn't do enough to support the facility.

He filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission, which investigated and imposed the maximum fine, $1,000. By then, Sheldon had easily won re-election. The commission action was upheld in Superior Court, but overturned by the appeals bench.

The Supreme Court majority said in Rickert v. State of Washington and PDC that the new law "like its predecessor, is unconstitutional on its face."

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.

"The best remedy for false or unpleasant speech is more speech, not less speech. The importance of this constitutional principle is illustrated by the very real threats to liberty posed by allowing an unelected government censor like the PDC to act as an arbiter of truth."

In other words, it's the voter that is the final arbiter of campaign statements, not the courts.

Obama's campaign is thuggish and we can expect that he will run the White House in a similar manner!

VW