Constitution

Free Speech

Free Speech

I argue the most important freedom we have under the Constitution is the right to Freedom of Speech. It is interpreted as the right to speak freely without censorship or limitation. As defined in our own First Amendment to the Constitution, “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.”

Sadly though, something happened over the last century, accelerating rapidly over the last two decades. I previously wrote freedom of speech must remain free of tests, and the most important speech is one making us uncomfortable, but yet allowed. It is free speech protecting news media, web sites, and our access to information. We take for granted the freedom of the Internet and our assumed rights to read, review, and see any content. Of course, we are aware countries like China and North Korea censor their citizens’ access to web sites and news, especially political discourse contradicting their governments. We assume this will not happen in America, but quite the opposite is true.

Last week Senator Lieberman proudly announced his success pressuring Amazon.com to remove Wikileaks from its servers. Bill O’Reilly called for the execution of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange on his television show and Sarah Palin similarly did the same. The narrow-mindedness of these pundits is more concerning than the actions of Assange. Our willingness to have “hate speech” protections in America caused a young man in Kentucky to find himself sentenced to prison for three years last week after writing a poem titled, “The Sniper,” a concerning poem narrating the assassination of President Obama, but one that should be protected by the First Amendment nonetheless.

Many would argue some speech is bad, but I assert you must accept all speech to truly enjoy freedom of speech. The writings of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson granted our liberties and released us from tyranny. Using today’s standards their writings are treasonous and require “balance” and an investigation by Homeland Security would ensue with both men finding themselves on Domestic Terrorist watch lists; there would be no American Revolution. No matter how uncomfortable, the right to criticize and question our government leaders gave us our freedoms and we must continue to monitor and fight to keep this right to free speech. “Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime,” Potter Stewart

December 15, 2010 by Civil Rights Freedom Stupid People

wikisuccess……

wikisuccess……

I have been stunned by the number of times I have asked friends and family about Wikileaks and their opinion last week and they knew nothing. Although Wikileaks was splashed all over the headlines, sadly it appears Cybermonday is far more important to most Americans. Last week the talk show personalities and government officials were quick to offer their condemnations, calling the actions of Wikileaks treasonous and criminal. Anytime the media, government, and the entire political spectrum agree it is worth considering the contrarian position. Personally, I have a strong contradictory opinion in support of Wikileaks and want to make a case for my opinion.

I have watched Wikileaks evolve over the last several years as a safe haven for whistleblower journalism. Julian Assange is an Australian born hacker who ran a software company and is the public persona of Wikileaks. The catalyst for the web site was capturing internet traffic in China, observations and secret emails by the Chinese government several years ago shared by dissidents who required extreme protection for fear of ultimate retaliation by the Chinese. With the protections of Swedish law regarding anonymity to sources of the Press, secure servers around the world, and safe drop boxes for information Wikileaks became the ultimate whistleblower web site. Not only has the site shared government secrets, but individuals have posted corporate details leading to arrests.

In April 2010, after funding and server problems, Assange splashed Wikileaks across the front pages of the news worldwide with the release of secret documents describing U.S. killings of civilians in Iraq in 2007. In July 2010 Wikileaks released the “Afghan War Diaries” and Assange was instantly condemned by both the press and government for recklessly putting troops in harm’s way through the document release. However, the Afghanistan documents brought to light government cover-ups regarding friendly fire and civilian casualties. At the time, I researched this release wondering about the legality and learned of a similar, earth shattering release of government information made by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, “The Pentagon Papers.” Ellsberg was vindicated by the Supreme Court ruling the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.
With the release of last week’s documents, now labeled “cablegate”, Assange has become a permanent thorn to the U.S. government. Both sides of the aisle have called his acts treasonous and are seeking his arrest. He is reviled by many and wanted by Interpol, for consensual sex without a condom in Sweden. I argue the headlines are made to discredit Assange and tarnish his public reputation. Sarah Palin has blasted Assange, Clinton accused him of an ‘attack’ on the world, and Senator Lieberman successfully shutdown servers and related Wikileaks documents in the United States.

The documents show embarrassing corruption in the Afghanistan war, orders to spy on delegates to the United Nations by Secretary Clinton, and accusations of mafia like activities by the Russian government. I believe the documents show the true nature of our government, and governments worldwide, an elitist class of buffoons in charge of public policy using their positions of power to promote personal self interests. We all learn in high school we should live our lives as if our actions are to make front page headlines on the New York Times. In this case, with the release of documents dating back 40 years the true opinions and ineptness of our government officials is now public.

Those against the release of Wikileaks argue the documents will result in the loss of life to secretly placed operatives and erode progress of political negotiations, but no one has died as a result of Wikileaks. Cablegate has shed light on African governments stealing billions for personal gain, negotiations by the U.S. with terrorist nations, and acknowledgment of civilian loss of life in our wars. I am shocked the media is not more supportive of Wikileaks and can only assume the embarrassment of being “scooped” by one outside their ranks, similar to Matt Drudge during the Clinton years, has alienated support.

I argue government must be held to the highest standard, one that operates with ultimate transparency. Without the spotlight of transparency the citizens are subject to corruption, theft of public funds in the treasury, disregard of the law, and in some cases death. Assange promises the next release will reveal details of a large bank institution’s handling of the financial crisis. I believe public opinion and the media anchors will offer applause when Wikileaks offers the same insights inside a private corporation and comments similar to those made by our government leaders inside a board room would make the late night talk show monologues rife with jokes, not condemnation. I want my government held accountable and operating with the highest integrity and moral fortitude, I applaud Assange and his courageousness. History will reflect his actions as critical to the safety of citizens worldwide and changing the way government operates.

As I write this column, Saturday December 4th, 2010, the Wikileaks.org web site I visited multiple times earlier in the week is no longer accessible. Internet purists are working on new technologies to bypass government interventions and maintain ultimate freedom of information on the web. I do not live in China, I do not want censorship, and I do not want the tyranny of a government hiding from its own illegal acts.

December 9, 2010 by Big Government Civil Rights Controversy Mainstream Media Stupid People

Ants and Grasshoppers

Ants and Grasshoppers

I dictated this column ten days ago when the TSA backlash was first starting. Since 9/11 I have been questioning the policies of George Bush and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. In October 2002 I had a letter published in the News-Journal predicting new airport security measures were similar to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Removing shoes came next, I tried to resist but after being placed on the “TSA Watch List” and threatened by TSA I ultimately acquiesced and felt alone trying to stop this intrusion. TSA demonstrated its stupidity with its policy on liquids, watching me drink a bottle of Dasani water, clear and pure; requiring its disposal because it will explode.

Several weeks ago I saw a Tampa television station dutifully reporting about a multi-jurisdictional task force at the Greyhound bus station where FHP, TSA, and Border police were checking papers and searching passengers. The week before an Atlanta television station likewise reported about a comparable task force stopping trucks inbound on I-20 to pass through full size X-ray machines, check papers, and be searched. Sadly, Americans willfully reported they were glad to experience the inconvenience and felt safer, and no one seemed to question the right of the government or the warrantless search performed in direct contradiction to the Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This issue has moved beyond the requirement for airline security. Bush’s moves after 9/11, in the name of fighting terrorism, stole freedoms from Americans, undoing over 225 years of liberty: the Patriot Act created unprecedented warrantless spying, Homeland Security employees over 200,000 with a budget of $52 billion, and the relatively unknown support of the Courts to establish “Constitution Free Zones”. While you watch your elderly mother, wife, or teenage daughter undergo an intrusive, pat-down search, ask yourself by what authority has the government asserted this right.

The current fight is about the Ant and the Grasshopper, and the general failure of Americans to understand their Constitutional rights. We, the ants, are trying to resist the government grasshopper. If we succeed, we undo years of authoritarian success by the grasshopper.

November 24, 2010 by Big Government Freedom Terrorists

Election Season – Part III

Election Season – Part III

In last week’s column I worked to explore the definitions of the labels so quickly applied to describe various political views: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Talk radio pundits regularly throw labels around with the intent of degrading the reputation of someone merely by association. This week I want to examine the platforms of the two major parties and the rising Tea Party movement. I believe many people hear the labels and the names of the parties, but do not understand the history, or more importantly the platform. Today candidates are changing, or leaving parties, like grabbing flip-flops for the beach so I must wonder how important are the parties?

Liberalism is the renowned platform of the Democrats, essentially incorporating Progressivism to drive a humanitarian agenda based on intellectual theory and conjecture. The last 80 years have used Keynesian economics to justify government programs as the solution to capitalistic shortfalls. Thus, the Democrats are seen as a champion of the lower class, providing social protections. Democrats evolved from anti-federalist factions in the 1790’s and today represent the single largest political party in the world. The Party once favored states rights and strict adherence to the constitution. Today the Party favors liberalism, social not classical, and has embraced Clinton’s “Third Way” , believing government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation to implement policy.

Conservatism is used to describe Republicans, having evolved from Classic Liberalism, originally focusing on individual rights and civil liberties. This pre-1930’s attitude drives a platform allowing the individual to excel but forcing him to deal with the consequences of his own decisions. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists and saw Abraham Lincoln as its first president. By the 1890’s the Party was known for protecting business, primarily through tariffs, the gold standard, and high wages. The Party also opposed the League of Nations. Today, Republicans are defined by social-conservatism, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulatory policies.

The newly formed Tea Party is a populist movement in response to Congressional Bills passed in 2009. The Tea Party’s platform is focused on ensuring the constitutionality of every law, fiscal responsibility, limiting federal spending, reducing earmarks and reducing taxes. Although new, the Tea Party has demonstrated its ability to put forth viable, electable candidates and has forced the two traditional parties to defend their positions in political debate.

October 15, 2010 by Mainstream Media Stupid People

Burn Qurans

Burn Qurans

I am disappointed this afternoon, Thursday the 9th of September, after reading reports that Pastor Terry Jones has announced his church will not burn the Quran on Saturday, September 11th, the ninth anniversary of the day America was attacked by Muslim extremists. Last week I wrote in support of the project in New York, building a mosque at Ground Zero. Constitutionally the right to build the Mosque is guaranteed; however distasteful. Similarly, Pastor Jones’ right to burn the Quran is guaranteed; again, however distasteful. I would hope our military could defend itself, but that appears questionable based on public comments.

What truly concerns me is the world’s willingness to cow tow to the Muslim extremists and threats. Are we to believe the world’s largest superpower, the USA, and our western allies cannot defend citizens against threats from religious zealots who have become a political movement set on killing all who disagree with them? President Kennedy’s Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said “appeasing the aggressor only makes him more aggressive.” Repeatedly, this political movement, called Islam, has attacked innocent civilians worldwide: December 1992 in Yemen, 1993 WTC in New York, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania US Embassies killing 200 and injuring 5000, October 2000 USS Cole, 2000 Rizal Day Bombings in the Philippines, WTC 9/11/2001, 2007 Algiers Bombing, 2008 Danish Embassy, and the 2009 Little Rock Arkansas Recruitment building. Additionally, although not tied directly to Al-Qaeda, the Ft. Hood Massacre, failed 2009 Northwest Airlines bombing, and the failed Times Square bombing were also in “the name of Allah.”

Our President offers apologies to the nations of the world that oppress their mothers, daughters, and wives. The same nations with state established religion, censorship, and political oppression. He finds reasons to coddle our enemies, fails to retaliate, and explains we will withdraw troops to satisfy the demands of the petroleum-based kingdoms harboring the Jihadists who hate us. Our enemy issues “fatwa” for denigrating their political idols and writings, Muhammad, Allah and the Quran. Just check with Solomon Rushdie and the creators of South Park. Pastor Jones is considered by many a red-neck racist extremist; maybe he is a guy with the cojones to stand up to our enemy. Most saddening is General Patreaus’ concern for troop safety which makes me wonder who is winning the war. It appears 2,983 died on 9/11/2001 in vain and there can only be one conclusion: we must all live in fear of Islam.

September 15, 2010 by Civil Rights Controversy Freedom Muslim Obama Terrorists

Obama is Right

Obama is Right

This is probably the most concerning column I have written, not because I agree with the President but because the issue is sensitive, to both sides. Currently, whether to build Park51 (a.k.a. Ground Zero Mosque) is driving passionate public debates. Hesitantly, President Obama voiced his opinion two weeks ago when he said the right to build the project was constitutionally protected. The following day he made further comments stating while constitutionally protected, it may be in bad taste. I must agree with both of his comments. While it may be in bad taste, I do not believe it is a community center designed to protect, or possibly sympathize to Islamic terrorists as has been asserted by some in the media. Ultimately, the court of public opinion will either empower the developers and those funding the project, or send them packing.

I am disturbed by talk radio pundits flummoxing methods. Other than to inflame an ill-informed public there is no other purpose for the front-page debate. The fallacy of the current argument comes from the presumption if terrorists are Muslim then all Muslims are terrorists. I take issue because living in the south, as a white male; I am stereotyped as a racist redneck by the argument racist rednecks are southern white males. Similarly, a German born in the 1920’s is not automatically a Nazi. What has been lost in the argument propelled center stage is the right to build a place of worship, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The same people who herald the constitution in arguments against healthcare, bailouts, and social programs are quick to stomp the same document when it does not meet their needs.

There are many aspects of the Constitution which may not conveniently fit our desires and likes. However, if we remain consistent in our application, trusting the truths set forth by the founding fathers we will not go wrong. In the case of Park51, it is clear there is no constitutional violation to build. The decision to build is purely local and is governed by the zoning laws, planning commissions, and local electorate. Does it feel good to support building the project? No, but the more important issue at hand is support of the Constitution in the face of our enemies, asserting what separates our country from those who attack us in the name of God.

September 12, 2010 by Civil Rights Controversy Freedom Mainstream Media Muslim Terrorists

Liberty – Part I

Liberty – Part I

I am writing this week’s column on Independence Day, aka the 4th of July. I am in Washington, D.C. with my wife and children, having traveled here in our RV to show them our nation’s capital and watch the fireworks from the National Mall tonight. Our first stop yesterday, was the most important highlight of the trip to me, a visit to the National Archives Museum. I wanted to share with my children the three most important documents in the world, “The Freedom Charters”, or the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

Like no other nation in history, our founding fathers saw a need to create a new form of government, one free from tyranny. Men like Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”, were opening the publics’ eyes by creating a tool for debate to separate from a Monarchy and move to Republicanism. On July 4th, 1776 fifty-six (56) men penned their signatures to this “experiment” and risked their lives to give to future generations the “Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.” These mean, were young, idealistic, and working the land to survive and provide for their families.

Many today claim the writings and thoughts of these men are outdated and need to change with time. However, I would make another assertion; the simplicity of the singe handwritten page of the Declaration of Independence, or the four handwritten pages of the Constitution framed a government that was meant to first trust its people. As I walk around Washington, DC I now see a government that disdains its people, trusts itself, and honors itself. Our country is no longer our country, but one that belongs to a small group of elitists. This is obvious by the monuments, the size of buildings, security barriers along streets, thousands of police officers, and helicopters overflying. Ronald Reagan said, “Man is not free unless government is limited…As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Since our last Independence Day our country has changed dramatically, a huge socialist move has taken place under the guise of “Change and Hope.” Throughout history leaders have offered to care for their citizens, provide for them, but ultimately those experiments of evolved to dictatorships with tyrannical consequences: Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Stalin for example. Walking through Washington, I am proud to be an American, but like the bumper sticker on my RV says, “I love my Country…but fear my Government.”

July 12, 2010 by Big Government Civil Rights Freedom Stupid People