Ch 6 – Protecting and Preserving the 1st Amendment

Amendment I — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston's own. Down at street level another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the Police Patrol, snooping into people's windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.—George Orwell, 1984

1984 knockin’ on your door, will you let it come, will you let it run your life; Someone will be waiting for you at your door when you get home tonight; Ah yes he is gonna tell you darkness gives you much more than you get from the light; it’s time you started thinking inside your head that you should stand up and fight; oh just where will you be when your freedom is dead; won’t you listen tonight; Classic plastic cooppers well they're your special friends; they see you every night; Well he calls himself your brother but you know it is no game –You’re never out of his sight … lyrics to 1984 by Randy California of Spirit

Orwell was a very prescient fellow.  He saw what the future would look like and it was not a pretty sight.  Now the year 1984 has come and gone.  He may not have quite got the date right for countries in most of Europe and the U.S., but in many parts of the world much of his dystopian nightmare exists:  North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Argentina, Communist China and the still recovering Former Soviet Union. Despite the euphoria of those friends of Obama who now think that big Government is the answer, a few of us are a little more than concerned that we in the West are moving closer to that Orwellian nightmare of centralized government where personal freedoms are not allowed and newspeak, doublethink and the thought police becomes the order of day. 

I always thought that Liebling’s “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one” quip applied to other countries, not ours. But when I look at the concentration of government backed media outlets in the hands of a few moguls, I am more than a little concerned. The clear distinction is that when government is party to the monopoly only corruption follows.

Although I am not an advocate for concentration of economic power in the hands of a few companies, monopoly and near monopoly conditions in and of itself may not be a bad thing. Certainly, we could not have free competition in the original Space Program or in building national armed forces.  If you are a cynic you see the day when we are not only outsourcing commercial jobs to other countries, but also duplicating the Romans before the fall of the empire in allowing mercenaries and the barbarian hordes compete for positions in our military. Certainly it is not totally outrageous when you see our former president pushing for allowing a Muslim country to control our ports when we are at war with the Militant arm of Islam.  But I digress.

In the purest sense a monopoly condition is a natural outcome of a Darwinian survival of the fittest.  For example, although most of us would like to see multiple software vendors directly competing with Microsoft, it really is not practical or beneficial to the consumer. After Microsoft won the standard of the desktop for operating systems and applications by competing openly in the marketplace, the outcome for the rest of the computer industry was not less opportunity but more. That is, thousands of smaller companies sprang up to supply hardware and software for this newly created “ecosystem” of the personal computer.  For those of us old enough to remember the pre-computer or early computer days, we can appreciate the benefit of standards in computing. Certainly we would have a difficult time plugging in our toaster and other appliances if we did not have some standards of electricity that the utilities provide. And the same holds true for many products sold in the mass market. So for some industries a partial monopoly condition is the natural condition of free enterprise.

The world of radio broadcasting is somewhat analogous. Although it is nice in theory to have more than a few conglomerates own most of the radio stations, the product we get with syndication is a superior. Simply the ability to have the top commentators and hosts have a voice in markets all over the country is a good thing for the consumer. Why would a local market prefer to listen to Uncle Jed’s News Hour when he has the opportunity to listen to America’s best and most intellectually stimulating and entertaining hosts? To revisit the computer analogy, if the government forced minority ownership into each market, this would be like the government forcing every small or minority computer operating system vendor into their local market and not allowing people the choice of purchasing a standard product like Microsoft that ultimately provides the best products with the most applications at the best price. Monopolies in markets that are the natural outcome of free competition are not bad if the result is a better product and it is done within the constraints of a free market without collusion, price fixing or any other unfair practice.

So the point is that I am not in anyway justifying monopolistic practices as the preferred state, I am simply saying that the free enterprise system and the Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest may lead us to only a few survivors. But artificially constructed monopolies formed by collusion, corruption and government influence are of course bad. In fact, a monopoly formed by government intervention is the most harmful of all because it is the most corrupt of all. When you combine a conglomerate that owns a major chunk of news and information outlets cheerleading for the government while apparently receiving significant government contracts, this is worrisome indeed. When you have the government forced break up of free market broadcasting in the guise of ending monopoly practices, all you really end up with is a single government monopoly which is worse than any dominance of an industry by a small number of broadcasters.  The broadcasters at least are motivated by money and inevitably put the best product on the air in order to maximize their profits. Government on the other hand is motivated by ideology and that is truly where free speech ends.

Then you have the issue of the education monopoly and their inevitable symbiotic link to government. Here you have teachers unions raising funds for democrat candidates and in return receive special favors like having the President essentially kill off (by eliminating funding) a successful voucher program for inner city minority students as a payback to the union. I wonder where Jefferson Smith would stand on this issue.  I wonder if Jefferson Smith would object to having teachers teach about freedom but their very unions do everything they can to make sure there is no free competition in their own profession. Didn’t he say to that cynical Miss Saunders: “You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.”

In the pre-Internet age it was a fairly easy process to suppress free speech by closing down the newspapers or controlling the few broadcast news stations that existed. And our founders like Ben Franklin knew “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Today the process is a bit more involved but the result is not much different. Although the Internet has a wealth of information, the sheer volume makes sorting out the fact from the fiction, the good from the bad a herculean task.  So in many ways too much information is almost as good as not enough to the tyrant.  Ironically, although many libertarians sing the praise of the Internet and free speech, the masters of propaganda embrace the noise, and use it to their advantage. The masses either do not have the skill or the time to sort through the clutter to find meaningful information.  So that is where the government comes in.  As Lenin reminds us “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” All the government has to do is keep repeating the lies over and over again.

It is my contention that therefore conservative talk radio is actually the last line of defense before the Marxist ideologues have complete control of free speech in America. Arbitron statistics tell us that 90% of everyone over 12 years of age listens to the radio. That is higher percentage than newspapers, magazines, television and the Internet. So with that kind of reach, it is safe to say that in raw terms, more people of all ages potentially get their news from the radio.  Of course, the one format that specifically targets news junkies is the infamous News/Talk format. Over 90% of the News/talk radio listeners tune in to “conservative” shows versus only about 10% who listen to “progressive” stations.  AmericanProgress.org estimates ten times more listeners tune in to conservative talk as “progressive” talk radio. So the estimate of conservative listeners is about 90% of 50 million listeners per week or about 45 million listeners (Arbitron, “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio, 2007 edition,”). This scares the hell out of the Marxists hiding behind benign organizations like American Progress. Orwell himself could not have come up with an organization with Progress in its name that wants to go back to a 1949 law to justify its actions.

So why does this disparity exist?  In the American Progress report, they state “The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 gave station owners and hosts free reign to fill their programming with ideologically conservative content.”  To the Marxists, this must mean that there is something wrong with the fact that Orwellian fairness doctrine was repealed. The fact that the market place tells radio owners and programmers which programs are popular means little to Marxists. The Marxists asks themselves, “How can this be?”  There must be a systemic imbalance that must be corrected.  The American Progress report admits that the Fairness Doctrine will not resolve the situation and most probably understand that the market conditions are so different from 1949 when the Fairness Doctrine was instituted that they have little chance of using this argument to accomplish their objective to limit or marginalize conservative talk radio.

But they have other ways to reach their goal of silencing conservative talk. They attempt to minimize the importance of the market forces being the reasons for this disparity. As any conservative could tell them, the reason they listen to conservative talk is simply due to the fact that the rest of the media is firmly left wing and they are bombarded with it daily – virtually all of the television news and major newspapers. Other than conservative talk radio, only one cable news channel Fox News – is remotely conservative.  So it is plain to conservatives that talk radio is the only place to hear the “news and views you won’t hear anywhere else” as my local conservative talk station advertises.  That is the only reason. 

But the ideologues at American Progress ignore this fact.  Instead, they have some tortured logic that states that “When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative—despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows—the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand.” So what they are telling us that the free market is wrong and it is up to government to tell us what is right.  Do you see a pattern here?  When elites acting in the supposed best interest of the people, tell the people that your vote – your choice is wrong – that we the government elites know best, how is that anything other than Marxist theory applied to broadcasting?  How is that anything other than tyranny of the elites over the free expression of the people?  Let us be clear, there are hundreds of stations and other media forms that a person can choose, yet to the Marxist, there must be something wrong with the system if their ideas only get a 10% share in the free market!

So in true Orwellian fashion, American Progress’ answer is to promote more free speech not less – by shutting down those syndicated shows that conservatives listen to. In true Marxist fashion, remember what the battle is always about – poor versus the rich. In this case, this means drumming up statistics that show how minority ownership (you get twofer here – play the race card as well as the economic guilt card) is low and therefore needs to be addressed. Surely this is merely a ploy to bust up successful conservative syndicated shows from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others.  Of course, they do not seem nearly as concerned about breaking up the monopoly situations that favor their ideology in the Alphabet news channels, CNN, and newspapers. As a conservative, I would be willing to consider their solution to more minority ownership in talk radio the moment they do likewise in the rest of the Marxist controlled media.  That will never happen. 

But now that Marxists control the executive and legislative branches and are getting close to complete dominance of the judiciary, it is quite likely that a government backed program like the one spelled out in the American Progress report will soon be a reality unless we can stop it. Here is what the Orwellian future looks like if this program is enacted based on American Progress’ recommendations that the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:

* Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
* Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
* Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the process to determine whether the license should be extended.
* FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with the public about licensee conduct.

So this is how the Marxists limit free speech. Cloak it in protecting minorities. Limit the term of licenses. Then bring in the gangsters to intimidate the broadcaster the way they did to the banks and the auto Industry. Of course, this is done in the light of day with public participation and even on-line discussions! This is the mother of all doublethink in our time. If instituted – either as a direct assault through Congress – or by the Federal Government using witch hunt style show trials in order to intimidate broadcasters – the result will be to stifle free speech – especially that speech that is critical of the government. We are approaching the point where we have a single party rule that controls all media outlets. We should be very concerned indeed.  My friends, this doctrine will not only not be “fair”, it will also insure that the first amendment has been officially destroyed. Dissent by those on the conservative side of the political spectrum will be officially silenced. Or one possible positive outcome will be a boon for satellite broadcast with the official death of terrestrial talk radio imposed by the government. Unless you are a major investor in satellite radio, right thinking Americans hope it does not come to that.

But the present model that the Obama administration advocates is Alinsky style Community Organizing intimidation on steroids!  I hear Nino Rota’s famous theme to The Godfather playing in my head as I see it now: Rahm the “enforcer” Emanuel telling radio station owners that he is going to make them an “offer they can’t refuse”.  Then he goes into a profanity laced tirade and tells them to play ball or he’ll shut them all down. The Alinsky Capone Chicago gangsters will do what they did to other industries they helped to destroy, they will “reluctantly” take procession of their stations if they don’t play ball. Conservative talk radio will be muted once and for all – unless the Marxists in power also control the content of satellite broadcast. And then what will happen?  I suspect that there will be a lot of angry truckers and white middle age men who will start to cling to their guns if not their religion.

But of course, that will not happen, because after all, the Free Speech movement was started in Berkeley California.  As I write this I live in one of the most liberal and most scenically beautiful places in North America – Marin County California – just a few miles north and west of Berkeley. As I drive down the hilly back roads of Marin, I cannot escape seeing the Prius and multitude of what has been affectionately labelled Basic Marin Wheels. Not a GM car in sight. I see the religious multicoloured iconic bumper sticker with HOPE as its message on the back of late model Volvo, I ask myself – what Hope?  Hope for what?  Change to what? Change for what? As a local talk show host Barbara Simpson closes her show:  Be careful what you wish for – you just might get it!  And yes, we are getting change – after all the dollars are siphoned out of our bank accounts in confiscatory taxes – that is all we will have left – a few pennies in change! Hope?  Hope is not a strategy or a solution – it is a bumper sticker! Hope without a plan is recipe for disaster! So they bust out the banks; then the auto industry; then talk radio. Then what?

Yes, the radicals have taken over the Democrat party and that, my friend, you should be fearful of – and if you are not just a little concerned about the spending bills that have been effectively rammed through congress with fear, lies and Blackmail – you should be! It is time that many of our somnambulistic countrymen who voted for a far left socialist regime thinking they were just voting for “change” from the perceived ineptitude of George Bush – wake up! 

The enemy is within.  And they are prepared to let the Barbarians in the Gate! And do they do this because they hate America and its values?  Damn right they do! Most of their pin head professors do.  Their indoctrinated mouthpieces – formerly known as journalists do.  All the elitists who have gained power in local, state and federal government do as well.  The problem is that we the people have been playing by the rules while the elitists running things do not – except for maybe the rules in Alinsky’s book.  Is it just me or is there an inordinate number of Obama appointed officials who avoided paying taxes?  Turbo Tax Cheating Secretary of the Treasury – one of his jobs is to oversee the IRS. Are you kidding me? If someone wrote this into a plot line in a book I would tell him to leave it out – who would believe it?  Well, believe it!

There are a very significant number of very spoiled well fed Professors (many with tenure and guaranteed pensions), so-called journalists, and their disciples who spend a great amount of time bashing America and playing into the hands of our enemies.  Dissent is American.  But much of what masquerades as debate is nothing more than sedition and outright treason in a time of war! But today publishing classified information in the NY Times is hailed as courageous journalism and these anti-American cockroaches hide behind the first amendment. It is not courageous if there is no consequence for an action.  And I see an intimidated Republican Party unable to act forcefully to counter these traitors.

The age of the Alinsky gangster is not that new. Most of the thuggish totalitarian regimes in the world, it is the norm and not the exception. It is not that it is new to America, it is just the scale and the speed at which the government is successfully stifling meaningful debate and opposition that is new. Stalin tore Lenin’s statues down, changed the name of the city – but his central mode of controlling people did not change from Lenin’s famous quote:  a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Like the workers in the Former Soviet Union, the vast majority of American drones who believe the lies gushing from Washington are willing participants in a mad  power grab by Radical Socialist Activists who use these drones the way our good friend Lenin used the workers in the former Soviet Union to successfully overthrow the Czar.

Their moral rationalization is clear: Whether the tyrant was in a thuggish regime like Nazi Germany or the worker’s utopia of the Former Soviet Union – the ends justified the means.  So what if a few rights are swept under the table.  Change is all that matters!  And the Germans after Weimar Republic and Russians after the Czar got change.  The only question I ask of my BMW riding fool – are you ready for the change?  Are you ready for Government sticking its punitive head into everything you do?  Are you ready for a Government that either resembles the iron boot Tyranny of Nazi Germany or workers utopia gone horribly wrong of the Former Soviet Union?  Well, I am sure the elites of our country will learn from those well known experiments and give us a unique Socialist hell of their choosing if they are allowed to! 

And what is with the idiocy of people who vote for change for change sake?  What if the change leads to tyranny?  Has government education so numbed critical thinking in this country that a majority of the population would just vote for a “bumper sticker” slogan?  No it is more complex than that – but not much more.  Ask a brainwashed public school educated twenty or thirty something otherwise bright person – why they voted for Millhouse (Mark Levin’s affectionate term for Barak? (Conservatives were excoriated during the election for using his real middle name because it sounded like the name of our enemy in Iraq – so Levin just give him the nickname of Richard Nixon’s middle name). Their answer is likely to be – “because it felt good”.  Right.  Or take the more reasoned response of those who spewed talking points like:  Bush is bad – out of Iraq!  OK, that one at least had an issue behind it.  They do not like the war. 

As I have heard some conservative talk show hosts admit: “our shows would not exist if the rest of the media did its job”.  The thirst, the demand for Conservative points of view is directly attributable to the fact that almost all newspapers and media outlets lean left and in some cases far left.  And essentially, if Government Schools and the media did its job of educating our citizenry in an unbiased way, this book too would be unnecessary.  I do not want to hear the counter argument that these media outlets are fair.  They proved in the last election, they are not.  Bernie Goldberg – long time journalist for CBS has authored two rather compelling books on the subject – Bias and A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.

Both books do a very good job of exposing and successfully arguing the case for all of us who live it – the vast majority of media outlets are not populated with objective journalists. These talking heads, in some cases out right propagandists and public relations for the Democrat Party carry the water for left leaning causes and especially this history making President. There is a particularly good defense of Goldberg after a recent comment by CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, who said:  "He has (Goldberg) found a way to make a living by criticizing CBS news and journalism as a whole". Chris Norman a blogger to this on-line article responded: “That is right – what's Schieffer's point? CBS and the media have given him a wealth of bias to expose and criticize. Schieffer alone provides a steady supply. The fact that Bernie Goldberg has made money writing books about the real issue of media bias does not take away the legitimacy of the criticism – no matter how sinister Schieffer lamely tries to make it sound.  By the way, I find it far more honorable to have made a living out of criticizing liberal bias like Bernie Goldberg has, than to have a made a living out of engaging in media bias as has Schieffer and his ilk.” I could not have said it better myself!

We must use and protect the few conservative media outlets open to us.  After we understand where our great system has come from, the next thing we must do is to preserve and protect the 1st Amendment.  We cannot let the far left manipulate the system in an Orwellian fashion with the so-called “fairness doctrine” or any other scheme to intimidate broadcasters to limit the few Conservative talk radio or TV outlets we have. In Great Britain, the “thought police” Jacqui Smith, has banned talk show host American Michael Savage from entering the country – lumping him in with violent Muslim terrorists.  Although some in the left and conservative circles alike may find Savage offensive at times, there is no evidence from his over a dozen years on the air that he has ever preached violence.  This may be the first of many volleys to come to silence conservatives. And we must be cognizant of the second clause in the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion.  It is time to unmask secular religions like Marxism that are given free rein to propagandize at will in the public school and workplace while at the same time the courts are siding with these secular religions that are expunging Christianity and traditional religions.

Although I am coming to the conclusion that Americans with conservative and traditional points of view have only one place to go to, I am not enamoured with either party.  I see the Republican Party as the last hope against the onslaught of radical Marxism that has taken over the Democrat Party.  It is not that I find the Republican Party ideal, but the time for petty bickering among Conservatives is over. I care about America.  The way I see it today is that there are too many political eunuchs that claim to be on the side of Liberty, but are not. There are too many people who call themselves conservatives or patriotic but do not defend or hold fundamental principles of liberty. On the contrary, many conservatives are “sunshine patriots” and do not have the fortitude to call the enemy by its proper name. 

To these castrated conservatives – who are Republican or Conservative in name only – they refuse to say we are fighting Militant Islamists, instead they tell us we are engaged in a “War on Terror”.  This is patently absurd, because as Daniel Pipes has brilliantly noted in Militant Islam Reaches America – terror is a tactic like “surge” or “blitzkrieg”.  We are not at war with a “surge” – we are at war with a people who have high jacked a Religion – Miliant Islamists or Islamo-Fascists. The Marxists in power have taken it one step further and have even erased even the word “War” from our conversation. In the politically correct speak of the Marxists in power we are now engaged in an “Overseas Contingency”.  Can the language get any more mangled than this? And for those Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) who continue to define the political opposition as Liberals or “progressives” – I would like to inform them that we are not in an ideological war against Liberals. We are in an ideological war against “Statists” if you are trying to elevate the debate and radical Marxists if you are just telling it like it is. 

We live in the age of Orwell’s doublethink.  According to Orwell’s own words: doublespeak is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

When I read this quote the first thing that pops into my mind is Barak Hussein Obama.
Let us list some examples of his doublethink:  I will abide by campaign finance laws to limit contributions to my campaign.  I will not try Bush Administration officials for using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.  I will add three million jobs to the economy.  Here’s the reality: Obama did not abide by campaign finance limits and took many millions of dollars more in campaign contributions when it became obvious that he could raise much more money than allocated by the exiting campaign limits.  Obama has allowed his attorney general to pursue Bush officials for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that he considers “torture” after he said he would not allow that to happen.  From Dec 2008 to April of 2009 the nation has lost over 5 million jobs with no end in sight.  In April, the media did its best to cover for Obama, from the National Journal: “April's job loss of 540,000 looks pretty good when the monthly drop of payroll employment in the previous four months averaged 700,000.” At what point does Obama take the credit or blame for the state of the economy and his policies?

Now under pressure from the far left of his party, Obama is waffling in discussing whether certain Bush administration officials should be held accountable for the “enhanced interrogation techniques” against a select group of three known terrorists – including the mastermind of 9-11. It is now convenient for some in the new administration to label non-lethal and proven effective “enhanced interrogation techniques” as “torture”.  So simply change the definition of EIT and call it “Torture”, and now you can have the likes of Barbara Boxer – (D) Senator from California in the SF Chronicle May 10 state: “This is the rule of law, and if anyone broke that law, it seems to me, those people should be held accountable…let us have a truth commission”.  Just the sound of “truth commission” coming out of duplicitous members of congress makes me shiver in thoughts of Orwell’s 1984. Ms. Boxer is big on enforcing the rule of law for political enemies, but her concern about the rule of law when it concerns “immigrants” who come hear illegally – not so much! And of course, our Speaker of the House, the third person in line to the Presidency, has offered some contradictory statements on her briefings on EIT – what she knew and when she new it is in dispute.  She has conveniently forgotten that she was briefed on EIT in 2003 and therefore would be in no position to call for an investigation if she did nothing to prevent the EITs. She has essentially called the CIA liars, and now there are several other members of congress and CIA memos that supposedly contradict her testimony. It will be interesting to see how long this soap opera on Capital Hill plays out.

What other ways do the Sophists in charge manipulate the language?  How about the use of a term that actually contradicts what it really does?  It is hard to believe, but what else do you call:  Limiting or silencing dissent unfairly that is called the “Fairness Doctrine”; a politician who grows government like a socialist calling himself a “Compassionate Conservative”; a doctrine that negates the civil rights of one race to show preference to other races is called: “Affirmative Action”.

I also think there are many bright folks who do not see the fanaticism and religious zeal in the secular world.  The world that preaches “free speech” but shouts down anyone they do not agree with:  That is the kind of free speech that radical students at Berkeley engaged in when they did not like a guest Speaker – Israelis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2000. So they proceeded to steal newspapers from all of the news stands that announced the time and place of Netanyahu’s speaking engagement. But that was just the start, with just a small mob of a couple of hundred or so protesters, a sympathetic or cowardly (take your pick) Berkeley police force allowed them to shut down the “speech” – which also led to the shutting down of subsequent speeches in those bastions of tolerance San Francisco and San Mateo. 

This, my friends came from the same group that founded the Free Speech Movement. To remind those who were either not born yet or too high on prescribed or non-prescribed medications, the Free Speech Movement was the 1960s series of protests that were unprecedented at the time; students insisted that the university administration lift a ban on on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom.  As reported by the Jeruselum Post on the Netanyahu event: The protesters, predominantly white, included some Arabs. A number handed out copies of the Worker's Vanguard, a Marxist biweekly.  Are we seeing a pattern here?  Is this what David Horowitz meant by an Unholy Alliance? Now that Netanyahu is prime Minister once again in Israel, I wonder if he will be taking part in any speaking engagements at that Bastian of free speech known as the University of California at Berkeley. In the end, secularists have the evangelical zeal and fanaticism of true believers of religion. For the time being the secular Marxist only steals newspapers and occasionally engages in a small riot here or there.  At least they are not burning anyone at the stake yet!

So finally what is a hate crime and how does it relate to the first amendment? In the simplest terms, all crimes should be judged on facts, not on interpreting the “thoughts” of the accused. If a homosexual is murdered, and the jury finds the defendant guilty and he is subsequently executed, what else can we do for the victim?  Should we strap him in the seat and give him a second lethal injection since this was a “hate crime”? Again Orwell saw the inevitable nature of “thought crimes” and what would inevitably happen when the government enacts laws based on “thoughts” of the accused rather than facts of the case. At some point, you don’t need an actual crime to take place; you just need the government to prove that the accused is guilty of “thinking” bad thoughts. And as I will discuss in more detail when I discuss secular religions and shari’a law, we must be vigilant in protecting a true freedom of religion. Other religions should not be given preference over any other religion in the name of a secular ideology. And a religion that fails to separate theology from its legal structure should not be considered only a religion if it does not allow for a true separation of church and state.

It is our sacred duty as Americans to protect and preserve the 1st Amendment. In addition to protecting free speech, we must understand the Freedom of Religion Clause in the 1st Amendment. We must also comprehend why Hate Crimes Laws are unconstitutional. We must prevent politically motivated law suits and government fiat to intimidate opponents and stymie Free Speech.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.