Free speech

In a fund raising event from 2003, Hillary Clinton screamed shrilly into the microphone, "We are Americans. We have the right to participate and debate any administration." I thank you Hillary for insuring that everyone knows that we have a right to free speech. Maybe you should sit down and chat with Elena Kagen about her ideas on free speech. She believes that the administration has the right to "redistribute speech". Okay so what does that mean? In a nutshell, if the speech can be viewed by someone in power as "inciting violence", the government has the right to move in and stop the hate speech. Okay, so guess who gets to judge what is hate speech? Yeah, Hillary, Bill, Barry and Kagen. And who has the target on their backs? Right, Rush, Hannity, Malkin, and the tea partiers.

I believe in free speech, in fact I have defended your right to say what you wish. Even if I don't personally agree with it, I believe you have a right to say it. Just as Hillary proclaimed in 2003. I heard somewhere that you can tell a mature person, because they will allow free speech that they don't agree with. However, the liberals are all hell bent on controlling the speech that they don't agree with. They hate the tea partiers, and want nothing more than to restrict their right to speak up and voice their opinions, thus exercising their first amendment rights. The libs want to keep the mouths of their opponents shut, they think they have the moral high ground. Why else would they try to control so much of our lives.

But there is a small problem with this philosophy. Remember there has to be some body that decides what speech is allowed, and what is to be restricted or even denied. When this body gets the upper hand, they are very reluctant to give up control, and the fist becomes tighter and tighter. When a population is willing to give up some of its liberty for anything else, than that nation is in decline. We allowed the terrorists to get under our skin and create a fear that made us all ask for our government to protect us. So we gave up some of our freedom in order to feel safe. What else are we willing to give up. Our money in taxes, and yes, they will go up; at what point do we just allow the government to take what it wants and just let them decide what we need to survive? We asked them to control the business climate, "Please big brother, no more layoffs." We asked them to make sure we have a living wage, hello minimum wage laws. And now we are asking them to take care of our health care, what are you willing to give up for that? Nothing is free! At first estimates, everyone person living in the United States (legally) owes $821,655.00

I for one am not willing to allow Big Brother to take anymore of my liberties. I willingly will fight for my right to "participate and debate any administration", thanks to Hillary's blessings. Patrick Henry once proclaimed, "Give me liberty, or give me death", how quickly we have forgotten our history.

a new nominee

So Obama has an opportunity to finally put a justice on the Supreme court, we always knew it would be a radical leftist, but even Barry has outdone himself this time. His current nominee has a flagrant disregard for the Constitution. She doesn't hold sacred the document that our country was based on, she is one of those liberals that thinks the Constitution can be interpreted as any judge sees fit. There is really nothing such as Constitutional Law.

In the case the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in March of 2009, Justice Roberts interprets what Kagen was trying to convey, "The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

When the court heard oral arguments in the case again on Sept. 9, 2009, Kagan personally made the case for the administration. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Kagan if the administration stood by its position that the government could ban books.

Kagan told Ginsburg that the administration had changed its position. It now believed that although the law itself allowed the government to ban corporations from publishing books, it believed that if the government actually tried to do so a litigant would have a good case challenging that prohibition in court.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), a corporation could be banned from publishing any book that advocated for some candidate or position on an issue with general funds, they would need to set up a PAC and use designated funds. Of course the court never decided completely what constitutes a "book", in fact "Chief Justice Roberts wanting to pin Kagan down on how far she believed the government could go in banning speech by corporations. He specifically asked her if the government could ban a pamphlet published by a corporation. She indicated the government could do that."

So she believes that censorship is okay, but that there might be a case against it. That is until the Supreme Court, which she wants to sit on, decides that the case is baseless, at which time censoring unpopular speech will become the law of the land. Yeah, this is a fair and impartial advocate. This is scary, never mind her stance on other important issues, I won't even mention her position on marriage and abortion. She needs to be "borked" big time, only thing is, does the media have the balls to tell the truth. Probably not.

quotes taken from cnsnews.com/news/article/65600