Press Should Not Meet Off The Record With Eric Holder

May 30, 2013 2 Comments

Eric Holder tentatively has plans to meet with the press regarding the Justice Department’s subpoena scandal. The meeting is of course off the record, so the press won’t be able to formally nail Holder down on anything. To their credit the AP, Huffington Post and New York Times have refused to participate in Holder’s off the record gathering. The Obama administration has engaged in a number of off the record press gatherings lately. They had a big press pow wow over Benghazi a couple months ago, now Holder wants an off the record pow wow over his subpoenas.

These off the record meetings are a little on the disturbing side. We all understand that the administration is trying to manipulate media coverage. This is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The issue here is that the administration is inviting journalists to a secret discussion of administration scandals and/or actions. They’re being told the administration spin on the facts, which no doubt paint Obama, or in this case Holder, in the most favorable light possible. Then the media is unleashed to tell us absolutely nothing about what was said. The administration goal is to manipulate the media into providing favorable coverage because the media will be privy to off the record information that they can’t share with us little people.

Make no mistake this is about keeping information away from the voting public while manipulating the media into more favorable coverage. Because the meeting isn’t on the record, the public isn’t going to find out why our Attorney General went judge shopping to obtain the James Rosen warrant. The media might be able to ask Holder the question, he will no doubt dismiss the story as not a big deal and hope that the media causes the story to go away as a result of his charm offensive. Meanwhile the public doesn’t get to find out why the Attorney General had to go through three judges just to get the Rosen subpoena authorized.

In order to have a free press the media can’t engage in regular off the record press conferences with the government. This White House already produces its own news coverage which it wants or expects media outlets to use. Part of having a free press is allowing the media to publicly ask questions of those in power. When those press conferences no longer happen in public or when they are declared off the record, we no longer have a free press. We instead have a manipulated press that covers stories based on information they cannot share with the public. It may work well for the President but it keeps the public in the dark about what their government is actually doing.

Thankfully some of the mainstream liberal media outlets have had enough of the off the record gatherings. At least three are refusing to attend Holder’s off the record press conference. All of them should refuse to participate. Leave the off the record media meetings to Obama’s hoard of liberal bloggers and assorted editorial stooges. Those who feign objectivity should not allow that objectivity to come under fire by meeting in secret with Cabinet members or the President’s media mouthpiece. Under the first amendment the press is of course free to do as it pleases. But in order for the first amendment to be truly fulfilled, the press cannot participate in off the record press conferences such as the one Holder proposes.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Leftists Attack The Constitution

January 3, 2013 5 Comments

The left has spent the better part of the last month attacking the Constitution. It began with the Sandy Hook shootings which brought calls for massive gun control and/or an elimination of the 2nd amendment. A Constitutional law professor wrote an op/ed in the NY Times Sunday suggesting that we don’t bother following the Constitution anymore. Over in the UK, they’re demanding that we eliminate free speech. If we are not governed by the Constitution, just what will we be governed by? This is of course never mentioned by the liberals who want to rain on the Constitutional parade.

Louis Seidman suggests that following the Constitutional form of government is ludicrous and antiquated. He more or less argues that the Constitution should be viewed not as the law of the land but as a grand list of governing suggestions. It’s sort of like how the left views the Bible, they ignore what they don’t like. What this means in practical terms is anyone’s guess. Seidman suggests that the government will of course protect free speech and freedom of religion. But one gets the feeling that Seidman would do away with the 2nd amendment. Seidman wants to change the foundation by which our governing institutions claim their legitimacy but if we have no Constitution where exactly do these institutions claim any legitimacy?

When a nation goes down the slippery slope of ignoring its founding document it ends in tyranny. If we don’t have to follow the Constitution what is to stop Congress from passing laws banning free speech? They’re attacking free speech on Twitter, demanding “hate” speech be banned. While privately held Twitter can ban whatever speech it wants, the argument rests on the speech other countries ban. The argument is against the American 1st amendment. If we no longer need to follow the Constitution there will be nothing compelling Congress, the President or the Supreme Court from enforcing Constitutional protections such as free speech.

All free nations have a founding document of one sort or another that details the powers entrusted to the government. The Magna Carta and the Constitution are perhaps the two most famous. When a nation begins to ignore the founding document tyranny usually sets in. The French Revolution saw one Constitution after another destroyed by tyrannical politicians who ignored such documents. The result was Napoleon. The Wiemar Republic had founding documents which were ignored and ultimately eliminated by Hitler. We may not head down the path of Napoleon or Hitler but what exactly will protect our freedom if the government won’t follow its founding document?

The left hates the Constitution because it limits their ability to turn America into a European Socialist state. The only way they can win in the end is to discredit the Constitution, mock it and convince the public that it is worthy to be ignored. We’re seeing an increasing assault on the Constitution from the left, largely because it prevents Obama from going forward alone with his left-wing plans. Make no mistake, if a Republican were President the left wouldn’t be attacking separation of powers in the New York Times. We must as a nation ask ourselves whether we want a government unlimited by the Constitution. Do we want a government that has the power to cast aside the first amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. If we’re willing to cast aside the details of the Constitution, we’re willing to forgo free speech, free press and freedom of religion. Give the government and inch and they’ll take a mile.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Obama Seeks State Control Over Church Hiring Practices

October 5, 2011 Leave a comment

The Obama administration is assaulting church and religious freedom by asking the Supreme Court to rule that the government can regulate the employment practices of religious institutions. In other words, Obama wants to apply Federal employment discrimination laws to the church. Throughout American history the government has stayed away from regulating religious activities based on the first amendment’s free exercise clause. As a result religious institutions aren’t taxed and aren’t regulated by the state. Obama seeks to undo this and force Federal employment law upon the church and other religious institutions.

It’s been said throughout American history that the power to tax is the power to destroy. As such the church has never been taxed by the government, largely because it subjects the church to state control. It can be said today that the power to regulate is the power to destroy. Which is perhaps why the Obama administration wants to regulate church activities by applying employment discrimination laws to the church and other religious institutions. If the government is give the ability by the Supreme Court to regulate the employment acts of the church then it’s a matter of time before the government can regulate every aspect of church activity.

Make no mistake regulating the employment activities of the church is an attempt to control the church. The government claims that it attempting to prevent discrimination in religious schools and other religious institutions. But in doing so they’re seeking to control the church. If a religious school is not free to discriminate against, for example, other religions, then they are being controlled by the state to the point that their religious teaching becomes meaningless.

To illustrate this, say we have a Christian school that seeks to teach children in the Christian tradition. If the school is part of a church, it is currently protected from Federal discrimination laws. If Obama gets his way, those laws would apply. As a result, the church would be prevented from discriminating against applicants who are Jewish, Muslim or Atheist because Federal law prevents discrimination based on religious faith. The school, and thus the church, would be prevented from making sure its students are only being taught by fellow believers. We could extend this to any religion. Can you imagine telling an Orthodox Jewish school that they had to hire Muslims or a Muslim school that they had to hire Jews and Christians? The government in all these cases would be preventing the free exercise of religion under the Constitution.

It is likely that the goal isn’t limited to scenarios such as a Christian school being forced to hire and/or not discriminate against Muslims or Atheists. While not yet a Federally protected class, you can bet the left is eying making homosexuals a protected class under Federal employment law. If the Obama administration is successful at regulating the church via employment law then it can force the church to not discriminate (ie: hire) homosexuals despite religious opposition to their orientation. You can bet that if this isn’t the long term goal of Obama himself it is the long term goal of many of the leftists in his administration.

All religious institutions must be free from government control. Any control over the hiring practices of the church or other religious institutions amounts to an infringement on the free exercise of religion. The left loves to throw around ‘separation of church and state’ as though religious people aren’t free to speak about their faith in the public square. These same people are oddly silent when the state seeks to control the church via law and regulation. The church itself ought not have any power over or within the state. (religious people are another matter) Likewise, the state should have no power in the church. It surely should not have the power to tell the church who it may not refuse to hire.

Filed under Christianity, freedom, Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

Houston V.A. Cemetery Seeks To Ban God From Military Funerals

July 1, 2011 9 Comments

A battle is brewing at a V.A. cemetery in Houston where director Arlene Ocasio is attempting to ban God and Jesus from being uttered at Memorial Day and funeral services. Suit was filed before Memorial Day after a pastor was told he was not allowed to pray using the name of Jesus at a Memorial Day service. He won that suit but the V.A. continues to demand that families submit prayers in writing prior to funerals for her approval.

It doesn’t end there. The National Memorial Ladies have been told they are not allowed to say “God bless’ orally or in writing to the families of deceased veterans. Vietnam veteran Nobleton Jones hands shells from 21 gun salutes to families and tells them “We wish that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace.” Miss Ocasio has told Mr. Jones that he isn’t allowed to say this to families.

The First amendment to the Constitution does not allow Congress to establish a nationwide religion. However, that doesn’t mean that religion is banned from Federal property. Congress has prayers each day, the Supreme Court has the 10 Commandments posted in their building and prayers are a regular part of Presidential inaugurations. The notion that the first amendment means no religion can ever be part of anything associated with government is ludicrous.

The first amendment doesn’t entitle people to be free from any religious speech. It only entitles people to be free from government creating a nationwide religion. Military funerals are private events and it is disgraceful that the V.A. would attempt to censor religious speech. Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you get to censor everyone else so that you don’t have to hear religious speech. That’s not how the first amendment works nor is it how it should work. You cannot deny others their right to free speech in order to satisfy your selfish desire not to be confronted with the name of God of Jesus Christ.

The notion that pastors must submit prayers for government approval is surely a violation of the so-called separation of church and state the left so loves to talk about. But it’s worse than that. Having pastors submit prayers for approval not only denies pastors their right to religion but it is also a chilling effect on their free speech. After all doesn’t a pastor have the right to speak as he sees fit? Doesn’t a family have the right to hire the pastor of their choosing to conduct their loved ones funeral? Veterans families have enough to deal with when their loved one dies, to force them to submit prayers for approval from a V.A. bureaucrat is outrageous.

These men fought for freedom and the very government they fought for is now attempting to deny them freedom in death. Freedom does not mean being free from hearing things you don’t like. It doesn’t mean freedom from every hearing something religious. The freedom these men fought for includes freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Now the government seeks to deny their families and their pastors both in order to satisfy the selfish desire of a bureaucrat who doesn’t want to hear God mentioned. What an absolute disgrace.

Filed under Christianity Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Court Rules Against Parents; Justice Thomas’ Dissent Protects Children

June 28, 2011 3 Comments

Yesterday the Supreme Court made an important decision concerning the selling or renting of video games to minor children. The Court ruled 7-2 in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association against a California law that restricted the sale and rental of video games to minor children. California had set up a system to prevent violent video games from being sold or rented to children wherein games were given ratings and children could only purchase games with ratings approved for their age. Retailers of video games sued arguing that video games are free speech. The Court determined that video games are in fact free speech and the state did not meet any of the provisions the Court has created for limiting speech.

Justice Thomas dissented in this matter. He argued the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not believe that speech extended to minor children. His position is correct. Justice Thomas stated on page 19 of the Court’s opinion:

The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

California, for a change, stood for the right of parents to decide what is appropriate for their own children. The 10th amendment affords states the right to protect children, and others, when there is no provision of the Constitution prohibiting as such. In this case, California wanted parents to be able to decide whether or not children were able to purchase and rent various violent video games. Children are to be protected by their parents and it ought to be up to parents whether or not their kids are able to purchase violent video games. Nothing in California’s law prevented parents from purchasing violent games for their children. Furthermore, California’s law did not prevent adults from purchasing violent games.

Justice Thomas looked to the view of children when the Bill of Rights was passed to determine whether or not free speech applied to children or not. He determined, correctly, that it does not. Parents were charged with protecting their children and parents were given the ultimate authority over the speech their children were allowed to hear. California sought to do the same thing in our day: Give parents the right to decide what speech their children have access to.

The effects of the Court’s decision in Brown are far reaching. Are there any laws on the books that protect children which will pass Constitutional muster? Michelle Obama’s dream of regulating away the advertizing of supposedly unhealthy food for children must be dead. After all, advertizing is free speech and no law can be passed protecting children from said speech. Could other laws be threatened such as anti-child pornography laws? Could it now be legal to send nude pictures to children so long as the pictures are not ‘obscene’ by court standards?

The Court’s decision in Brown leaves parents with few options in protecting their kids from violent games and perhaps much worse forms of ‘speech.’ The California law left parents more or less in control of the games their kids purchased. Retailers couldn’t legally sell certain games to minors and it was up to parents to decide whether they were ok with kids buying those games. In other words, it was up to parents to decide if their kids were mature enough to handle playing violent games. Now parents aren’t given a choice, they have no ability to protect their children.

Generally speaking this blog opposes restrictions on free political speech. However, speech to minors is not part of the Constitution. Neither is non-political speech for that matter. Parents need to be in control of the content their children hear. California attempted to give parents the ability to easily control the sort of games their kids purchased by preventing the sale of violent games to children. The Court took yet another protection away from children. The end result could be much worse than playing a violent game. Look for more litigation concerning speech regulations and children in the very near future.

Filed under Free Speech, Supreme Court Tagged with , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers