Category Archives: First Amendment

Obama says Constitution ‘relfected fundamental flaw of this country”

One keeps thinking that one has heard it all:

“I think we can say that, ah, ah, the Constitution reflected a enormous blind-spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and, and, ah, and that ah, the Framers had that same blind spot. Ah, ah, I don’t think that the two views are contradictory to say that it is a remarkable political document, ah, that paved the way for where we are now. And to say it ah, also, ah rep, ah, reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

Obama creates ‘truth squad’

KMOV reports:”Last Tuesday without any fanfare, the Barack Obama campaign announced Jennifer Joyce and Bob McCulloch, the top prosecutors in St. Louis city and St. Louis County, were joining something called an Obama truth squad.”

The governor of Missouri responded today, appropriately illustrating the outrageousness of these actions. In a free society, such tactics areabhorrentandreminiscentof the police state tactics of the USSR:

?¢‚Ǩ?ìSt. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of hisMissouricampaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

Continue reading Obama creates ‘truth squad’

Obama on Palin’s Family

Kudos to Barack Obama:

“Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And ifI thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired.”

Whether or not this is a political calculation or not, this is the right thing. If the candidate doesn’t bring his or her family into the issue, the press should not do so.

Harry Reid says we have a voluntary tax system

April 2, 2008, Harry Reid , U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Clearly Harry Reid is a fool:

[Update: May 1, 2008:  here is the video:

]

Jan Helfeld: …if the government is in the business of forcefully taking money from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whose money is being taken feel about the government?

Harry Reid: Well, I don’t accept your phraseology. I don’t think we “force” people…

Helfeld: Taxation is not forceful?

Reid: Well, no.

Helfeld: It’s voluntary?

Reid: In fact, quite to the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system.

Helfeld: Oh… if you don’t want to pay your taxes, you don’t have to?

Reid: Of course you have to pay your taxes, but…

Helfeld: The government will force you to pay, or they’ll fine you or imprison you. Won’t they?

Reid: We have a voluntary system. The fact of the matter is, that if when you pay your taxes — you see, in many other countries, it’s not voluntary. For example, in many countries, the government makes sure that your employer takes out every penny. Many countries don’t file income tax returns. Why?

Helfeld: We have withholding here too, don’t we?

Reid: Pardon me?

Helfeld: Withholding.

Reid: With some program, yes. But I’m talking about in some countries, European countries as an example, there… you don’t file an income tax return. There is no need to, because your employer takes all the money out. That’s the difference between a voluntary and an involuntary system.

Helfeld: But can…? Can…?

Reid: You can choose to not pay your taxes, but I don’t accept your phraseology, that you forcibly take money from somebody else and give it to others. You know, that’s the way it is on any program. I mean…

Helfeld: Can the taxpayer…?

Reid: …highway program is the same. We…

Helfeld: Excuse me.

Reid: We take money, we “forcibly” take money in your phraseology, but…

Helfeld: But can…? Let me ask you something.

Reid: …build highways with it, put people in the Army.

Helfeld: Can the taxpayer decide not to pay his taxes if he wants?

Reid: He can… He can not pay his taxes if he wants.

Helfeld: What will be the…? What will happen?

Reid: He’ll be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Helfeld: They’ll put him in jail — they’ll use force against him. He pays… everybody pays taxes under threat of jail or fines: on the threat of force. In other words, you are forced to pay your taxes. Whether you fill out your form voluntarily or whether its withheld by your employer, you don’t have a choice on whether you can pay taxes that are going to be used for welfare programs — you can’t make that choice.

Reid: Well, but the reason our system is called a voluntary tax system — and I recognize, you know, that ultimately you can’t cheat your taxes, but our… We have many provisions in the law they don’t have in most countries: we have deductibility for home interest on mortgage payment, they don’t have that in most countries, we have deductibility for certain excessive expenses as relates to health — doctors, hospitals — we have all kinds of tax — some people call them “loopholes” but others would call them “incentives for people to do business” — and that’s why… You know, you’re not “forced” to pay certain taxes. There are ways… if you decide to buy a home and…

Helfeld: You can decide not to pay taxes? In the United States?

Reid: I mean, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. If you’re… What… the point of the matter is…

Helfeld: Because you objected to my phraseology. You said that… you say that the government isn’t forcefully taking money from some people to provide welfare benefits to others, and, in fact, that’s what it’s doing, because all taxation is forceful. It’s backed up by physical force. If you don’t pay your taxes, the government will intervene with you forcefully. So you don’t have a choice. It’s not voluntary. You can’t decide not to pay and not suffer consequences. If you don’t pay, you’ll go to jail. So: you’re forced to pay.

Reid: You don’t… you don’t go to jail. Some people go to jail. There are all kind of civil penalties if you don’t pay your taxes: you pay interest and you pay penalties. The fact of the matter is, our system is a voluntary system.

Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself

Echoing his comments in June, Warren Buffett is complaining about tax rates as being too low. The relevant question is: has he done anything about it or is he just being a hypocrite, again?

Let?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s see what Buffett has actually done instead of said: Buffett is giving away is fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/). Good for him, great choice, it is nice that he has the right and freedom to do as he sees fit with the money he has earned. Too bad Buffett doesn’t think that others should have that same freedom.

What precisely is Buffett doing? He is giving his fortune to tax-exempt foundations. So, if you REALLY want to pay more taxes, Warren, why do this? Continue reading Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself

Hillary Clinton’s Million Ideas

I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all. – Senator Hillary Clinton, October 11, 2007 (Boston.com)

Hey Senator Clinton, thank you for letting us know you have a million ideas. I have a million ideas too, the key difference is that I am not using force to make everyone else pay for them. I raise money voluntarily to implement my ideas. I’m not trying to get my ideas enacted at the point of a gun.

Instead of being able to strive for their own ideas, the citizens of the United States will be voting on whether to force others to support Senator Hillary Clinton’s ideas. In reality it is a million ideas on how to spend the hours of each person’s life implementing the Presidential candidate’s ideas.

It’s not charity if it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s at the point of a gun and it’s not charity if it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s someone else’s money.
Volunteering to spend someone else’s time and money to support your ideas doesn’t make you a saint.

That is completely anit-freedom and anti-liberty and completely the opposite of the morals and principles the United States was founded upon. It is totalitarianism, socialism, communism, and facism all rolled into one.

Power-hungry Univ of Florida, Gainesville Police

Power-hungry and abusive police arrest and taser a student asking John Kerry speech:

Look at those little Napoleon police. Pathetic officers.

Capt. Jeff Holcomb of the University Police Department and the officers involved should be fired.

see
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070918/NEWS/709180325/1007/NEWS
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717&p=1

McCain-Feingold limits McCain’s Campaign

One might call it ironic that the McCain campaign is faltering due to lack of funds. Ironic because he has helped to silence his own speech rights while limiting everyone else?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s. Instead of being free to donate and disclose to a candidate who shares your views, you are greatly limited. McCain suffers from that problem.

It might be that people think he has nothing worthwhile to say and won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t donate. Or it might be that they don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know what he has to say since they haven?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t been able to hear it to decide if they wish to donate. Either way McCain loses his chance to influence the political process because he has limited everyone else’s opportunity too. Certainly McCain?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s (theoretical) base knows many of his positions and disagrees with his anti-freedom views, however there could have been more people who agreed with him, but won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t hear his message. He can thank himself and Senator Feingold for that.

That is the nature of free speech. You are free to speak when you want, but it costs money to get your speech out there in front of many people. That means convincing people you have something worth saying and can express it. McCain has ensured that he can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t do that, and who knows how many other candidates he has shut out of the marketplace of ideas.

Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on First Amendment Ads

The United States Supreme Court today (in a 5-4 ruling) ruled that some restrictions on speech that were contained in the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance act were un-Constitutional.

While the Supreme Court should have tossed out all restrictions on television ads airing close to elections and campaign funding as contrary to the First Amendment (among other things), the Supreme Court today did loosen restrictions on ads airing near an election.

Every small victory for freedom and freedom of speech is welcome.

Chief Justice Roberts said:

Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.

Commenting Mitt Romney stated: Continue reading Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on First Amendment Ads

Brian Lamb of C-SPAN and the meaning of “give”

Brian Lamb of CSPAN obviously has no idea what the meaning of the word ?¢‚Ǩ?ìgive?¢‚Ǩ¬ù is.

Politico.com quotes him as stating:

?¢‚Ǩ?ìWe are not a taxpayer organization ?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ We get no federal funds, state funds, local funds. We get our money from you. You give us a nickel a month when you pay your bills, and that’s how we operate here.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù
(See the original article here.)

Brian, to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìgive?¢‚Ǩ¬ù means FREELY transfer. Somehow I missed where I could opt out of my monthly ?¢‚Ǩ?ìgift?¢‚Ǩ¬ù to you. We may pay it in return for supposedly unbiased coverage, but we don’t “give” it. Please consider this a request to opt out and for a refund of my previous “gifts.” Continue reading Brian Lamb of C-SPAN and the meaning of “give”