BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION

By Bob Ward
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama administration but among the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement. While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama, was that, “It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise. The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.” And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.
”During the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S. Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth. It is unclear in what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting. The old fairness doctrine was abolished under Ronald Reagan and the result was the rise of talk radio. This medium, dominated by conservatives, is a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public interest.” These conditions do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is notunreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream media become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have gotten widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy.
Under an Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreamsand without the complication of involving the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, forexample, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that canbe violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.

"Please take advantage of the chambermaid"

As I read the Op-Ed piece introduced below I did so without first noticing who the author was. As I read each line the ideas resonated within me and I was impressed with the caliber of the writing. When I got to the bottom and saw that the author is none other than Ross Terrill, I thought "of course, who else."

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Terrill here in Austin a couple of years ago in a small gathering of Taiwanese students and professionals to which he introduced his new book about which he graciously fielded questions. I have read his book, The New Chinese Empire: And What it Means for the United States, from cover to cover. The book is a must read for anyone remotely interested in China.

I have found memories of that time with Dr. Terrill.

August 22, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
In Beijing, Orwell Goes to the Olympics
By ROSS TERRILL

Beijing

IN China, language has long been a test of political orthodoxy. In Mao Zedong’s era, to confuse evil “bourgeois” with virtuous “proletarian” was to face a prison cell. Write the Chinese character for a leader’s name at a wrong angle and you were a class enemy. Now, as Beijing begins the final year of its preparations for the 2008 Olympic Games, a mistake with an English word is taboo.

Some lapses are harmless. “Don’t Bother” as a privacy request on a hotel door, for example, or “Chop the Strange Fish” on a restaurant menu. Others could lead to minor trouble. “Please take advantage of the chambermaids,” says a resort brochure.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

Doggett votes against Freedom of Speech

In a House vote where our First Amendment rights were on the line, Rep Lloyd Doggett votes for the "Fairness Doctrine" and against Freedom of Speech. The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday ( June 28, 2007 )to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters, but Doggett sided with 114 others, all Democrats, to support the "Fairness Doctrine" assault on free speech and an indepedent media.

Bush would not support such a change in policy, but an FCC appointed by Hillary Clinton or another Democrat would, as many major Democrats - including Senators like Durbin, Reid, and Feinstein, and Speaker Pelosi - have come out to support the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".

Fairness Doctrine = Censorship