2010-2-18 11:11:00
JJ:
The Supreme Court Decision on speech for corporations. Wow. It is absolutely amazing that all but one letter in one of the most freedom loving states in this freedom loving country are dead set against the First Amendment, or freedom of speech.
What is it about freedom of speech that causes the Left to shrink with fear and tremble at what may be spoken?
I'll tell you what it is...
The truth.
What's the worst that can happen if all sides get to express themselves?
The worst that can happen is all sides get presented.
That is only a bad thing for those who now dominate the media, unions and Hollywood so only one side is presented with strength. Give both sides equal opportunity to speak and then the real truth of things starts to get out.
Since the Left is terrified with free speech and the truth they will do everything in their power to overturn the [USA] Supreme Court decision and thus tear the First and most important [US Constitutional] Amendment to shreds.
"IdahoHiker" wrote:
"Joseph, To put it very simply, freedom of speech applies to individual citizens, not corporations."
JJ:
Totally untrue. Here is the exact wording from the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Now the press and other media is composed of corporations, many that have no loyalty to the U.S. or Constitution, but I haven't heard anyone crying fowl when they give their opinions.
The First Amendment places no restrictions on speech. To give freedom to the media corporations (many with foreign ownership) and then to deny free speech to others (like Simplot or Micron) is a direct violation of the Constitution.
"IdahoHiker":
"They don't always represent what is best for the general public nor do they represent 'the truth.' Oops, its citizens...."
JJ:
And often the President and Congress do not represent what is best for us. Should we deny them First Amendment Rights also? After all Congress is a legal body like a corporation.
Freedom always releases the good and the bad but the reason it is so precious is that in an atmosphere of freedom the truth gets revealed and once clearly explained will eventually dominate over propaganda. When freedom is suppressed then truth is suppressed and this puts us in danger of tyranny.
A much greater danger than free speech to the public (who can take or leave it) are the lobbyists and pressure groups who virtually own some representatives.
Concerning the ten missionaries in Haiti:
"IdahoDoc" wrote:
"Am I judging them or simply questioning their approach and action?"
JJ:
Here's your actual words:
"I'm still not keen on a bunch of white folks snapping them up like toys so we can congratulate them on being so Christian."
These comments sound like biased judgements to me -- good examples of seeing the glass half full.
To my comment: You really think these people are doing this so they can be applauded? Really? No, Really?
You responded with:
"Yep -- I sure do."
And you judge their motives to be so impure because?
Personally I admire anyone who would go to that hellhole and make a step in any direction to improve things. I certainly wouldn't question their motives just because they were atheists, socialists or cross dressers.
"Proletariat" wrote:
"But compare the sources. Corporations have always given more generously to Republicans."
JJ:
Let's just look at one group of corporations -- the Healthcare section. Read this and weep:
President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289.
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-received-20-million -healthcare-industry-money-2008/
Not only have corporations supported Obama but so have the ultra rich from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas, to name a few.
JJ:
It's funny that Gary Bennett hangs with the same crowd that has criticized conservatives for even mentioning or playing audio and video that links Obama with Rev. Wright [Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago]. Even though Obama attended his church and listened to his sermons for 20 years they cry foul.
That said, Bennett has a lot of chutzpah to give Obama a pass and link [conservative talk-show host Rush] Limbaugh with [television evangelist Pat] Robertson and place them in the same category. As far as I know Rush has never attended Robertson's church and in over 20 years of listening I do not recall him even mentioning his name.
Everyone I know thinks the criticism of Robertson's remarks about Haiti being cursed by the devil are justified, but Bennett has to fabricate and distort Rush's remarks. Rush didn't say anything about not wanting to use tax money to help Haiti earthquake victims. He has expressed a desire to see the people assisted but upset that billions in the past have went to corrupt leaders, not the people. He wants any aid given by the government or charities to go to the people. Who would not agree with him on that?
"Milo332001":
"Let the bible thumpers rot in jail."
JJ:
The fact that this letter has received 17 recommends is disturbing. These people ought to go live with [North Korean dictator] Kim Jong Il who has this type of attitude. The funny thing is these are the same people who accuse Republicans as having no compassion.
"EyesWideOpen":
"I was a lifetime Republican -- voted for Reagan twice. After doing some serious research on Reagan, he betrayed our country every which way but loose. He was Ronnie 'The Red' who fooled us into thinking he was Republican."
JJ:
So what are you now? A liberal Democrat? That would mean that Reagan made you switch from a belief in small government and low taxes to big government and high taxes. Does not compute. Something else besides Reagan had to cause that change.
"AnotherThought":
"Silsby said she didn't think she needed Haitian permission to take the children out of the country. What would happen if pious Saudis came to New Orleans after [hurricane] Katrina and started transporting children to Mexico?
"To this Farva wrote: Very good analogy."
JJ:
This is an extremely poor analogy. Taking the kids to Mexico is taking them to a much worse situation than was available to them. If she said "taking them to Houston" it would have been at least an honest comparison.
A funny observation is that many of the same ones who condemn these Christians for attempting to save children are of the same ideology who cheer animal rights activists for destroying property to save animals.
"EyesWideOpen":
"I don't hate Christians. I hate con-artists and people who use attributes other than content of character and behavior as a shield or an excuse."
JJ:
Take a look at a picture of this bunch. Do they look like con artists? If they do then I have a bridge to sell you not far from here.
"JackBrown":
"There are a lot of people in our prison system who are there primarily because they made a stupid decision."
JJ:
So do you think stupid people should rot in prison then? Do you support eugenics also?
"InterestedObserver":
"Way to try and deflect. Try sticking to the subject Joseph. Isn't that your mantra?"
JJ:
I was on the subject of the Haiti children. What subject are you on?
Oh yeah... Frivolous attack.
"Becourteous":
"The subject of Haiti children...by way of radical animal rights activists? Sorry, I have to agree that you were off topic and that yours seems to be the frivolous attack. One group has nothing to do with the other."
JJ:
So are you going to criticize those who brought up capitalism, corporate interests, Reagan, Carter, socialism, Miami rice, Mexico, and other subjects into the conversation? My point was more on subject than these as it dealt with activism -- the core of the story. Your singling me out is frivolous.
"Zekenaja":
"Haiti claims to be the most privatized government in the world with 85 percent of schools, hospitals, and social services privatized. You need to learn a little more about Haiti. At his time it is being torn apart by corporate globalism to continue the privatization. Thousands have died needlessly to continue the privatization of Haiti."
JJ:
And millions have died in part due to continue the denial of privatization in North Korea.
Maybe there is a common thread here. What could it be? Could it be lack of freedom?
Based on free economic principles North Korea is last and Haiti is near the bottom ranked at Number 141 by the Heritage Foundation. The criteria are items such as freedom to own property, freedom to start and run a business without interference, free trade, freedom to invest, and six other categories
The small amount of private ownership there is, is not that helpful without free enterprise. If my hands are tied and someone gives me an apple, how do I eat it?
There is a corporate frenzy feed now going on as to who will get the money donated to the Haiti rebuild. If you wish to blame the government, blame it on their need to privatize with only a few getting the maximum benefit.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx
"Rodeo_Clown_Rancher":
"What's wrong with Mexico?
"Someone can kidnap me anytime and take me to Mazatlan, Cabo, Cancun or almost anywhere along the West Coast."
JJ:
Fine if you're rich, but something must be wrong for everyone else for millions are breaking the law to get here from Mexico. Speaking of breaking the law. Are those who condemn the Christians for breaking the law in Haiti also condemning the illegals from Mexico? I don't think so. The "H word" comes to mind here.
"AnotherThought":
"You missed the point. The issue is taking them anywhere without the appropriate process. I don't have any problem with increasing their opportunities. See the quote that I used -- it was about not having an 'OK' from Haitian authorities."
JJ:
So if it came down to leaving a kid homeless and starving you'd just leave him to die rather than take him to shelter and food? Do I understand your position correctly?
JJ:
Isn't it strange that there is more venom spewed toward these well meaning Christians who made a mistake -- and to our knowledge have hurt no one -- than anyone ever gave toward the 9/11 hijackers? You'd think these ten "do-gooders" were belched right up from the jaws of hell.
"As you judge, so shall you be judged."
JJ:
Wow... What a self righteous extremely judgmental law and order bunch. If we had the same intolerant attitude toward illegal aliens as the posters today have toward the ten imprisoned missionaries we would have to round them up tomorrow and put them all in jails with no facilities. Then we would charge people to watch the roundup on pay per view. Man wouldn't that be fun in your mean spirited eyes?
I'm ashamed to live in the same state as this bunch posting today, and I'd feel the same way if you were speaking of atheists caught in the same situation as I do not attend any church and am a member of none. To kick people when they are down is the lowest of the low things to do.
"Rodeo_Clown_Rancher":
"Hi Camrong, where ya been?"
"The 'Righty Tighties' think that's a 'hit' on Obama.
"The Chinese respect what Mao did for their country and credit him for getting rid of the Right Winged Nationalists Extremists. The transition was tough, but the end result, for them, is good."
JJ:
So, it was worth killing 70 million people to get rid of the Right-wing? Let's see there are probably 70 million Right-wingers in this country. Don't get any ideas.
"DCW":
"I have often posted that I disagree with what they are doing but at least they are doing it LEGALLY - IMHO [In My Humble Opinion] we need to start by taking care of our own first, then the rest of the world."
JJ:
Are you also outraged over Mexicans entering the country illegally?
Those of you who want the Christians (who were not aware they were breaking the law) prosecuted should really want to go after the illegal Mexicans who know they are breaking it if you want to apply the same standard.
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"What? This article has nothing to do with Mexicans. I am outraged about a lot of things, but what ever my other outrages are, they have noting to do with the kidnapping of children by these so called christian (use of the lower case 'c,' is because these are not true Christians)...."
JJ:
The similarity is that both broke the law. Most here want to punish the Christians to the full extent possible but let the Mexicans continue to break the law with impunity. Very hypocritical!!!
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"When does it become okay to steal children, because the U.S. has illegal Mexicans? What kind of a justification is that for these criminal kidnappers behavior? Being born stupid doesn't make it ok to break the law. So is that your belief, the U.S. has illegal Mexicans, so I can break any law I want...."
JJ:
You have the question I was asking completely backwards which is this. If we are to be strict law and order advocates with no mercy in this case, then this attitude should apply to all groups, not just Christians. How can one want the strict law applied here to Christians and not to others groups?
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"Give me some kind of a fact that supports your very weak argument 'most here want to punish the Christians to the full extent possible but let the Mexicans continue to break the law with impunity'."
JJ:
The first part of the proof is right on the forums. All the Lefties posting want the Christians prosecuted. Secondly, I know of no one on the Left who wants law and order applied to illegals. Try and find even one that wants the law applied to Mexicans the way they do to these Christians.
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"Do you personally ask everybody if they wanted to punish the Christians and let the illegal Mexicans break the law?"
JJ:
Do I have to ask every Lefty if he wants all the illegals jailed? How silly. Everyone knows the answer to that.
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"Are you talking about all Christians, or just these so call law breaking Christians?"
JJ:
Whenever any Christian or believer is mentioned in most any context in the [Idaho] Statesman that person is immediately attacked in droves by the Left.
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"Let's see...
"Coming across the border illegally into the U.S. versus illegal border crossing and kidnapping Children.
"Illegal border crossing and kidnapping, not quite the same thing.
"Yes, I do support that all kidnappers should spend the rest of their life behind bars...."
JJ:
There was no kidnapping. You have to make things up to make Christians look bad. Sad.
Both appear to be instances of minor lawbreaking. In one case you want to enforce the law and the other you do not.
Why?
"BSU_Broncos_Rock":
"These so called Christians Baptist kidnappers should be jailed for a long time, not because they are Christians, but because they are Criminals. Kidnapping is a capital crime. Get a clue and get a fact to support what you say."
JJ:
You and I both know that if some liberals were trying to rescue animals or kids from a bad situation and broke the law you would either be supportive or say nothing. If these people were not Christians or conservative there would be no condemnation from anywhere -- no cries for throwing them in jail and letting them rot.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved