People who want to ‘tweak’ the First Amendment don’t want free speech

Now and then it’s good to have a brief check-in on premises, as in the basic assumptions of our thinking.

The topic was brought home to me Tuesday by an article at Breitbart, by Pam Key, recounting Joy Behar’s dictum during a discussion of free speech at The View that the First and Second Amendments need “tweaking.”

Key quotes Behar:  “When the Founding Fathers were busy with the amendments — the 1st and 2nd Amendments — they did not have AR-15s in there, weapons of war, and they didn’t have Twitter. So both amendments, I think, need to be tweaked a little bit.” Continue reading “People who want to ‘tweak’ the First Amendment don’t want free speech”

America facing the truth II: The dialogue

A republic — if you can define it.

The watchmen wait for morning.
The watchmen wait for morning.

This post is a follow-on to the earlier post at Liberty Unyielding, “A time for facing the truth.”  The link is in the text below.

I realized after posting the lengthy comment copied below that I had basically written another blog post.  I’m not going to bother cleaning it up or adding points to make it more comprehensive.  Spurring the dialogue on this topic is the most important thing.  So this post will be a summary of the counterpoint created by much-appreciated reader comments from NaCly Dog, Stephanie O’Leary, and teejk, at my original post “A time for facing the truth.”

Disclaimer on my extended comment below:  there are of course other points to make about the vision we need for government and what has to happen to get there.  I haven’t tried to make all of those points, or even give a complete list of what the most important ones are.  Feel free to add your ideas; I’m not neglecting things that may be important, just keeping this going, because we’ve got to stay engaged. Continue reading “America facing the truth II: The dialogue”

Palin and the strategic impeachment question

Reclaiming rhetorical territory.

 

Strategy versus defensive analysis.
Strategy versus defensive analysis.

New post up at Liberty Unyielding.  Enjoy!

America: Leadership, at the break with the past

Things have already changed.

Politics may not be beanbag, but electoral politics is also not the game of basics that America needs today.  It is no longer realistic to speak of trying to win elections by means of dismissing basic issues like what liberty means, and whether government has grown so big that we really do have to transform it fundamentally.  There can be no such thing now as Republicans winning a national election by speaking as if we can remain on our current course without making major changes.

To speak so is to speak on the Democrats’ terms.  For all their talk of attacking the status quo, the Democrats are, today, the party of the status quo of law and government in America.  The status quo involves keeping the people trapped in a vise of regulation, taxes, and carefully calibrated “benefits.”  It involves funneling every problem of human life through government – but more than that, it involves making up fake problems in order to increase the power of government.  In today’s status quo, moreover, the federal government is as closely involved in local and personal issues as state and local governments are; there is no working principle that the federal government’s armed power should be kept separate from intricate economic regulation and moral law.

Radicalism, demonstrated

Examples of radicalism and corruption in government abound.  Continue reading “America: Leadership, at the break with the past”