July 31, 2008 — Assigned Reading

Obama Tied to Iraqi Government Fraud?
(FROM: WorldNetDaily) The key players are Aiham Alsammarae, Tony Rezko and Barack Obama. Alsammarae is a board member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and a longtime friend of Rezko, the corrupt Syrian businessman and Obama friend and supporter, and has contributed to Obama’s campaign himself. Despite being a critic of the war–even last month, he cheered on the insurgency in Iraq in a press conference–and a public supporter of Saddam Hussein, Alsammarae served as the United States-appointed electricity minister to Iraq, during which time he misappropriated $650 million from the coalition government, and awarded a $150 million power plant contract to a Rezko-controlled operation. Obama’s senate office was involved with the lobbying effort undertaken by a Rezko company to have the federal government sign off on an additional $50 million contract to train Iraqi security personnel in Illinois.

McCain Campaign Chief: Obama ‘Played the Race Card’
(FROM: Politico) In Missouri yesterday, Barack Obama preemptively struck at his adversary’s possible use of race in the presidential contest, stating “[w]hat they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me — you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” First of all, Obama supporters and Obama himself have been the only ones to be so divisive as to bring up the color of the Illinois senator’s skin, and the same goes for this instance, where he was the one to dust off the old standby. Secondly, the last time I checked, only ONE president is on the dollar bill.

Fairness Doctrine Vote Not Happening, House Majority Leader Says
(FROM: CNS News) Indiana republican Mike Pence wrote a bill which would permanently ban the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a liberal manifestation meant to control a free-market approach to information, opinion and news dissemination in the United States, and the democrats in charge said that the bill will not even come to a vote. Why? It’s simple, really … the democrats, should they stay in control of Congress and Barack Obama win the White House, will bring forth a number of bills that were pulled early from the debate, including the cap-and-trade bill (which both McCain and Obama will support) and the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. John McCain is fuzzy at best on the Fairness Doctrine–I don’t trust him–as he has previously shown the ability to defecate on the First Amendment without hesitation; Obama, however, has come out against reinstatement of such regulation, but would likely change positions if given the opportunity.

California Attorney General Cracks Down on Nestle Bottling Plant
(FROM: Associated Press) That’s right. Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general, says he will sue to enjoin Nestle from establishing a water-bottling facility in northern California until … of course … the effect that such a facility will have on global warming can be examined. At what point are these companies, willing to invest shareholder money in expanding their businesses, just going to give up on working in America because of the excess regulation and legislation? We’re chasing jobs, economic growth and tax revenue out of our country — and for what? Because of a theory? Because we’re so egotistical to think that, after surviving ice ages and asteroids and earthquakes and floods and drought, that the Earth will somehow be destroyed by water bottles? Someone needs to find Lex Luthor and just let him knock the lefternmost edge of America out into the Pacific.

Exxon Mobil 2Q Profit Sets Record
(FROM: Associated Press) Good. This is America. Successful businesses are the posterchildren for capitalism. The only problem I see with this is the potential for boring commercials from democrats, wailing about the need for taxes on windfall profits. Damn hippies and socialists…

McCain Should Pick Romney, and Soon
(FROM: RealClearPolitics) I’ve thought since McCain clinched the nomination that Mitt Romney would be a fantastic match, for a number of reasons. This piece, however, looks past the conventional reasons–economic bona fides, etc.–and points out Romney’s skill at delivering an attack, something that McCain, as likable as he is, doesn’t do very well. Plus, I do think that Romney has the ability to generate a little more enthusiasm than, say, governors Tim Pawlenty or Mark Sanford.

The Tools of Free Men
by A.W.R. Hawkins, HumanEvents.com

Oil is the fuel of free nations, guns and speech the tools of free men. Thus the three have freedom in common. Ironically, oil, guns, and free speech have something else in common as well: all three are scorned by the Left. Democrats are opposed to further oil exploration, individual gun rights, and speech that is free from the constraints of political correctness.

We need oil now, and there is no doubt about the amounts of untapped oil off the shores of California, under the surface of the earth in Wyoming and Colorado, and up in that pristine rock quarry called ANWR. But the Democrats are so opposed to further oil exploration that they will not even hear of drilling for these deposits or exploring oil shale extraction with new technologies. As a result Democrats, who claim to represent the “common man,” are pushing the price of a gallon of gas above that of what many a common man can afford.

The Democrats use ecological concerns as a cover for their inflexibility on this issue, yet their refusal to drill is actually contributing to ecological problems. Off many of our coasts, the amount of untapped oil is so great that the deposits themselves create a pressure that forces oil to seep through the ocean floor and into the ocean. As a matter of fact, on the beaches of Santa Barbara, it is not uncommon for beachcombers to step into a “glob of tar” while walking the beach. The only way to decrease both the occurrence and size of the globs of tar is to increase oil production, according to a 1999 press release by the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In truth, however, neither the common man nor the environment matter to the Democrats. Rather, they are driven by what they fear, and what they fear is a people free enough to live independently of a paternal government.

When hunting pheasants out here in West Texas, I have often commented that my gun is an extension of me. And so it is. Whether the gun under discussion is a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun, it is a tool that provides me certain advantages men without such a tool will never know. Just as a hammer provides a builder with the advantage of being able to drive nails or a wrench provides a mechanic with the advantage of being able to bolt together an engine, so too my gun provides me with the advantage of being able to shoot an animal, kill an intruder in defense of myself or my family, and if need be, to stand and deliver on every citizen’s inherent, God-given duty to defend his nation. What could the Democrats have against these things? You’d be surprised.

The gun is antithetical to the Left’s agenda for the simple reason that the possession of one affords men the ability to defend their freedom. It was this ability to defend freedom that caused the author of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, to exult that “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

But the Democrats do not have the mentality of our Founders. They do not view an armed citizenry as an “advantage” but as a threat to their agenda. They want to be able to encroach upon the people’s freedom a little at a time or even all at once if they think they can get away with it. This is why the Democrat City Council in Washington D.C. is still refusing to remove their citywide gun ban even though the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in the Heller case. They don’t want to let go of the control they’ve leveraged over the people in that city since the ban was implemented in 1976.

Speech is another tool the free man uses to defend his freedom. Through speech he explains the origins of freedom, the price of freedom, and the limitations that should be imposed on government rather than men. Not surprisingly, the Democrats are opponents rather than proponents of such language; tyrants of every stripe always are.

Every politically correct policy that limits speech is a direct assault on the ability of men to use language on behalf of freedom. And each such policy is but the latest in what has been a long chain of usurpations of free speech in our nation’s history.

In 1765 King George III encroached upon the speech of our Founding Fathers with the Stamp Act. This act was issued to limit access to affordable paper in the colonies and thereby decrease the colonist’s ability to spread the idea that liberty was intrinsic to life itself. The king wanted to ensure that pamphlets such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” could not be printed and distributed among the populace. But the pamphlet was printed in 1776, and through it Paine lit a fire in the hearts of the colonists. He urged them to give themselves wholly to the American Revolution by assuring them that “common sense” dictated they should throw off the yoke of so great a tyrant as King George.

Today, the Democrat Party is full of a myriad of King Georges who seek the passage of their own stamp acts through legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine, academic “speech codes,” and various internet taxes and regulations. Notice — they don’t deny the truth of their own tyranny as much as they seek to suppress its disclosure. Democrat goals and policies are antithetical to freedom.

We must get more oil. We must keep our guns. And we must tell our children, our students, and those among whom we live and work that freedom comes from God, not government. As such, it s not the gift of Senators Barrack Obama, Charles Schumer, or Harry Reid, nor is it ours because of the benevolence of Representative Pelosi. Once we get our children, our students, and those among whom we live and work to understand this, we can rest assured in the shared knowledge that freedoms which government cannot give are also freedoms which government cannot take away.

Doing this may not be easy, but “those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it.” (Thomas Paine)

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    I had never heard of the fairness doctrine. I think it’s controlling, but wouldn’t it get rid of liberal media bias? If there is liberal media bias then why do the liberals want it to go into law?

  2. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Great question!

    The Fairness Doctrine would be used to balance out programming–radio and television–which is overtly opinion-based. Talk Radio programs such as those run by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and more would be subject to regulation which would mandate that equal time be given to someone who would disseminate a standpoint reflecting the perspective of the political left. On television, FNC’s “O’Reilly Factor,” and CNN’s show hosted by Glenn Beck, both admittedly opinion-based programming, would be subject to the regulation as well.

    The difference here is that the other programming, the supposedly NEWS-based programming, would not be subject. So Keith Olbermann, on his “news” program on MSNBC, could continue to chide the president as being “The Worst Person in the Wooooorld…” without being subject to the Fairness Doctrine mandate.

    Think of it this way: In a newspaper, opinion is [ideally] relegated to the Op-Ed/Editorial page. Everything else is supposed to be presented as actual, objective news. Many newspapers try to balance their op-ed section with columnists from the right and the left (save for the New York Times, which published a commentary by Barack Obama last month about Iraq and refused to publish a response from John McCain), and if balanced, it’s all well and good. The problem is that the bias sneaks into the stuff masquarading as objective news. Same with the television — I challenge you to watch Olbermann’s show and come away with the feeling that he’s not sympathetic to the liberal cause.

    It all boils down to competition. The political left has been trying for years to break apart the conservative-dominated talk radio. They tried Air America and failed, as nobody wanted to listen to the bitterness and the Bush Derangement Syndrome. They even tried to malign Limbaugh through the prescription drug abuse investigation. Nothing worked. The only way to get at talk radio especially is to regulate it.

    All this aside, we need to remember that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE REGULATING RADIO IN THE FIRST PLACE. That goes for the FCC and the whole flap on Super Bowl Nipples and all. Regulation of the radio, of communications of that or ANY nature, is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

    I challenge anyone to defend the Fairness Doctrine on constitutional grounds.

    Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, I highly suggest a certain book, should you get the chance. The name of it is “Bias,” and it was written by former CBS correspondent (and Democrat) Bernard Goldberg. If you’d like, I’ll mail you my copy as soon as I get it back from a classmate — just e-mail me (the link to my address is at the bottom of the page).

    Sorry for rambling, by the way. I’m a bit tired tonight…

Speak Your Mind

*