The Blogging Press

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The freedom of the press, the voice of the electorate, is one of our most sacred constitutional tenets and protections.

The first amendment, as written:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is clear, succinct and lacks any ambiguity. It does not quantify ‘the press’ in any manner.

It is therefore troubling to consider the following composite of information, drawn from various sources, demonstrating that the First Amendment is under assault, again: (the acquired information is reprinted here in a different font throughout the post)

The first version of a media shield law that handily made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday defined for the first time what constitutes a “real reporter” deserving of extra protection versus what Sen. Dianne Feinstein called a “17-year-old blogger” who doesn’t deserve a legal shield.

That Congress is attempting to define “journalist” at all in order to expand protections after a number of high-profile leak cases and ensuing Justice Department prosecutions  suggests that the law would subvert a free press by giving institutional advantage to government-approved media outlets.

In its attempt to define who’s a journalist and who’s not, is the US Senate trying to say that Thomas Paine, a corset-maker, wouldn’t have deserved the same protections from government heavy-handedness as a newspaper publisher like Ben Franklin?

While Mr. Paine eventually edited magazines in the United States, he’s best known for his pamphleteering days, when he self-published “Common Sense,” one of the American Revolution’s most poignant calls to arms. Modern bloggers, the Madison Conservative among them, see themselves as the inheritors of the pamphleteering tradition, and many wondered on Friday whether Paine would be covered under the proposed law.

The bill simply adds extra protections against being forced to testify about sources for established reporters and freelancers with a “considerable” amount of publishing experience. It also allows a judge to make a declaration as to who’s a journalist and who’s not in an attempt to build the shield as wide as possib

“All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D) of Rhode Island.

Any assault, in any form, against the press is a dangerous omen. Tyrants often start their reigns by commandeering the media, and doing so  for what they deem ‘the public interest’.

Congress must not be allowed to determine what is and what is not ‘the press’. The internet has given voice to society in ways never before seen, but the public must be allowed to determine what they deem to be viable press and what they deem to be nonsense.

Delineation by a government as to what constitutes ‘the press’ is a harbinger of ill intent.

The American people must not surrender their rights and responsibilities to a free press.

Article II, Section 2.

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There is always strong talk from the political class of all persuasions, and this administration in particular, regarding the support the nation has for the military, and the families of the military. The presentation of unabashed pride is what the American people have come to, and should, expect from the government, especially given the shameful treatment given to the Vietnam-era veterans.

No matter what the discussion on foreign policy, invariably support for the troops makes its way into the debate.

This is right and proper and the use of our military should never be an afterthought, or disregarded within the framework of the larger debate.

It is with that understanding that it is of concern President Obama has chosen to forgo his responsibility as commander in chief and use the military as a bargaining chip in the budget debate.

First, it is critical to note the constitutional position the president has in regards to the military.

Article 2 - Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

That is unambiguous in its wording, and no matter the politics, has been held as a sacred responsibility since this nation’s inception.

It is therefore incomprehensible that the President chose to make the following remarks this week.

To wit:

“It’s hurting our military. I made it clear that your veteran’s benefits are exempt from this year’s sequester,” the president said t at the Disabled American Veterans' convention in Orlando, Fla. “But I want to tell you going forward the best way to protect the VA care you have earned is to get rid of this sequester altogether.”

Does the President, his party, or even the media sycophants actually believe threatening the benefits of our veterans is an acceptable bargaining position? The administration has made sport of closing the People’s House to tours due to the Sequester.

The President seems to have continuing bouts of amnesia to the fact that he instituted the concept and implementation of the Sequester.

That salient point, while specifically germane to the political argument in Washington amongst the body politic, is indeed shameful to use said memory loss of convenience and political expediency to manipulate the veterans who on one hand he so emphatically praises, while plotting and scheming to use their benefits as a cynical ploy to gain short term advantage in a fight with Congress.

The Madison Conservative implores the President, Congress and the American electorate to reassess their acceptance of childish gamesmanship with respect to our military, and for the President specifically to refresh his memory of Article II, Section 2.

The nation has serious fiscal issues facing it; the solutions should not be made by reneging on the sacred social contracts with our veterans. They did not accept the responsibilities of their service conditionally. We must honor our commitments in a similarly respectful manner.

The President should be ashamed.

An Open Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Mr. Attorney General,

It has been an eventful week for the administration, and for you specifically.

Given the range of issues and the responses from yourself and the spokespeople for the administration, there is a groundswell of opinion that the president must either fire you, or that you must resign.

The Madison Conservative urges you to resist these cries for your dismissal and provide the American people with true leadership.

The four major issues at hand can be addressed by you in a voice that carries substantial weight. We are a nation of laws, and you are the chief law enforcement of this nation.

As such, you can provide legal clarity to the following:

Benghazi – Please determine who first included the notion of a video no one had ever seen as being the impetus for the assassination of four Americans. Inquire as to exactly where the President of the United States was during the critical hours of the assault on the diplomatic compound. Please provide former Secretary Clinton with the answer to her question – “what difference does it make now?”. I am sure you understand the need to school Mrs. Clinton on the realities of her question and the answer. Lastly, who gave the order for the troops who might have made a difference to stand down?

The HHS Secretary – Please investigate why Secretary Sebelius is soliciting funds from the organizations most directly affected by the Affordable Care Act to promote said legislation. Initial answers that there is nothing illegal about it do not seem sufficient and the ethics of such actions must be properly adjudicated.

The IRS – Given the ability of the IRS to intimidate, harass and harangue the American people on a whim, surely in this instance laws were broken. Please investigate why the President was not aware of anything until, as he has stated publicly, he saw it on the news. This strains credibility to the breaking point. You must stand against the tide and pursue this matter. The American people cannot be allowed to be in fear of a government that was established for, by and of the people. The claim by the political left that the IRS is somehow an autonomous entity is obfuscation at its best – are they unaware that the IRS is under the Department of the Treasury? You must pursue this to wherever it leads, and if you do so, I guarantee the American people will have your back.

The AP – Please explain to the American people two critical points on this matter. First, exactly why was it necessary to illegally obtain phone records from a media source? Surely, the freedoms of speech and of the press were infringed upon, and those responsible must be held accountable. Secondly, why exactly did you recuse yourself? Placing responsibility on an underling is inappropriate. You must take the reins of the investigation and present to the American people the facts, however and wherever you find them.

In short, Mr. Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB!

Given the cowardly assaults on personal freedoms by this administration, and your decision to acquiesce to such choices, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

I am aware that some taxpayer funded lowlife will find this letter to you and attempt to take retribution.

No need. As an American, you know where to find me.

I dare you.

The State of the Union Explicit Threat

President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress this week, as provided by the Constitution. The pertinent section on this reads as follows:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The Madison Conservative would prefer that presidents follow the example set by President Thomas Jefferson; he submitted it in writing and left it at that. The television age has seemingly created the need to embellish the State of the Union speech and transform a constitutional requirement into a media event.

President Obama’s speech followed his inaugural address in that it laid out a set of progressive, liberal priorities for his second term. There are those of the political class and their media flacks who will debate the feasibility and practicality of his agenda and the plausibility of its chances for passage through a divided Congress.

There was, however, embedded within this speech a statement made that should give every American pause, for it belies the Presidents’ call for negotiation and bipartisanship. It carries with it as well a portending of a dangerous assault on the fundamental structure of a democratic republic designed as an equal tricameral form of government, with each third having very specific and purposeful responsibilities delineated in framework.

Contained within the portion of the speech that spoke to his call to address climate change, there was proffered this foreboding statement; it is chilling if the President of the United States actually means it.

To wit:

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

The telling phrase: “…if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

The president does have the power of executive orders, but this goes beyond that. This is a threat that if legislative third of our government does not act in accordance with his wishes and choices, he will act upon what he believes is his sole prerogative. That is not democracy, that is not constitutional – that is tyranny.

This is not hyperbole or hysteria. The President has made clear that he will act if the Congress does not. Such a statement shows an absolute lack of understanding of the structure of American democratic self-rule. The president may not act unilaterally to affect legislation. It is odd that the speech included this line within the context of climate change, but it will no doubt be used to control issues well beyond that narrow focus. The president has already affected the role of government in mandating health care insurance be required of the citizenry – the first step towards declaring that any form of personal choice can fall under the guise of being unhealthy and thus be regulated by the government. The debate on concussions in the NFL is a harbinger of this potential threat to individual freedom and personal choice. Football violence is unhealthy; therefore the government has the right to legislate all such activity.

Under the umbrella of climate change, industry and business will be claimed as negatively affecting climate change; that factory is emitting greenhouse gases, so the government must step in and legislate it out of business.

This is a chilling prospect, borne of a single individual believing he has the sole authority to act if the representatives of a free people elected to government do not act as that singular person demands.

Democracy requires forever vigilance, for all tyranny requires to take root is for good people to remain silent.

Dr. Benjamin Carson - 2-10-2013

It is not often that the Madison Conservative will defer its platform to another voice, but given the amazing clarity presented in the below linked speech, it has been decided to present this clip to as many American citizens as possible.

The speaker has been criticized for making his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, as if it were in some manner an act of disrespect to the event in general, and to President Obama in particular.

The President does on occasion appear to be uncomfortable with the absolute power of the arguments presented within the speech.

The Madison Conservative believes that the speaker was absolutely correct in his decision to present his speech when and how he did. He was in no way disrespectful to either the event or the President.

It is possible that the hue and cry over the attempted perceived portrayal of disrespect has more to do with the clarity of vision and intelligence of discourse that was presented and the inherent diversion from the accepted presentation of reality by the political class and their media sycophants.

It is requested that you take the thirty or so minutes to listen to this speech; it is as accurate a distillation of what we are told is too difficult to handle into what is actually very much possible.

The orator is Dr. Benjamin Carson, pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is no lightweight, by any measure.

The Madison Conservative will return next week to discuss the Presidents’ State of the Union speech this coming Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyHegP255g

I

Revisiting 'Nazi'

Given that today, January 27^th, is National Holocaust Memorial Day, it is perhaps appropriate to re-run a Madison Conservative blog in its original form, from October, 2011. The hyperbole in the wake of the election has done nothing to dampen efforts from all political quarters to blather on about ‘Gestapo’ tactics, or warn that political actions are best acknowledged in the context of being “like the Nazis”.
 

The names and contemporaneous content of the arguments are irrelative to bigger point about the nature of political discourse and should bear witness of a needed reminder.

To wit, as originally written:

As has been previously mentioned, there occurs from time to time an event that does not specifically deal with issues directly tied to the intent of the Madison Conservative, but nonetheless demand to be addressed in the form of a personal commentary. This week is just such an instance.

The actress Susan Sarandon this week referred to the Pope as ‘that Nazi’. While indeed a wholly inappropriate and insipid statement, the widely held principle of “I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” must be adhered to. Ms. Sarandon has the right to express herself in any manner that does not put the public at large in danger – the “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater” limitation on free speech.

This week also saw the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, one of the few remaining despots in power. Kaddafi was in the mold of previous mass murderers who ascended to power for personal glory, wealth and power and saw their people as merely tools to maintain their stranglehold on that power.

Kaddafi was a heinous human being who slaughtered tens of thousand, but he was no Nazi.

In recent years, President Bush has been labeled as Hitler, and President Obama has been displayed in caricature with a Hitler mustache. Opposing members of both political extremes have labeled their opposition as using ‘storm trooper’ tactics, or using “Gestapo” type methods in attempting to push through a specific piece of legislation.

This is beyond absurd and borders on the sickening; if we do not learn the lessons of history, we are sadly bound to repeat them.

General Eisenhower, when entering liberated concentration camps, allowed the press to take as many pictures as needed and forced the inhabitants of the neighboring towns to come through the camps to see what had occurred directly in their midst. He did so with the specific intention of forcing history to acknowledge what had happened, so that no one could ever claim the camps had not happened, or were not as bad as had been claimed.

He was a man wise beyond his time.

The Nazis collectively descended to the lowest form of humanity; they created the methodology of the furnaces to help exterminate an entire race and any person they felt was an undesirable was sent to their death in the hope of ‘cleansing’ the state. Hitler had people executed slowly and films taken of the torture so that he could watch them at his leisure. The Nazis and the Gestapo in general, created a wave of fear and oppression not seen previously for millennia.

They butchered human beings for sport; they desecrated the human body under the guise of ‘medical experiments’.

One may disagree with another’s politics or feel the need to make some manner of political statement, as in Ms. Sarandon’s’ case, but can the case of equity be made that President Bush or President Obama have done anything to warrant the comparisons to the Nazis?

Language is a delicate thing and those in a position of using it to a mass audience must be wary of how they use it.

We as a people must speak out against the flip manner that elected officials disparage each other; we can disagree on policy but how does one walk back a comparison to a Nazi with the full understanding of what that means?

Imagine the current “ Occupy Wall Street” protests under a Nazi regime. The protesters would be carted away and butchered for the ‘good of the state’.

Freedom comes with responsibilities and we must hold people accountable for their actions and their words.

We owe our posterity no less and must accept no less from ou

The Reality of Free Speech

For many people, the thumbnail sketch of the protections afforded free speech under the first amendment has been based upon a quote attributed to Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Succinct and to the point to be sure, but a statement that must be continually evaluated and reassessed lest its fundamental underlying precepts fall into a state of atrophic  decay from lack of proper and regular use.

The recent Supreme Court decision* allowing a small group of American citizens to assemble and loudly protest using profane and horrific language at funerals for fallen soldiers is just such an instance that demands the aforementioned reappraisal of the principles upon which free speech is accorded the citizenry.

First, the decision must be made of whether shouting obscenities at a funeral, in any situation, is morally acceptable and should such outrageous conduct be sanctioned by the government, said sanctioning coming by it permissibility.

Obviously, actions such as these strike a deep emotional chord and are felt to be reprehensible and an affront to society at large. There are few, save the particular litigants to the legal action, who believe that screeching bile and ignorance is, on any societal level, acceptable. Such actions are repulsive to Americans, doubly so when taken in the context of a funeral for an American soldier, one who laid down their life in the pursuit of freedom.

This issue, however, is one that must be absent emotional sentiment. Any issue presented and taken up by the court must be so devoid. How this issue makes one ‘feel’ cannot and must not be taken into account. We are truly a nation of laws, and the Constitution specifically is absent any manner of sentimentality. Adding any modicum of emotion serves only to obscure the underlying facts.

There are indeed limits to free speech – the popular understanding that free speech does not grant permission or protection to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater for instance. Simply speaking, or shouting ones lack of intelligence is not a crime. The definition of ‘hate speech’ must be relegated to one person’s internal and  individual belief that they ‘hate’ what someone else is saying. It is critical to remember that one persons’ individual belief system cannot become a universal standard, no matter what its allegiance. Once any part of free speech is impinged upon by using ‘feeling’ to equate its permissibility, the quick downward slope to regulating all speech is unavoidable.

And so, no matter how disgusting one may believe it is to shout obscenities at a soldier’s funeral, it is more critical to remember the fundamental freedoms they willingly gave their lives to defend.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

If a country is to remain free, this cannot be merely a catchphrase. It must remain an integral part of the national foundation and we must all remain vigilant in its defense.

*SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–751. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 2, 2011