Restoring Honor Starts Here: January 2011

Monday, January 31, 2011

Net Neutrality, The Fairness Doctrine and "Kill Switches"

Seal of the United States Federal Communicatio...

"To get the inestimable good that freedom of the press assures one must know how to submit to the inevitable evil it gives rise to." --Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Klavan Explains "Liberal" Culture
Please watch this 5 minute video in which the gentleman gives you a summary of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality as it reflects the progressive culture; all of which are just elaborate ways of saying to their conservative counterparts: "Shut up!" If you do watch this you can skip reading the rest of this post, however, I hope you will read on.....there is a lot at stake.

Just before Christmas the FCC decided it had the power to regulate the internet. Did you know that? Do you wonder what that means?

Net Neutrality sounds great. Most names progressives give to their actions and policies sound great, but a closer look is always advisable. A short piece at the Tea Party Patriots, "Net Neutrality is Anything But Neutral" gives you an overview of some major concerns. I think the term "Media Marxism" is a more accurate name for the goals of the FCC regulations. "Equal access," "Equal Rates, "Equal Service" sound like things we can all support but when put in the context of the progressive agenda they shine a bright light on the world view that gives birth to regulations like this and the "unintended consequences" they tend to ignore. Some of these concerns are outlined at News with Attitude, one concern being one's right to speak and publish freely on the internet which, in turn, assures that we continue to have unrestricted access to information....even information we disagree with.

Civil discourse and debate, even heated debate, is what keeps us free and our government "limited." However, the underlying assumption to this is that we can handle the responsibilities that these freedoms bring and progressives do NOT believe most people can do that, hence their advocacy for the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, they've been teaching us for close to 100 years that we cannot handle freedom. They believe that the "select few" who know what's good for us need to impose their view of fairness, "social justice" and reality on us all. I, for one, actually read the Huffington Post and Media Matters in order to test the strength of my beliefs. Many people, however, rely on only one source of information. Progressives want to "force" those people to hear "the other side of the argument." Somehow I don't think the Huffington Post readership and the MSNBC viewers will be forced to read The Blaze or watch Glenn Beck.

There is a great article at the The Constitutionalist Today titled America's Enduring Strength that discusses the different world views as manifested in "right" and "left" ideologies. Our Founders felt that our First Amendment rights were a vital part of finding an equilibrium between extremes. They trusted that "We the People" would be able to figure out how to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when presented with unfettered access to information and the unrestricted right to debate important issues. They had seen firsthand what happens when people have no outlet for their frustrations. Debate can be viewed as a sort of "safety valve." What happens when you shut this down? Have you considered what is happening in Egypt? It seems to me that when people are denied information they will be at the mercy of whoever jumps in to fill that void. The rumors and propaganda get mixed up with what is actually "truth" and this leaves the people at the mercy of individuals who may not have their best interests in mind. Shutting down social media, internet and cellphone services did not calm things down it may have made it worse. This lead to a "lecture" from Secretary of State Clinton that Egyptian authorities needed to restore access immediately. The irony is that our Congress is set to introduce a bill that would give what has been termed a "kill switch" power to our President. (I don't personalize this to "President Obama" because I don't feel comfortable with ANY President of the US having power like this.)

Our Congress is now set to introduce legislation that would give our President the power to seize control and even shut down the internet. Senator Susan Collins (co-sponsor of the bill) says this legislation will not be used by the government to quell dissent. You have to ask yourself if she actually BELIEVES this. If so, she is, at best, naive. Our Constitutional Republic was designed to limit the powers of government for a reason. Someone once said, "Before you tear down a fence you better figure out why is was put up in the first place." Our Founders put a fence around our federal government for a reason. Very simply put, it was to protect our liberty and prevent any one person or group of people from possessing unlimited powers. History has shown us again and again where that leads.

Also worth reading:

Huff Watch: A discussion of the bias and mission of the Huffington Post (which claims to be nonpartisan)

And, as always, I include related articles below which discuss both sides of the issue when possible.....in the interest of fairness. I don't need a law to make me do this because Restoring Honor Starts HERE!

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Silence=Death

German Concentration Camp Markings

Contrary to the popular song, silence is NOT golden. From the "Break the Silence Campaign"regarding the death of millions in Africa to "Silence is the Death of Liberty" to the "Silence=Death" AIDS campaign (which uses a pink triangle inspired by the chart included in this post) we can see what harm can arise if people are "silent." Dietrich Bonhoeffer said:

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Tuscon where people were killed and a United States Congresswoman was severely injured there has been a vigorous debate about the causes. These crimes were perpetrated by a seriously disturbed young man. But, instead of having a conversation about the inadequacy of our mental health system, or the problems caused by deranged people who choose to "stalk" someone we are pulled once again into the narrative that "blames" political rhetoric and, of course, guns. The fact that a precious nine year old little girl was killed adds to the emotional need to answer the questions: why? what caused this?

It did not take long for the media to point to the vitriol from members of the Tea Party and talk show hosts (radio and TV.) This was done before anyone knew anything about Jared Lee Loughner. (I'm thinking all it would have taken was a google search and a quick read of his youtube videos to come to the conclusion that he was just plain disturbed, but that's just me.) The sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, recklessly blamed the "conservative vitriol and bigotry in Arizona" for the crime before he had gathered evidence. Much evidence has been found that shows that neither political rhetoric nor Rush Limbaugh nor Sarah Palin motivated this disturbed individual. But, that does not fit the narrative for the Progressives among us and the mainstream media that echoes their world view.

To contribute to the debate I would like to present the concept that the causes of this tragedy are complex. What if Jared Loughner had seen Sarah Palin's map with "cross-hairs?" What if he had listened to conservative talk radio? What if he was a devout Christian? I have to tell you honestly that had Jared Lee Loughner met any of that criteria I feared that anyone who was conservative, self-identified as a "Tea Party" member, and/or was a devout Christian would be in danger.

But where was the voice of reason? Where was President Obama's calming influence telling us not to "jump to conclusions" as he did after the Fort Hood shootings? Where was the media warning us not to condemn whole groups of people for the actions of a madman? That did not happen and THAT is what we need to fear. Although there were numerous articles outlining the use of vitriol and/or violence by the progressives on the left, one of which concerned the AFL-CIO, I think we all have to take a closer look at what is really going on instead of pointing fingers.

I've discussed the two very different "world views" that are at odds in today's world. At the risk of over-simplification, the progressive view most people are stupid and need to be told what to think and how to live their lives by a select few; the elite. That means that they are "easily manipulated." Just ask Cass Sunstein, our regulatory czar. And what that leads to is the elite determining what speech should be regulated and possibly eliminated. I say that the solution to preventing senseless violence is not to curtail speech, but to allow vigorous debate to continue. What happens when you silence people? We can find numerous examples in history, distant past and recent past, where the results were deadly.

There's a reason our Founders made freedom of speech the first amendment. They knew what harm could come if that right was violated. Our beliefs are like a muscle, they must be exercised. We participate in debate, yes even heated debate, but that leads a thinking person to question their assumptions and beliefs. When you are presented with evidence as a thinking person you will test that information with what you assume to be true and adjust your beliefs if you find they are in error. If you find they are not in error your beliefs and convictions will be strengthened. The progressive elite don't think you can do that. They really believe that to protect you from yourself they need to become "enlightened despots." And that means they have to limit or shut down the debate.

Silence is not the answer and the truth has no agenda. As the name of my blog states: restoring honor starts here. That means as individuals we need to adhere to values and principles that are timeless. We need to change ourselves in order to change our society. Can we effectively govern ourselves? I believe we can, contrary to what the progressives believe. What about you?

Arizona Shooting Coverage is a Media Campaign to Criminalize Conservatism (Media Research Center)

The Left's History of Violence (Human Events)

Massacre, followed by Libel (Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post)

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Why the Reading of the U.S. Constitution is Important

Image via Wikipedia

The title link in this post takes you to a thought-provoking Op-Ed written by Charles Krauthammer, written on January 2nd and titled: "Obama pushing liberal agenda quietly, by regulation not by laws." The "rule of law," not the "rule of men" is what our Founders wanted when they wrote the Constitution. That's why it is troublesome that unelected bureaucrats have amassed so much power.

The Tenth Amendment Center outlines the role of Congress, as stated in the Constitution, and points out that the Executive branch, via the bureaucracy created by the Obama administration, is flooding us with "regulations" that have not made it through the legislative process. In other words, Congress is becoming irrelevant. That is what Nancy Pelosi meant by "if the fence is too high we're going to pole vault over it" and that is why becoming intimately familiar with the founding principles outlined in our Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution is so important. That is also why one of the newest members of Congress, Representative Alan West says the liberal agenda is the "antithesis of who we are as a nation." That is also why you might call Cass Sunstein a threat to our Constitutional Republic. And that is why some members of our 112th Congress wanted to begin their service by reading aloud the Constitution of the United States.

A New York Times editorial predictably attacks this move in pure Alinsky mode by saying:

"In any case, it is presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person."

Wow! They attack via Alinsky's rules for radicals AND manage to remind everyone how those who hold an opposing view are "racist." Saul would probably give extra credit for that!

Glenn Beck had a segment on his show that discussed the full historical context of the "three fifths clause." I recommend that you watch this and do your own homework to find the truth. In searching for this video clip from Glenn Beck's show it is interesting to note that three of the first five links found in the google search included:

Glenn Beck defends 3/5ths clause that basically says Glenn supports "knowingly or unknowingly" the institution of slavery.

3/5 Human-Glenn Beck program which is a transcript of a segment of his radio program in which he discusses his book Arguing with Idiots, specifically mentioning the original intent of the 3/5ths clause.

and, of course media matters link: Beck's racial politics: defending the 3/5 clause; blacks count less which basically claims that Glenn is failing at revising history but offers no references to refute what Glenn was saying about the intent of the 3/5ths clause. I would venture to say that if you get someone's anger boiling by saying "blacks count less" and "Glenn Beck agrees with that" people look no further into the context of the claim.

If you don't spend the time to read both sides of this issue your google search thus leaves you with the belief that Glenn Beck is a racist. I believe that if you truly LISTEN to what he is saying, nothing could be further from the truth.

I emphasize here the three fifths clause because it is used to distract us from the real issue and that is the importance of restoring the integrity of our Constitution. Our Founders did, in a sense, make it a "living" document, however, that does NOT allow for making it mean what your "itching ears" want it to mean. It means that we have an amendment process for a reason. That we have needed and will continue to need to take into account new issues. Amending our Constitution is not easy. It was not meant to be easy because the Founders wanted us to make sound decisions and have those sound decisions agreed upon by The People. They established a form of government that would limit the power of government so that the power would reside with the people....not just the elite, ALL the people.

They did not make this a direct democracy for a reason. Instead of making decisions based purely on emotion that is so often subject to manipulation they wanted us to slow down and have a vigorous debate before taking actions. In Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address he outlined the purposes of government which included:

A full understanding of inalienable rights; "enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence.."

The need for government to be wise and frugal, "which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Near the end of his address Jefferson outlines our founding principles and says:
The wisdom of our sages, and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment:--they should be the creed of our political faith; the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Wanting to begin the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution is not "self-righteous" nor is it a "stunt." It is an attempt by people of honor to "retrace our steps and to regain the road that our Founders wanted us to follow.