Speech is either free from restraint, or it isn't. There is no middle ground. We (you, I) either defend free speech, or we don't. Again, there is no middle ground. And sometimes defending free speech, means defending those with whom we disagree.
Personally, I do not believe in bi-partisanship. You either believe in something or you don't. In fact, I believe the "bi-partisanship myth" that Washington and its politicians spew is mere propaganda, designed to allow politicians to get away with legislating against the will of their constituents.
The reason I bring this up, is because defending the free speech of those we oppose, is NOT bi-partisanship, and shouldn't be confused as such. Free speech is about liberty. And when a little bit of speech gets muted, all of us (even if we disagree with said speech), lose a little more liberty.
The Left is on the march towards another "Fairness Doctrine." Many say they aren't, but that's only because the Left will structure it in a different way. As a Goldwater conservative/libertarian, I urge everyone to defend free speech of every kind, otherwise we won't have a leg to stand on when it's our speech the State decides to squash.
When Bush went to Denver to speak on Social Security at another taxpayer-financed public event, Leslie Weise and Alex Young got their tickets and drove to the museum where Bush would appear. But a Republican operative noticed their car bore a bumper sticker recommending "No More Blood for Oil" and apparently took it as a criticism of Bush.
After they had taken their seats inside, two presidential staffers showed up and unceremoniously escorted them out. Weise and Young say Secret Service agents later told them they were ejected purely because of that bumper sticker.
No one objects to efforts to avert disruptions that threaten violence or keep the president from speaking. But White House staffers show control-freak tendencies that go beyond assuring security. The manual says that if someone merely displays a sign, "action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator's effect."
What effect would that be? Showing that someone disagrees with George W. Bush-an effect that can't be tolerated. That's why Bush critics have to be removed even if they are quiet and non-disruptive.
The Car of the Future!
With the President trying to throw as much taxpayer money at the auto industry as he can, and Congress entertaining the idea of a "car czar," the ever-brilliant Iowahawk gives us a close-up look at the car of the future, the Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition by Congressional Motors. Watch the video below.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait to get behind the wheel of one of these bad boys, and experience the exhilaration of those "22.5 carbon neutral ponies of Detroit muscle!"
PS - It's time we get rid of any and all "czar's" in America. Don't you think? Quite frankly, a "czar" is about as un-American as you can get!
czar
1: emperor ; specifically : the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution
2: one having great power or authority
I admit, I have not been on this blog in a long time… all the same it was another happy to see It is such necessary case and avoided by so many, even specialist. I thank you to advice making people more apprised of possible problems.