The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Who is the Real Traitor: Wikileaks, or Their Attackers?


There is no more important expression to protect, than any truth embarrassing to the government.

That is, above all else, the freedom of speech the Founders wanted the First Amendment to preserve.

In fact, its big test, in 1798, was against the Alien and Sedition Acts, that were passed to silence those who would embarrass the US government.

This censorship so outraged the American public that it brought down the Adams administration, and destroyed the Federalist Party, that had dominated American politics up to that very point.

And that should tell you something about the kind of people who are wanting to censor Wikileaks, for the crime of publishing truth that is embarrassing to secretive liars in the US government.

And to those who would claim that Swedish/Australian Wikileaks isn’t protected:

The Founders clearly intended the entire Bill of Rights to restrain the US government in ALL actions, not just on Americans. Just ask Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Wherever the US government goes, the Constitution is there…it’s the sole source of its legitimacy. And the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Not only do the Obama administration and neocons want to violate the 1st amendment, but they are promoting the tyranny of government secrecy.

If the government keeps an embarrassing secret from its own voters, this changes how they vote. That is the same violation of an election as if there were armed stormtroopers in your polling booth, changing your vote.

What is the excuse these attackers of the Constitution use as their excuse? That people who have lied to and kept secrets from the American voter might be endangered.

It is yet another example of Appeal to Cowardice, their favorite tool today.

These people, who assault the American ideals of truth and justice, who want to engage in the terrorism of a police state against political speech, are the real traitors.

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Fire in a Crowded Theater


Why You CAN Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater...

Censorship advocates say “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”, to prove that there are limits to free speech.

But the way they mean it, is not true.

You cannot actually be banned from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In fact, you are completely free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as long as there’s an actual fire, you probably be treated as a hero.

If there is NOT a fire, but everyone believes that you honestly thought there was, you shouldn’t be penalized, either.

But if you LIED about it, and it turns out that people were hurt, money lost, et cetera, then you can pay civil and (dubiously) criminal penalties.

But that’s not a restriction of free speech: It’s justice for others, who have been violated by fraud, which is a kind of coercion as evil as any other.

In other words, it’s hurting people with lies that brings penalties, not that your speech can rightfully be censored.

Fine, Kill Your Baby, But Don’t Make Me Help


Uncle Sam Squandering Taxpayer DollarsThe proposed Health Care “Reform” law includes, apparently, the taxpayer funding of abortion somewhere in its thousands of pages. But many taxpayers believe abortion is murder.

Abortion may need to be legal, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose it can be justly forced to pay for it.

The first amendment protects, in essence, our freedom of conscience. Certainly in regard to religious beliefs.

It’s ironic that abortionists like to say that abortion should be legal because of religious freedom; Some portion of those against abortion oppose it on religious grounds…

To the extent that religion is the motivation behind opposing abortion, the first amendment therefore bans government funding of abortion, because one should not be forced to violate their own religion.

Now I’m agnostic, and like Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery, I believe abortion cannot be banned, even though it’s the killing of a human baby…but despite those things, it is clear to me that forcing people who believe abortion is murder to fund that killing would be a holocaust-level evil.

An Evil Hate Crimes Law


Ron Karenga, klansmanIn what way is the new hate crimes legislation evil?

In what way is it not?

  • Hate crime laws violate the first amendment’s protection of freedom of expression and conscience. You have a right to hate someone, and to express that; you just aren’t allowed to murder them, regardless of the reason.
  • Hate crime laws belittle actual crimes. Instead of murder being the ultimate evil, murdering with politically incorrect intentions is treated as if it were somehow, magically, worse. In reality, murder is equally wrong and evil, no matter what your motivation. If anything, murdering people at random is surely worse for society as a whole.
  • What’s more, this law was passed through fraud. Enough Americans oppose such evil laws that corrupt politicians had failed to pass any, for the past decade…until they snuck it into a massive military spending bill, defrauding the American people, and illustrating why no Congresscritter should be allowed to vote for any bill they have not read, completely, themselves.

What the Liberals (Democrats and RiNOs) have proven, in passing this law, is that they are dishonest and corrupt, sneaking legislation through when they know America would oppose it, and that they despise American freedoms enough to do so even when the first amendment is at stake, and that they are sociopathic enough not to care that this undermines the basic morality against actual violent crimes.

%d bloggers like this: