Free Markets, Free People

Beware of those who would trade freedom for security

The most recent example of that is Rep. James Clyburn who thinks it is time the concept of free speech is rethought in the wake of the Tucson shooting:

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

‘Free speech is as free speech does,’ he said. ‘You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.’

“Free speech is as free speech does?”  Does that sort of Gumpian nonsense pass for wisdom now?  Of course you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater – unless there’s a fire, of course.  But comparing what politicians (and others) have said to that, I find nothing of relevance (and yes, that includes “crosshairs”) that compares. 

However those who would restrict your freedoms for their perceived safety don’t see it that way.  And facts are simply an inconvenience to be ignored as they try to move their argument along.  Clyburn again:

Clyburn used as an example a comment made by Sharron Angle, an unsuccessful U.S. senatorial candidate in Nevada, who said the frustrated public may consider turning to ‘Second Amendment remedies’ for political disputes unless Congress changed course.

Clyburn said the man accused of shooting Giffords did just that.

‘He saw a Second Amendment remedy and that’s what occurred here and there is no way not to make that connection,’ Clyburn said.

Despite Clyburn’s position, law enforcement has not yet revealed any motives in the shooting.

In fact, and as Clyburn must know even as he uttered those words, there appears to be no real political motive for the shooting in Tucson.  But that doesn’t change the narrative does it? 

More control of speech (in an effort to better control the opposition’s speech) has been an goal of the left for decades.  Political correctness, birthed among academics from the left (and most evident on campuses today) ,is a speech code that has successfully limited and suppressed free speech.  And there are other attempts being made.  But the Clyburns of the world would, if they could and you would give them the okay, limit your speech despite the fact that the words “Congress shall make no law” appear in the amendment limiting government’s ability to do just that.

After all, It’s only the Constitution and we all know that it is followed by Congress only when it is convenient for Congress to do so.



38 Responses to Beware of those who would trade freedom for security

  • “It’s only the Constitution and we all know that it is followed by Congress only when it is convenient for Congress to do so.”

    Aw hell McQ, last week they were telling us it was an old document that confused people, and cited how much money was being wasted by reading it on the floor of the House of Representitives.

    I guess Rep Bozo Clyburn was having his shoes shined, or attending some other equally important business, and he missed them saying:

     “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.”

    Sigh.  You’d think they could manage to give attempts to abridge our fundamental rights a couple weeks off in honor of the new year.

  • Yeah, this affirmative action “leader” tried to tie the shooting to the reading of the Constitution the other day, too.
    Shear genius.

  • Wow, liberals will torture the facts endlessly to shut their opponents up.  And make no mistake about it, when liberals speak of putting a stop to “overheated rhetoric,” they are talking about silencing everyone who isn’t them.

  • Hmmmm…
    I wonder what Rep. Clyburn would say to the comment “Desegregation is as desegregation does.”

  • You should rephrease the headline. Because they’re not willing to trade security for freedom, they’re willing to take a power grab in the name of security

  • The real question is who’s security …

    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. — Thomas Jefferson

  • So, this is how they think they can get the Fairness Doctrine back in action. Good luck. These folks really think they can return to the days of yesteryear. You’d think it would be the socons who think that, but I really wonder if maybe the Dems have them beat on that dream.

    • They had 2 years to get the “(un)Fairness Doctrine” reinstituted.  That boat has sailed.

      • Oh, I think you are very mistaken there, Neo.  You are just ABOUT to see them double-down on that.
        Think how essential that would be to a successful Obama campaign…!!!!

        • Republican majority in the House, and a very close Senate.
          Electoral poison. Not a chance.
          The new Republican majority in the House is talking about actively rolling back things like the EPA’s regulation of CO2.  (And I recall talk of telling the FCC to butt the hell out of the Internet, too.)
          In that climate, the “Fairness Doctrine”? Never going to happen.

          • I feel encouraged…but why do I still somehow feel the Dems are in power?
            GOP hasn’t done anything yet?
            MSM brainwashing?
            Residual thinking from the last 2 years?
            Not enough beer? I think I will go with this one.

  • In my opinion, Clyburn and the other Communist Manifesto lovers who have saturated the Democrat Party are as dangerous to the United States general public as the nut case shooter was to those people in the Safeway mall. I think it is shameful that so many “conservatives” are playing defense on these issues instead of jumping all over these idiots and pointing out the dire consequences of what they are trying to do.

  • Sheriff Dimwit had multiple reportings of this loon’s mental state.  Although there have been some reports that the sheriff ignored these due to some sort of political pull by the parents, we still don’t know why.
    Ultimately, the cause of this outburst of gunfire outside Tucson seems to be a local problem that the local authorities handled badly.

    • Let’s get a few more laws on the books, after all MORE laws ALWAYS fix the problem – and the Justice Department and Federal Government can continue to enforce them, as they do the Black Panthers Voter Intimidation case, and preventing illegal immigration across our southern border.

      • Yeah, but if they don’t get Sheriff Dimwit’s thumb out of his ass, it will happen all over again.

      • Gawd, it must be sublime to be a lawyer. You can solve all problems and create work for yourself at the same time. (Sorry Rags.)

        • Heh.  I just today learned that I’d saved a client further litigation by a fairly adroit piece of lawyering.
          Down-side is that ends that paying relationship.  Ah, well…  If I know the client, they will screw up with someone else…

  • Why don’t we just make a law that makes it illegal to tell someone else they are making hate speech. I know I get mad when I keep hearing it so if some nut job herd it, they might do something bad.   /sarc

    • There is a odd logic to your suggestion.
      “Hate speech,” much like porn, is in the eye of the beholder, but like the SCOTUS said about porn, “I know it when I see it.”
      Do we really need anybody to point it out to us ?

  • You’d think that this Loughner guy had burned down the Reichstag or something…

    The Arizona shooter is reported to have asked the Arizona congresswoman at a previous occasion “What is government if words have no meaning?”  She apparently didn’t answer to his satisfaction. Most commenters say the question is nonsensical.
    Well, I guess my sanity is being called into question because I think it’s quite sensical.  Today, many say the Constitution is a living document that changes interpretion with the changes of times. The outcry over the recent reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives was mostly over the argument that it is not the responsibility of the House to interprete the Constitution but the Supreme Court.
    What is the Constitution but words? Words that are the basic foundation of our government. Words, that to some, you and I and every other citizen except the SCOTUS Justices cannot interpret. Even when the SCOTUS does interpret them for the unwashed masses the interpretion is good only for the time until they re-interpret them for a new era.
    So,if the words of the Constitution have only changing and fleeting meaning they have no meaning at all, So, what is our government if the Constitution has no Meaning?


  • The empirical evidence shows the OPPOSITE of the “climate of hate” meme.
    The blood libel is directed at one thing:  SHUT UP!!!!

  • The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

    This is abdurd on its face.  This idiot wannabe tinpot ostensibly claims that “extreme” speech can cause people to be violent, but offers the remedy NOT of eliminating such speech, but rather of just having it equally from both sides.

    Naturally, his real motives are pretty transparent: he wants to be in the position of claiming that some speech (i.e. speech that he doesn’t like) is extreme and so can be censored.

    Oh, and another thing: free speech with “parameters” isn’t free speech any more.  That a member of the Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, can even think like this is disturbing.  It is even worse to consider that this goon is a “civil rights leader”; has it ever occured to him that the Fairness Doctrine is just a slightly more civilized tool of oppression than the police dog, the fire hose, and the lynching tree?

    NeoSheriff Dimwit had multiple reportings of this loon’s mental state.  Although there have been some reports that the sheriff ignored these due to some sort of political pull by the parents, we still don’t know why.

    There has been increasing talk about the “warning signs”, just as there were after the Virginia Tech shootings (say, was Sarah Palin responsible for those, too?).  This has the potential to become a disastrously slippery slope: shall we start curtailing people’s rights and perhaps even locking them up because they seem “crazy”?  Can you imagine the field day that the statists would have with that sort of power?

    Rush Limbaugh’s controversial radio program was unexpectedly interrupted today when agents from the Department of Love took him into protective psychiatric custody.  Department spokesperson George O. O’Brien said that there have been several complaints that Limbaugh, long a divisive figure linked to outrages such as the Oklahoma City bombing, is dangerously unstable.

    “When citizens complain that they sense danger from somebody, especially somebody with a history of extreme and violent rhetoric, the department has to act,” O’Brien said.

    Limbaugh’s lawyer, Joseph Jones, denounced the department’s actions in a press conference today.  However, due to the inflammatory nature of his remarks, they have been censored by the Federal Communications Commission.  Jones has also been taken into protective custody by the Department of Love.

    “We’re frankly relieved that this man, who has a history of extreme and violent rhetorc, is no longer poisoning the airwaves,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Free Speech Enforcement…

    • C’mon, doc…  Really, there are OBJECTIVE standards for mental illness, and for evaluating someone who is alleged to pose a danger to others or himself.  ALLLLLLLL kinds of due process.
      A short period of evaluation would have been proof of this guy’s “pudding”.
      I think of Maj. Hasan.  REALLY, if there had been objective judges, would there be ANY doubt this guy was a threat?

      • “Objective” is in the eye of the beholder.  Apparently, the Ft. Hood shooter (how it sticks in my craw to associate an honorable military rank with this monster) had some evals… and was given a clean bill of health.  Can you imagine the “objective” evaluation process that people like Clyburn would like to apply?

        Q: Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

        A: No.

        Q: Good.  What is the sum and two and two?

        A: Four.

        Q: OK.  Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity?

        A: Yeah, a few times.


        • If you put too many crazies in the loony bin, the lefties will decry that too.

        • Oh, PLEASE, doc…!!!
          One of the scandals of these killings was HE WAS EVALUATED.  And found to be a threat.  His freaking peers knew it, and said so (very, very quietly).  BUT the effing Army was too PC to ACT on what it knew.  (Nobody should take that as an indictment of the Army, in which I served…just the dangerous PC part.)
          And, again, I have a lot of faith in due process…with appropriate reservations, since I work in the due process world.
          Objective is…you know…OBJECTIVE.  Not Clyburn batspit “objective”.

          • Ragspierre – [T]he effing Army was too PC to ACT on what it knew [about Nidal].

            That’s what I mean when I write that “objective” is in the eye of the beholder.  Under the rules set up by the PC element in the Army, Nidal was OK.  I expect that it was something along these lines:

            “Sir, there’s this major who is, frankly, giving some people the willies.  I mean, he really scares them.”

            “Oh, really?  Have we evaluated him?”

            “Yes, sir.  He seems to be pretty much batsh*t, sir.  We think he might pose a violent threat to himself and others.”

            “Hmmm… Who is he?”

            “His name is Hasan, sir.  Major Nidal Hasan.  He’s a psychologist or something like that.”

            “Hasan?  Is he… er… you know?”

            “Yes, sir.  He is of Middle Eastern descent.  Palestinian.”

            “I see.  Um, has he made any direct threats?”

            “Well, sir, he’s made some pretty scary statements about infidels, jihad, illegal occupation of Muslim holy lands, death to crusaders, and that sort of thing.”

            “But has he made any DIRECT threats, like, ‘I’m going to buy a pistol and shoot up a group of soldiers waiting to deploy to Iraq’?”

            “Um, no, sir.  Nothing so explicit as that.”

            “So, let’s sum up: we’ve got a major with a foreign name who gives [air quotes] ‘some people the willies’.  Yet, he hasn’t made any direct threats to anybody.”

            “Well, sir, he’s said some pretty hostile things —”

            “But he hasn’t made a direct threat.  Now, has he, captain?”

            “Um, sir, I’m a major…” [pause] “No, sir, he hasn’t made any direct threats.”

            “That’s what I thought.  Still, it may be that the atmosphere around here is repressive to him.  There’s a lot of anti-Muslim anger in the country these days, and I’m sure that he feels persecuted.  Maybe a change of scene would do him good.  Arrange a transfer.  Hood has some openings, haven’t they?”

            “Yes, sir, I believe that they have.”

            “See to it.”

            “Yes, sir.”

            You see?  TOTALLY objective:

            Muslim + no direct, explicit threat to shoot 43 people = clean bill of health

  • Am I the only one here who actually thinks that at least part of the motivations here is to actually goad a real “right winger” into a terribly violent act? 

    I’ve had that feeling the past year, and this only reaffirms it really.

    • Anyone who understands civics knows that the real danger of violence comes when the PEOPLE are denied a voice.  But watch the actions of the Collectivists in government and the MSM.

      From the piece link to above.

    • Yes, I agree with you.

    • I believe its revisionism.  They went through an ugly period against Bush and without constant propaganda, its hard to maintain the hateful perspective.  And once the hateful perspective is gone, rational thinking may creep in.  If not about GWB, but about their conduct towards him.

      This is an attempt to rewrite history and imply its the right who has been hateful and they were only reactionary. 

  • Is this what Clyburn is referring to?–senate-candidate-to-be-afraid-of-99713194.html
    …”When I get to Washington, I’m going to kill Harry Reid’s entire job-destroying agenda. I’m going to stand by my principles; I don’t care if they come at me with an assault weapon.” (Cheers.)

    The next week, in grainy black-and-white and with ominous introductory music more suitable for coverage of a mass murderer, voters will be treated to a version of that speech as edited by Harry Reid’s campaign team, with Nevadans bizarrely cheering Sharron Angle after she apparently says, “When I get to Washington, I’m going to kill Harry Reid … with an assault weapon.”
    /end excerpt
    Tools of the left: Selective editing, selective facts, selective amnesia.

  • Interestingly enough, when they had the reading of the Constitution in the Congress, several Reps volunteered to read portions of that document.
    Rep. Giffords read the First Amendment.