Free Markets, Free People

James Clyburn

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.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Anger, fear, whining and inflaming

Apparently “death threats” have picked up since Democrats in the House passed the Senate health care reform bill (however, the death threats against Jim Bunning for trying to make sure the Democrats used PAYGO for the jobs bill seemingly weren’t worthy of news coverage).  I don’t condone them, but I can certainly understand the anger that might drive an increase in such threats.  The left has been trying to wave off the anger their meddling in health care has brought on by describing those who’ve protested their health care takeover as everything from thugs to racists to brownshirts.  The opposition has been insulted and ignored at every turn.  And now those that have done that are apparently surprised at the level of vitriol they’re receiving?

Here’s a clue as to why they continue to receive it:

Where was this goof when the left was engaged in protests every bit as pointed against George Bush? Why wasn’t he pontificating then? Why wasn’t he applying this standard to those protesters? Was he “aiding and abetting” them? You bet he was. When he says he’s seen this before it’s much more recently than he’d like you to believe – and, according to his own standard, he’s as much a “terrorist” as are the health care protesters.

This is the left in full flower. Anyone who believes that the Clyburns of the world have any respect at all for the common man’s preferences or a difference of opinion just haven’t been watching them at work for as long as I have. Demonize and divide is their mantra and they’re quite good at deploying it.

Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism, folks – it’s “terrorism”. Please excuse the use of insulting language, but idiots like James Clyburn are the reason the anger in this country remains high and is still building. Loud mouth hacks like this jerk trade in fear and lies and then have the temerity to suggest that it is “terrorism” to react to their abuses by protesting. In fact, there’s nothing more American than to protest.

If ignorance and arrogance were nickles and dimes, Clyburn and those like him would be rich. As it is, the country is terribly ill served by them. We all know there are those who go too far on both sides. Adults take that into consideration when they consider a protest movement. They usually focus on the reason for the protests – that is if they’re actually interested in why the protests exist – and try to assess the credibility of their arguments. They attempt to cool the rhetoric and the situation. Political hacks use such incidents to try to falsely tar the entire movement so they can ignore and dismiss it. That’s what the Democratic leadership has tried to do from the first townhall meeting that dissenters attended. Discredit, demonize, insult and ignore. Political hacks also inflame such situations.

If there’s anything that is clear in the video above, Clyburn is using purposefully inflammatory language to characterize all protesters. He should be ashamed of calling other Americans terrorists for protesting his abuse of power. He’d probably tell you he was angry. Well what in the hell does he suppose those he’s now demonized were if they were motivated enough to show up and protest as he and 218 others voted to strip them of even more of their freedom?

Politics ain’t bean bag, Mr. Clyburn and dissent is as American as apple pie. As someone who benefited from mass protests of Americans in the ’60s, you’d think he’d know it better than anyone, wouldn’t you? And who was it then, Mr. Clyburn, that used inflammatory language to describe the protesters?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Have They No Shame?

Are Democrat lawmakers really this disconnected and clueless?

First Rep. James Clyburn, D-SC likens townhall protesters to – yup, you guessed it – racists. Not just your generic, everyday racists, however. Instead, we’re talking Bull Conner, Deep South, red-neck, Klansman-type racists:

“I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before,” he said. “I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon.”

“This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right. And I do believe that health care for all is — a civil right,” the House Majority Whip argued. “And I think that is why you see this kind of activity. This is an attempt on the part of some to deny the establishment of a civil right.”

Look at how hard he had to work to tar people who honestly and passionately disagree with his party’s proposed legislation on health care.

This is like watching a huge temper tantrum thrown by spoiled kids. Democratic lawmakers don’t see, hear or get what they want and they lash out at those who deny them with the most hateful rhetoric they can muster. In Clyburn’s case the most hateful image he can muster is comparing citizens who have nothing more than a political disagreement to Bull Conner.

Not to be outdone we have Sen. Harry Reid (D-BS), the Senate’s male version of Nancy Pelosi, uttering this unique characterization of the old folks and veterans in opposition to his agenda:

Town hall protesters are “evil-mongers,” says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.

Such “evil-mongers” are using “lies, innuendo and rumor,” to drown out rational debate, Reid said.

“It was an original with me,” Reid said of the term. “I maybe could have been less descriptive,” he said, adding that “I doubt you’ll hear it from me again.”

Nevertheless, Reid worked in the word one more time during the interview.

Reid, of course, is a pathetic example of what we’re stuck with in terms of political leaders and another example of why seniority is a terrible system for picking leadership. I mean, for heaven sake, the man brags about coining a term to describe his constituents who disagree with him – “evil-mongers”.

“Evil-mongers”. It’s not even very good, for heaven sake, but witless Harry is proud of it.

This is what you get, apparently, when you cross our “civil” Democratic leadership (you know, the same one’s whining about the “uncivil” protesters?) – hateful comparisons with no basis and newly coined words designed to denigrate American citizens.

Thanks a bunch, guys. And may you enjoy many more years of the free speech you would deny others. Because you guys obviously know exactly what to do with that right, don’t you?

~McQ

Put The Race Card Away, Please

Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, said this the other day about the possible effects of all of the spending the Obama administration was doing and planning:

“What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have, send it to different states — we’ll create jobs,” Sanford said. “If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?… Why isn’t Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place. ‘Cause they’re printing money they don’t have and sending it around to their different — I don’t know the towns in Zimbabwe but that same logic is being applied there with little effect.”

A little oversimplistic, but this is “sound bite nation” so you have to condense. In effect his point is true to the extent it goes, and the example is a good and valid one, since Zimbabwe is printing money as fast as it can add zeroes to its demonimations. By now, the hyper-inflation it is undergoing from doing so should be well known to people versed in current affairs.

Unless, of course, you want to make a racial thing out of it. Rep. James Clyburn, Democratic Majority Whip, reacts to Sanford’s lesson and example of Zimbabwe:

“For him to compare the president of this country to Mugabe. … It’s just beyond the pale,” said Clyburn, who has sparred with Sanford over the Republican’s refusal to accept all the state’s stimulus funding.

[…]

“I’m sure he would not say that, but how did he get to Zimbabwe? What took the man to Zimbabwe? Someone should ask him if that’s really the best comparison. … How can he compare this country’s situation to Zimbabwe?”

Of course the “how” is fairly simple – if what is being touted as a solution here and was touted as a solution there, then Zimbabwe should be in great economic shape right now. But Clyburn would rather make a racial thing out of it. Obviously Sanford could have used Wiemar Germany of the ’30s, but it isn’t as relevant today as the case of Zimbabwe. And, he could have also used Venezuela. But Venezuela isn’t quite the basket case Zimbabwe is. Nope, in terms of a current example of what might happen, in terms of hyper-inflation from artificially pumping up he money supply, Zimbabwe is as good as it gets.

And besides:

“Rep. Clyburn always plays the race card,” shot back Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer, who said his boss has also compared the stimulus to failed government policies in Germany and Argentina. “This policy will result in hyper-infaltion. … [Clyburn] is ripping off the people he purports to represent.”

Round 2 to follow.

~McQ