A few links that might be of interest. Of course, those who come by often know that I can’t ever just post a link without commentary.
I love this one because it is so true. What makes it all the more appealing is that there are only categories of people who don’t realize or care the truth of what is being highlighted at the provided link: The media themselves and the conservative/Republican Politian. There are a few smart pols out there that are beginning to understand how the media treats them and that it is a losing battle from the beginning to even attempt to accommodate the leftist media. As for the media, it really does boil down to the fact they just don’t care. Their agenda is to get left-wingers elected as often as possible and they will do whatever it takes. It wouldn’t surprise to hear at some point these people will sell their grandmothers to get their favorite politician (not a conservative) elected.
2. Doug Powers, writing over on Michelle Malkin’s blog, has a bit on Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to stifle free speech by amending the Constitution. These people who want to severely curtail free speech is this country are calling this the People’s Rights Amendment.
Essentially what Pelosi wants to do is for Congress to determine what is and isn’t political free speech. Last year the SCOTUS decided that the First Amendment protects the right of free speech for both individual and corporations. Pelosi and most other democrat members of Congress want to overturn this decision via amending the Constitution.
I heard this comparison on the Michael Medved today. Imagine that you are a book publisher, which is a corporation, and you want to publish a book that is critical of a politician or a policy platform of one of the political parties. If Pelosi has here way, these books would not be able to be published using general corporate funds, they would have to be funded by political action committees (PACs).
Mr. Medved also referred to an editorial posted on National Review that kind of outlines some of the more obvious dangers (and maybe unintended consequences) of this so-called People’s Rights Amendment.
- The so-called People’s Right Amendment would have some strange consequences: Newspapers, television networks, magazines, and online journalism (blogger I assume he means PCANW Righty adds) operations typically are incorporated. So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations, and the like. Under the People’s rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not him much good inasmuch as the New York times Company, being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment. In short, any political speech more complex than standing on a soapbox at an intersection would be subject to the whims of Nancy Pelosi. (Source: National Review)
3. Mugshots of some of our finest occupiers.
Good gravy, don't these people believe in personal hygiene?