free speech

The culture war is still with us

Despite the current spotlight on fiscal issues in Washington (and virtually every state capital), the battle over cultural issues has by no means gone away.  In fact, even while our government continues to spend itself into bankruptcy, the culture war is still very much with us.

(Actually, it is never really considered a “war” in the media unless conservatives are fighting back, never just when liberals are tearing down traditional cultural norms).

The latest battle in the ongoing war just concluded in New York, where liberals continued their assault on traditional marriage by redefining it to include homosexuality.  Thanks to Republican turncoats, the marriage revisionists won by just four votes.

It is important to note that this war is being waged by a distinct minority against several thousand years of human history, and that their agenda has never carried the day when put before the public for a vote.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Voters in over thirty states have passed marriage amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Any victories for gay marriage have always been by imposition of a legislature or, more often, via subversion of the political process by the judiciary.

Reformers attempting to regulate free speech and bailout old media

The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.

From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”.  How clever.  And how disingenuous.

It’s being championed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in an attempt to get around this year’s Supreme Court decision which threw out restrictions on freedom of speech for unions and corporations in political campaigns.

Liberals want subsidized campaigns

Here they come again, liberals wanting South Carolina to go to a system of public financing for political campaigns. The latest plea for making you finance candidates you don't even support comes from Common Cause's State Director John Crangle, via an editorial in the State Paperthis week...

It is obvious that self-financed, rich candidates have major unfair advantages over non-wealthy candidates who must raise contributions to run — rich candidates can donate huge unlimited sums to their own campaigns while normal fund-raiser candidates are limited by state law to no more than $3,500 per source per election for statewide office or $1,000 per source for legislative office. The rich candidate can donate much more to his campaign than his fund-raiser opponent can raise, and further spend no time on fund-raising and much more time campaigning.

Hooray for the Supreme Court

Hooray for the Supreme Court. Yes, believe it or not, they actually do deserve some praise. Specifically the members of the majority who recently held that Vermont's restrictive campaign finance laws violated the First Amendment's free speech provisions.

 

This development comes at an opportune time in our political history. Currently, our free speech rights are besieged by politicians using the boogeyman of political corruption to build support for laws which themselves corrupt our political system by limiting our ability to participate in it.

 

Syndicate content

GET CONNECTED!

Get the RSS feed for my site

Get my updates via email: Click Here!

Connect with me on Facebook! Follow me on Twitter! Find me on LinkedIn Check out my YouTube page Connect with me on Delicious!