Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Monday, October 13, 2008

If I May be Serious for a Moment

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit sent his first ever mass e-mail in seven years of blogging, to promote this post. He's been kind enough to link me in the past, so I'm more than happy to return the favor.

More importantly, I am terrified that he might be right.

If (when?) Obama is elected, by my estimation there’s an at least even chance
that the newly-reconstructed FCC will reverse course and attempt to apply the
New Fairness Doctrine to blogs.

If (when?) it happens, I’ll break that law. I will break it with all due malice and in full knowledge of the possible consequences. I’ll shout “Fire Obama!” in a crowded theater. And then, for the first time ever, I’ll ask for reader donations. Because I’ll going to need them, lots of them, to pay for the lawyers.

I'll just add a few things. Jaymaster predicts that Obama will be more concerned with making as few decisions as possible than with raping the country. I suppose he might point out that in the Illinois legislature, Obama voted present 130 times. In response, I'll note that in Obama's first year as a U.S. Senator, he got a $1 million earmark for the hospital where his wife works, in exchange for his his wife getting her salary nearly tripled. He has already tried to use the Department of Justice to silence legitimate political discourse (what happens when he directly appoints the attorneys at DoJ?). He is already using frivolous criminal investigations against local government officials. He has helped ACORN with their biannual voter fraud efforts. How can Jaymaster seriously argue that Obama will abuse his power less when he has more of it?

That's full-on scary corruption, without the slightest attempt to hide it, after he already knew he would face national scrutiny as a Presidential candidate. And here's the worst part: it worked. When is the last time you heard a reporter mention his unabashed quid pro quo? As a Senator, he can manipulate federal spending. He can request a DoJ probe. As President, he gets at least two Supreme Court picks, he gets to appoint DoJ attorneys and order them to pursue his agenda, he gets to pick his cabinet, he gets to initiate a disastrous and humiliating collapse of U.S. military power for decades to come by forcing defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, if Obama isn't even trying to hide his manifest disregard for the Constitution now, why would he change his mind in the White House? Especially if he has a filibuster-proof majority?

Second point: Diane Hsieh e-mailed (sorry for the no-linky; if you have a blog, let me know) and noted that McCain, too, is an enemy of the First Amendment. And I totally agree with her, for exactly the reason she gives:

"When asked whether McCain-Feingold violates freedom of speech, McCain said, I
would rather have a clean government than one where quote 'FirstAmendment
rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had mychoice, I'd
rather have the clean government."

Well John McCain can go piss up a rope, because the Constitution expressly protects free speech, and not John McCain's efforts to assuage his conscience after his own political corruption came to light.

In case I haven't made myself absolutely clear, I do not like John McCain. At all. He is an enemy of the Constitution and any judge with an ounce of sanity should issue a restraining order keeping him five miles from elected office at all times. I would call him a scum bag, but I would feel bad about insulting actual bags filled with scum. The entire State of Arizona should burn with a deep and abiding sense of utter humiliationg for repeatedly electing such a putrid waste of human life to the Senate -- except that the Senate seems to be a strikingly appropriate place for putrid wastes of human flesh.

All that said -- and again, I mean every word of it -- there is a difference between increasing the cost of political speech and restricting which legal entities may engage in political speech before elections (with all kinds of ridiculous loopholes and whatnot), and actually threatening to use the police power of the federal government to throw you in jail for the substance of your political speech. Obama has proven time and again that he does not take well to criticism. He will not just cost you money for speaking, he will throw your ass in jail if he doesn't like what you say.

In my link above, about Harold Simmons (the investor who Obama tried to silence with a DoJ probe), keep in mind that Obama could have called the Federal Elections Commission guys. Instead he called the guys with powerful handguns.

One final thought. Now that I've disagreed with Steve's detractors, let me disagree with Steve for a moment. He says:
"But that law, should it pass, will not stand."

I wish I could agree with you. The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would probably agree. But that's a 5-4 split. Obama will almost certainly replace Ginsburg and Stevens (a liberal and a ... well, we'll call him a liberal for purposes of this post). Scalia is 72-years-old. Kennedy is 72-years-old (I didn't check their birthdays -- I could be off by a number). Anyone want to bet real money they'll both be alive and kicking at the end of a hypothetical second Obama term?

We're not betting real money, of course. We're betting our right to free speech.