The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Inequality is life

Obama: Inequality is morally wrong

 

President Obama, never my favorite person, just leaves me shaking my head with wonder.

Where did we find this guy?

Look, I think somebody needs to explain the realities of life to him (not that I expect it to happen).

When one speaks of  “equality” in the political/historical sense, we are not talking about equality of outcomes. We are not talking about everyone having the same as everyone else, or even anything approximating equality of what we may or may not possess.

No. what we are – or should be – talking about is equality before the law; with government treating us all equally and not showing favoritism toward any individual or group (or the flip side, persecuting or discriminating against any individual or group). However, it seems that concept has been lost in transition between generations somewhere … or maybe it was in translation.

Granted, the generations that came before us were not perfect, nor were they omniscient or omnipotent. Like us, they were flawed individuals who strove to make a more perfect union. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell people like President Obama and other progressives, that “union” does not mean people are to be shaped with a cookie-cutter to be exactly the same.

Equivalence of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, or – even more importantly – equality before the law.

As the President said in his speech this week, many people are being conditioned to believe: Inequality is wrong.

At first glance, it is hard to argue that “inequality” is wrong, but we have to define what is not being equal. If we are talking about economic outcome, then we are talking about something that is not the Provence of any government.

People are different. Individuals are essentially unique and therefore implicitly and explicitly INEQUAL. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen. You can not use government to make everyone equal in life … it is impossible.

But our President is decrying the inequality of economic conditions and pledging to use the powers of government to correct this perceived problem … and if Congress doesn’t cooperate, he plans to do it by executive fiat.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free, liberty comes at a price and that if you want either then you have to accept that some people are just going to be different.

But no, we can’t have that. We have to resent all that others have.

That is beginning to scare me. I see far too many people, the President included, saying this group is wrong and that group is wrong and it is the federal government’s job to correct all that they define as evil, or wrong or an injustice.

We have lost our way, and unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it seems that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was politically prophetic.

 

This however is so very true:

Life is like a cup of coffee

Maybe the rest of the story

Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible
When an Egyptian cleric burned a copy of the Bible last fall in front of the US Embassy in Cairo, it was interesting to read that Egyptian authorities arrested him and his son under that country’s blasphemy laws.
There was a trial about a month later and then the case seemed to drop beneath all radars, until this past week, when an Egyptian news agency reported the cleric noted for his presence on Egyptian broadcast TV had been sentenced for the act.
Apparently, such prosecutions apparently are relatively rare in Egypt, except when it is Christians who offend Muslims (according to most reports).
As a supporter of the rule of law, it is gratifying to see the law applied equally, or some semblance of it (the fine is ridiculously low when compare to the fine levied on a Coptic Christian which is cited in the HuffPo version).
On the other hand, as American and as a supporter of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, I would have opposed prosecution in both cases. People have the right to offend and be offended but that does not always give the State/Government the right or even obligation to punish the offenders. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
As the old saying goes: I may vehemently disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.
Unfortunately, the filmmaker who “started” this phoo-pha-rah apparently remains in a US jail for violating his probation on an unrelated charge. He was jailed after members of President Obama’s administration called for his prosecution. Now that is a sad commentary on the American sense of justice.

Big bad Koch boys threaten employees

Vote for Obama and face the consequences – says NBC

Round two: Big Bad Employers against employees.

Give me a break. In these various “notifications” to employees of various corporations the people who are sending the e-mails say outright they are not telling the employees whom to vote for.

No, rather, they are telling the companies’ employees what the most likely consequences will be if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and that one of those consequences will be that an undetermined number of the employees of the companies will lose their jobs.

Is this a threat? Yes, indirectly. However, it also is an economic reality. Four more years of the policies of the Obama Administration is going to bite into the receipts and profits of many a corporation and business. The Obama Administration has made no bones about its plans and that is what it intends to do. It intends to tax “wealthy” business people more. It is going to make companies provide more benefits or pay a tax. It is going to do more to advance alternative energy at the expense of the current energy providers and the consumers, through higher prices for traditional sources of energy.

These people who have far more money than I will ever dream of have earned their money, for the most part. Granted, I can’t do what they have done, but then I never tried, nor did I have the skills. But then again, I am not jealous of their wealth or begrudge them it either.

Now, at least these people are being honest. They are saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they are going to cut costs at their businesses so they can keep more of the money (or at least amounts similar to what they are getting now) in the wake of the economic changes. You blame them?

Now, regardless of how you look at it, these are the people who put the big bucks up to sustain these businesses … it is called investments. They are entitled to a return on that investment (commensurate to its contribution to the success of the company), just as a shop floor worker deserves compensation for his labor that creates or adds value to the product. So, you may disagree with how that compensation is allocated, but unless you are one of the stockholders/owners of the company, then you are just hired labor and are selling your investment at a pre-agreed upon rate.

I know there are a lot of people who think that isn’t fair … but it is part of the price we pay for individual liberty. You know, where you get to make your own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Oh, I forgot, no one is supposed to fail or face the consequences of their choices.

Well, tough! That is life. Time to get over and get on with your life.

One wonders? A WARN Act warning?

CEO threatens layoffs if Obama gets reelected

Big Bad CEO threatens to fire workers

Ok, the above links provide differing views of the chief executive officer of a company that sells time shares and hosts resorts who e-mailed his employees, presenting them with a stark view of the future. His employees were told that should President Barack Obama be re-elected, he may be forced to lay off employees in order to be able to afford the taxes and other requirements that the Obama Administration has indicated it wants to implement. Obviously, if Mitt Romney is elected, the chances of those taxes and other requirements being implemented go do, and hence their jobs might not be at risk.

In a sense, the business person, whose business employs some 7,000 workers, might just be following the dictates of the WARN Act that requires employers over a certain number of workers to give at least 60 days warning to their employees if they are planning any large layoffs. You know, the law that the Labor Department under President Obama told defense contractors they could ignore. They are considering issuing such warnings because the sequestration of the federal funds that will go into effect Jan. 2, if a budget deal isn’t made.

Now the company, which happens to be the largest privately-held company of its kind in its field, is drawing flak from people who don’t like it when companies oppose President Obama. They think it is unfair.

Well, sorry folks, but it is a privately-held company. There is no law that says the owner(s) of that company can’t shut the doors if they feel it is necessary. Now, under the WARN Act, they can’t do it tomorrow, but they could do it in 60 days. But then again, how many companies in the current economic world actually have just shut their doors and given up. Quite a few, I imagine. That happens in a recession and we have been in a big one.

So, the CEO made it clear he wasn’t telling his employees whom to vote for. He only was warning them that should Obama be reelected, the company would be forced to downsize in order to meet the increased overhead.

Now, I know this gets the progressives, like those people at the Huffington Posts, panties in a wad, but when did we start requiring employers to employ people. Oh, I know that those under union contracts do have certain obligations, and we do seem to be requiring our governments to employ more and more people, along with paying people who can’t or out of work a stipend in order to permit them to survive.

I am not knocking that per se, since I am myself disabled and get some of that money, but then I was working for the government and you know all those rights those government workers have. You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but look: I am playing by the rules and did pay into the system for 40 years before my health collapsed. So, it is not really hypocrisy to point out that maybe the system needs to be changed. Granted, the government did screw me over big time, but that is only from my perspective.

Now, I have no problem with an employer warning his employees of the unfortunate political realities out there. It may not be a pretty picture, but at least it is being honest.

So, two points to the CEO for at least being boldly honest. You do know that he still does have that right and will, until the progressives make it a crime to shut a business down because the overhead has eaten up the profits. Remember, the world is supposed to be non-profit and it should be to each according to their indefinable and unlimited needs and from each according to the their maximum but necessarily limited efforts.

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Something wrong here

Egyptians storm US Embassy compound in Cairo
Protesters scale wall of US Embassy in Egypt
Libyan protesters burn American consulate
Libyan protesters kill US Consular employee
US Embassy statement on events
OK, folks, something is seriously wrong with this picture and it ain’t the U.S.’s fault.
Sorry but Muslims are going to have to get a tougher skin and stop acting like idiots because it reflects badly on them and their religion. Tuesday, 9/11/12, Muslim protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic offices, killing one person, wounding a second and tearing down the U.S. flag while painting graffiti on the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo, Egypt.
Their reason: Because America allowed some unknown filmmaker in California to produce a movie that depicts the prophet Mohammed in a bad light … actually; it apparently depicts him as a sex-crazed murdering maniac.
This of course is insulting to any true-blue Islamicist and merits at least a riot or two, burning buildings and flags and possibly killing some people. What a bunch of bovine scatology or maybe I should say porcine scatology or porcine fecal material!
I am sorry Egyptians; I am sorry Libyans; but in this country you are allowed to insult religions, people, government institutions, businesses, hospitals, your neighbors, etc. and if you don’t like it, then you take them to court. You do not shoot people; you do not storm their property; and you do not destroy or deface their property. No, you don’t do those things because you respect the rights of others to be idiots.
And especially you don’t go blaming the government or some government agency of a nation that isn’t even yours for letting their citizens act like idiots. Obvious, the Americans are much more enlightened than you are, or at least more tolerant than you are, because we just nod our heads and say, “They are at it again” and go on about our lives.
We don’t storm the local mosque, or the Egyptian Embassy or whatever goes for the Libyan Embassy, every time a mob kills a bunch of tourists or Christians or whatever minority group is in disfavor in the Middle East. No, Americans look at the person who is insulting and say, “What an idiot” and let him go on being an idiot.
You see, we Americans are governed by the rule of law. Apparently that concept is alien where you live. You really ought to try it sometime. It lets all sorts of people with differing views and opinions coexist peacefully without destroying people or lives. I am beginning to understand that in Egypt and in Libya your people apparently don’t like the idea that an individual can be allowed the freedom to think for themselves. Apparently, if these latest actions are any indication, you think that everyone has to believe just as you do, or they should die or something worse.
And despite the rhetoric being spouted by our government and its leadership, we are starting to get just a tad bit exasperated with the screaming intolerance being exhibited by your so-called demonstrators.
We put up with you burning our flag, burning and destroying religious texts that we hold sacred, because a) you are not Americans and we don’t expect you to understand the concept of the law and tolerance and b) because you are not here. Otherwise we probably would be suing your pants off, in court where the law is the master and not your emotions because you were insulted.
I think I can speak for a lot of Americans. You all in the Middle East, and much of Muslim world, need to grow up real fast and understand that you can’t just throw temper tantrums when somebody offends you. You consider the source, call them ignorant if you want, and then move on.
But going down and defacing their property, shooting people, and basically showing your derrieres is so beneath what you could be as a person. It definitely shows a enormous lack of dignity and self-respect on your part.
One of these days, those with patience, well, you will see their patience tested, if not run out and though might does not make right … might does wield a pretty big hammer and you don’t want to be where it falls.

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Redefining freedom?

Travis Smiley on redefining Freedom in America
I read this commentary by Travis Smiley and immediately some warning bells went off in the old brain.
First, we need to be careful when we start to redefine what “freedom” and “liberty” mean. It puts us on a tricky slope that could get dangerous really fast.
Second, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a really smart politician and a first-class statesman, he also was a propagandist. His four freedoms are an example of his skill at the latter. If you want another example, view Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series of films from World War II (they are the epitome of the art). Trying to appeal to the higher feelings of people, FDR framed the fight in World War II as the fight for the Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Fear
Freedom from Want
Well, two out of four is not bad. You can have freedom OF things, but you never really can promise anyone freedom FROM anything. Too many people also think that because you should have a freedom that means it is a right given by our Creator and that freedom is absolute. Wrong answer.
Our Creator granted us only freedoms of, not freedoms from. Freedoms from are really a secular concept that has nothing to do with rights.
We don’t have any freedom from fear, and never will. Sorry, but I am afraid of spiders sometimes (like the one that just crawled out from behind my monitor on the wall – oops, bad move spider, you’re dead now)  … nobody is going to grant me a freedom from that fear. There are too many fears and fear is a part of human existence. Now, I would agree that we should be as free as possible from the fear of government running our lives or banging on our doors, but we should always be afraid of government’s ability to do just those things and attempt to restrain it at every opportunity.
We will never be free from want because “want” is an elastic concept that defies definition. IF you cannot define something, then you can never be free of it.
When you call something a freedom, then that implies it is a right, but rights, unlike Mister Smiley’s position, do not come from government. What government gives, government can take away and rights are not like that. You either have rights or you don’t have rights, at least in country that professes that its government strives to treat each of its citizens equally and that they are equal under and before the law.
Of course, government can grant you some legal rights, but remember the government can take away those rights just as fast or slow as it granted them.
Even then, it is wise to remember that all freedoms are not unlimited. Sorry, but even freedom and liberty cannot be unrestricted. Unrestricted would mean anarchy and unfortunately, we have to have some social order. It would be nice if people would without prompting interact with each other with respect and dignity, as well as respect individuals’ rights to own property, including their own labor. However, people are not that way and so we, as a society (in every society in every country), implement rules and taboos that we delegate to our government to enforce. Note that government’s power comes from the consent of the governed and not the other way around.
We have freedom of expression, but that freedom is not absolute. There are some things you can’t say or do (as I outlined in an earlier post) and you do have a responsibility for what you say and do. There are consequences and you need always to bear that idea in mind.
We have freedom of religion or of conscience, but even that is not absolute. For example, in our society, the use of human sacrifice is not included among the freedoms for a religion’s adherents. Sorry, can’t go chopping people up to appeal to your God. In some areas, even animal sacrifices will run you afoul of animal abuse laws. Usually, the use of mind-altering drugs is not protected by religious freedom, although there are some exceptions to that.
Now, Mister Travis wants to redefine what freedom means. If it means freedoms of choices (even there, there are some tough calls and freedom of choice is never absolute – without consequences), I will be right there with him. However, if he means freedom from things, then he is barking up the wrong tree and I would hope you would agree with me on this and not him.

First Amendment concerns

Critiques' deletions cause censorship cries
You know, sometimes I really am impressed by how little a large proportion of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
For example: The right of free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, but most people don’t understand what “free speech” means.
It does not mean, for instance, that you can say anything you want about anything and anybody you want at any time you want. Sorry, but you can’t do that.
You can’t lie about other people, either verbally or in writing. You can’t damage the reputation of other people, either verbally or in writing (with some exceptions). You do that verbally, and you can successfully be sued for slander. You do it in print (or over the airwaves) and you can successfully be sued for libel.
You can’t say just anything that you want, like, maybe, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That also can get you arrested.
You can’t display things, calling it “art”, or do certain things that offend local community standards (or sometimes national community standards). It is called obscenity and will get you arrested.
You can’t call for the violent overthrow of the government. That also will probably end up getting you arrested, especially if you try to garner the means to accomplish your calls. It is called treason and sedition.
You can’t demand a third party print your libelous, obscene, treasonous or seditious material, or air it on television or radio or leave it on their servers on the internet. Sorry, that does not fall under your right of free speech.
Now, if you own the server, you can put whatever you want on it. But if it is someone else’s server or web page, then you have no rights at all. Besides, they can get (and probably would be) sued for your libel and they really don’t want that to happen.
You see, that is why web sites, servers and internet service providers (almost all of which are private entities and not government entities) will “censor” your comments. They don’t want to get sued.
The First Amendment only applies to the government(s – courtesy of the 15^th Amendment) in the United States. It says CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to the freedom of speech, expression, etc. It does not say that your neighbor, or your newspaper, or radio station, or your television station, or some web site or internet host has to allow you to have free rein on their platform.
Nope, you want the freedom to say or whatever, then you go get your own soapbox and put it on the public square, or buy a copy machine and use it as a printing press, or crank up your own radio or TV station (unfortunately, there you will have to get an FCC licenses due to limited bandwidth on the airwaves), or set up your own web site on your own server (although there too the government can shut you down if you violate the law, sorry about that).
You see, freedom doesn’t mean you have no responsibility. Not that at all as you are responsible for what you say and do. If there are consequences, civil or criminal, then you have to be prepared to face those consequences and accept them as a result of your actions while you were exercising your vocal cords or your computer terminal.
So, when a web site deletes your comment, get over it. It is their right. You may not like it, just as they don’t like what you are saying. But they own the printing press and they get to decide what they print. You don’t like it, go create your own web site.
You see, freedom really isn’t free. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be licensed or censored. Freedom comes with a cost and part of that cost usually is acting responsibility and with dignity and respect toward the rights of others.