Skip to content

We Have No Red Lines, and thus No Freedom

 

JAMES P. writes:

The Daily Mail reports Putin’s remark about the band Pussy Riot:

“We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society,” Putin went on. “If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law.”

Wasn’t there a time when American leaders talked like this instead of whimpering about “freedom of expression”?

—— Comments ——

Kevin M. writes:

I’m sure there was a time when our politicians talked like that. Teddy Roosevelt did. When TR addressed a crowd, he attempted to rally the kind of men who were needed to rise to the occasion. Today, pols are too terrified to lose votes or offend the sisterhood, so they give rambling, cliche-ridden speeches meant to offend as few people as possible.

It’s rather like modern marriage. Instead of marital law being constructed to accommodate and attract the best possible candidates for matrimony, it is written to compensate for the plethora of nincompoops who should never be married in the first place and certainly shouldn’t raise children. The more you create a system that compensates for failure, the more idiots will line up to play the game. So it goes with politics. Our culture is being progressively infantilized and dumbed down by the lack of gravitas and energizing leadership. Too many victims, whiners and lawsuit-happy parasites.

Terry Morris writes:

James P. Wrote:

“Wasn’t there a time when American leaders talked like this instead of whimpering about freedom of expression?”

Yes. But that all started to break down when the Supremes invented Incorporation, and began applying the Bill of Rights to the States.

Now it is completely out of control, and only about a year ago, if memory serves, a conservative syndicated columnist (I think it was Cal Thomas, but am not certain about that) asked in one of his columns,

“Could Thomas Jefferson have envisioned a time in which the most graphic and horrifying violence and imagery would be protected by the First Amendment?” This was following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mortal Combat case.

 I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper where I found the article, in which I answered the columnist’s question like this:

 ”Against the federal government, yes; against the States and local governments, by no means. That should not be the Court’s jurisdiction, and until Incorporation it wasn’t.” Then went on to quote Mr.

Jefferson’s own words on the matter of the Bill of Rights, and whom these rights were supposed to protect against whom, saying that such columnists should never speculate about what someone might or might not have envisioned for a certain provision, when they left a record from which we can know exactly what they were thinking. In this sense pundits like Thomas are no better than Justice Black and the others who brought Incorporation into being, and opened the door to legislating from the bench.

Jane S. writes:

Kevin M: writes: “It’s rather like modern marriage. Instead of marital law being constructed to accommodate and attract the best possible candidates for matrimony, it is written to compensate for the plethora of nincompoops who should never be married in the first place and certainly shouldn’t raise children. The more you create a system that compensates for failure, the more idiots will line up to play the game.”

Outstanding. Absolutely made my day.

Share:EmailFacebook0Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0