The ingrates on the Left

Travelling home from work on Leftist invention MASS TRANSIT, I peered out my window and spied an idiot sitting in his rusted out Chevy Blazer (if you live in Minnesota, you understand the concept of "rust"); said Blazer was absolutely covered with bumper stickers of varying liberal wisdom.

I believe the phrase, "liberal wisdom" is paradoxical in meaning.

The bumper stickers consisted of typical statements discussing the intelligence of President George Bush, the "war on the environment," "coexisting" with patrons of other religions, etc. One in particular caught my eye:

"Civil Rights: Don't Leave Home Without It."

A couple of thoughts come to mind at such "brilliance."

First, as Terrence Jeffrey so aptly states in his article, "This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again. In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country."

Juxtapose that with the terrorist acts that occurred under the watch of President Bill Clinton: the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 1998 dual embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Tower bombings, etc. After each attack, our response was weak and ineffectual at best. Furthermore, when opportunity existed to either kill or capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno waffled, too concerned with 1.) how the world would view us; and 2.) the legal ramifications of either killing or capturing the terrorist leader.

Global opinion...we're hearing some of that familiar rhetoric now as Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama returns to the United States after his "tour" (think "rock star" which is how the public and the American press treated him) of Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Barry wants to correct our image in the world after eight years of a Bush Administration not giving a damn, and rightfully so, of world opinion.

As stated in a recent BBC article, "'In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common,' he continued. 'In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future.'"

Look what world opinion did for us in the 1990's: between Clinton's philandering, and his emasculated responses to Islamic terror, terrorists reviled us for our immorality; moreover, they knew that any military retaliation to bombings, killings, etc, would be met with tepidness at best, further emboldening the terrorists.

So look where that has led us: to bitching and moaning from the Left that President Bush, in his efforts to prevent any further terrorist attacks in this country, has usurped the United States Constitution. The Leftist intelligensia has decried him for stealing their first amendment rights., for eavesdropping on all of our phone calls, for "spying" on us.

It's almost laughable...but it isn't when you see how liberals and their Democratic enablers are looking to restrict free speech through their reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. As the Heritage Foundation notes, "Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the 'fairness doctrine.'"

Note the following regarding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine:

"The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine 'inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate' (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress."

And now Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic cronies in Congress, rather than address real issues like opening up off-shore areas for drilling, wish to suppress our First Amendment Rights. As "Current FCC Chairman James Quello, has stated that, 'The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.'"

The article makes the following points in its treatise:

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Once again, and doesn't history demonstrate this repeatedly, Liberals have displayed their hypocrisy and complete utter denial of the truth. God help us if Barry Hussein wins the presidency.