Friday, October 23, 2009

Assault on Amendment 1

There is a reason that our forefathers did not pen the "freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press"(1) clause as the second, third, or tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There is a very direct meaning in its placement as the first. And that is because it is this one right, above all others, that guarantees the influence of the People in governing this nation. Very specifically, this right is granted to keep the People abreast of any possible legislative wrongdoings, so that a government must always be made to defend why its actions are the execution of the People's will. This is, quite simply, a formula to prevent tyranny.

Few Americans would argue with that logic. So why are Americans complacent about the government's attempts to seize the power to regulate the most prolific forums of free speech? We encountered this months ago, when Congress presented options for "internet neutrality." Now, the FCC is attempting their own version of this travesty, this time calling it an "open internet" initiative. (2)

The internet is the most essential podium for free speech the world has seen. Never have so many been able to voice their opinions in a meaningful and widely viewed manner. Considering television and print mediums provide little more than bias and political slant in scripted fashion, what better way would one have to feel the American pulse than to hear it directly from the public's mouth in a spontaneous discussion where one must defend his position, without the luxury of a teleprompter or a pre-prepared volley of questions? It is now only in live talk radio and the internet that this interactivity with citizens is seen. Therefore, it is only in these two mediums that dissent is trumpeted.

And that, dear friends, is the very reason why this administration has targeted the internet for regulation. If the government is allowed to stifle the information relay on the internet, it will have effectively silenced the ability of the People "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(1) If this occurs, we can expect nothing short of tyranny. Any person that expects a different outcome is ignorant of history. Any person who feels this is not a stepping stone on the path to socialism or statism knows nothing of those ideologies or their principles. And if any person says such an action would coincide with the ideals of our founding fathers, he admits that he knows nothing of them.

In the immortal words of our wise colonial:

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
-Thomas Jefferson

William Sullivan

(1) Excerpts from the 1st Amendment

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Climate Change Fanaticism: Cap and Trade on Humans?

On Oct 14 2009, NY Times reporter Andrew Revkin participated via webcam in a climate change conference titled “Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It?” which was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. There he stated that one of the greatest things that an American could do to reduce their carbon footprint was to have less children. He even went on to suggest that in doing so, couples who have less or no children should theoretically be eligible for some kind of carbon credit(1). This sounds like a cap and trade system on human life. Would this mean, theoretically, that a couple wanting to have more than the government allotted number of children would have to buy these carbon credits away from people having less than the government allotted number of children?
This is fanaticism and all fanaticism is dangerous. Now I know Revkin is not a politician and has no legislative power, but he is still an environmental journalist for one of the nations biggest newspapers. Through his articles, he tries to push an agenda that is not only based on highly debatable and so far unproven science, but one which also encroaches on the most basic of human rights. The fact that he wasn’t laughed out of the conference says a lot about the “climate change” movement in general. I applaud energy efficiency as a personal choice. That is exactly what it should be, a personal choice. There should be no governmental mandate telling a person how to live their life and no government plan that rewards or punishes people for living a certain way, as long as that way of life does not infringe on the rights of others. The type of people that would conceive of or support such initiatives are inherently dangerous. These types of people do not believe that we should keep and maintain the planet so that our future generations can enjoy it. They believe that the future generations will be a hindrance to our planet. They believe that all animal life on the Earth, including humans are poisoning the planet irreversibly by just breathing. There have been initiatives in Europe to put carbon taxes on livestock due to methane production. If humans never even existed, there would still be methane producing cattle. So would the planet still be in trouble, or is it just an excuse to raise money for governments whose domestic social policies have put too heavy a financial strain on the governmental coffers?
This is just another example of how the “activists” in this movement want complete and total control of how you live your life. As asinine as this “human cap and trade” idea sounds, these people are serious and that is why everyone else should take it seriously as well.

Calvin Parker

Monday, October 19, 2009

Taking His Time

According to recent news(1), it has now been 76 days since General McChrystal has submitted a request to supply more troops to bolster American efforts in Afghanistan. President Obama has refused to come to a decision on the matter.

Which makes the observant American invariably ponder... why the sudden deviation from his MO? We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act before the bill was read by Congress, on the pretenses that the economic bottom would fall out if we did not. Cap-and-trade passed through the House before any representatives read the bill, because Obama and his ilk told us that, somehow, unless we tax carbon emitters our grandchildren will die of famine on a scorched earth. He has been adamant that we must act now on health reform, and casts aside any suggestion that we slow down to design a well-crafted bill that Americans can agree on.

As Americans, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why he coaxes us to act with all haste to fight intangible phantoms, but then coaxes us to be patient when there is a very real and hostile threat to our soldiers in Afghanistan?

Whether he decides to send more troops or to begin a withdrawal, this is truly something to be prompt in addressing. But our president seems to be more focused on propagandizing his healthcare package, attending late-night talk shows, stepping out to swanky restaurants, promoting Chicago in an Olympic bid, etc. You know, all of the really important issues and actions that made him a mysteriously unaccomplished Nobel Prize laureate.

The Taliban surge, the American lives being lost, how our defeat could affect national security and position in the Middle East: to him, it seems, that stuff can wait.

William Sullivan

Thursday, October 15, 2009


Welcome to Political Palaver. This blog was started as an outlet for political thought and commentary primarily focused on current events. As of right now there are two contributing authors, William Sullivan and Calvin Parker. We both enjoy writing about and debating political ideology and discussing how these ideas and actions effect the world around us. Until now our writings have been limited to group e-mails, political chat rooms and editorial responses in newspapers and magazines. By starting this blog, we hope to have a place not only to express our ideas, but also to reach a wider audience and receive feedback. Comments and feedback are a vital part of what we hope to accomplish here. After all, debate is healthy. We pride ourselves in being well researched when discussing a topic and whenever possible, we will provide figures and sources to reinforce our opinions. We do ask that the same care is given when commenting or providing feedback. We will try to write between 2-5 articles a week and respond to any feedback as soon as possible. We hope you enjoy whats to come and thanks for reading Political Palaver.