Political Correctness Vs First Amendment

Nobody likes a racist...except maybe another racist. No one likes to see someone denigrated because of their race, religion, nationality, or gender. In a country where "all men are created equal", it just isn't right. But under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, everyone has a right to an opinion, and the right to voice that opinion.

Unhappily today, one can be sued, fined, or even arrested for "politically incorrect" speech. That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The irony is that we let neo-Nazis and the KKK march in parades, even protecting them from protestors with police officers. But if someone tells a dirty joke in the workplace, he can be fired or worse. Political correctness has got to go.

I don't know anyone who really approves of political correctness, and the biggest question I often hear is "How did ever get started, much less gain such a foothold?" I don't know when it started either - one day it was just there. Suddenly you couldn't open your mouth without stopping to think "is someone going to be offended?", or "will I lose my job?"

I understand part of the motivation, and that part isn't bad. It's nice when people respect the rights of others and don't denigrate them prejudicially. But even those who would do such a thing still have a right to their opinions. We may not like people who are racist, sexist, or arrogant, but they nevertheless have a right to be those things - and to speak their minds.

In terms of racism and sexism, things are better now than any time in history. We didn't need political correctness to achieve that. But now you can't tell a woman she looks nice, or ask her for a date more than once, for fear of a sexual harassment charge. You can't criticize a member of a minority for cause without being accused of racism. In today's politically correct atmosphere I would really hate to be a cop.

And it gets worse. Advocates of PC have tried to ban books, such as Huckleberry Finn, because they contain racial terms that are now forbidden; the Disney Corporation no longer markets the delightful Songs of the South because of how blacks are portrayed - and you can't find a copy anywhere - never mind that blacks are the heroes of that classic tale.

No one that I have ever met approves of political correctness, yet everyone lives in fear of it. You no longer have a right to your own your thoughts. In wartime Nazi Germany, citizens could be arrested or shot for "defeatist" talk. In wartime Japan, people were sometimes arrested for "wrong thinking", if they happened to express an opinion critical of the war. Communist countries have used political correctness as a tool of oppression for decades.

So why do we tolerate it in America, the land of the free? Political correctness is nothing less than an attempt at thought control. Maybe a better word for it would be "Practicing Communism".

Victims Of Political Correctness

In the United States it is both legal and perfectly acceptable to say that homosexuality is not immoral before anyone with an ear to listen. It is also perfectly acceptable to the hearer or reader of such a statement to agree or completely disagree with the statement. Or is it?

In fact it is not. While it has not become the law of the land to hold to hold an opposing opinion it can be stifled, refused and rejected depending what platform or what place the assertion is made.

The writer of the aforementioned statement was complaining about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to homosexuality. He thought it was wrong to force the homosexual soldier to have to live a lie.

It is impossible to miss yet another double standard here that has emerged with the ongoing concept of political correctness.

I have written two books and have hundreds of articles read throughout the world. I have columns online as well as articles in nationally syndicated periodicals and I have only had three articles rejected. The reasons, "not politically correct." The incorrectness sited was saying that homosexuality was immoral. No, I wasn't asked my opinion but I was told I couldn't "tell" it. Maybe I need help here but it sounds just like "six of one and a half dozen of the other" to me.

Being a Christian I cannot espouse or suggest that homosexuals should be hated or harmed in any way whatsoever. To harm them would be clearly unlawful and immoral. It is an opinion not a battleaxe. If it is perceived as one then the kind of slander and character assassination that passes by political correctness proponents of the hour might be considered something akin to a nuclear weapon.

Few Americans have not heard the rantings of Charlie Sheen, Bill Maher, Sean Penn and Rosie O'Donnell regarding everyone from Jerry Falwell to President Bush. Of late even the Pope has taken a few slams.

The President has been called a murderer, a liar and some names I don't care to mention here. None of the chiefs or architects of political correctness had anything negative to say about these remarks. They are acceptable under PCs one sided definition. No one was censured for making these remarks and we can assume no ones written statement was excluded or deleted. Where then is the balance, where is the fairness, suffice it to say it is conspicuously missing.

Am I on a soap box? As long as my feet are planted here in America, you bet I am. I'm not mad at homosexuals I am rather quite displeased with the one sided and unreasonable double standards of political correctness. If that seems hard to understand remember that even as I write I have in mind previous experiments with political correctness that miserably failed. To be fair they did much more than fail because at the peak of its acceptance it cost the lives of millions of people.

Throughout history there have been despots, rulers and regimes that have decided what people could say or not say. In modern times that is often referred to as "the party line."

Nazi Germany had one, Communism had one and China's Mao had one. Has the "party line" shown up in America incognito, perhaps even clandestinely under a different name?

Do we need to be reminded that when taken seriously forcing people to mouth only "the party line" can and does cost millions of lives? Joseph Stalin alone is credited with the death of thirty million of his own countrymen for refusing to talk the right talk. In many cases their deaths were predicated only on a perceived truth and not based in proof that they ever spoke a single word against Stalin's policies.

The writer of the article previously mentioned in this article has a perfect right under the constitution to state his opinion and to put it forth with all argument and reason as he sees fit. Why is it that those with opposing views are getting censured more and more?

More people then ever are questioning both the meaning and the legality or constitutionality of the concept of "political correctness", among them of late has been highly respected Pastor John Hagee. He too is warning of the dangers of leaving this threat to freedom unchecked. Others are joining the ranks against this precursor to thought policing and I stand with them.

The Leaky Boat Of American Political Class Corruption - Domestic and Foreign

I am constantly amazed at the amount of corruption that tends to follow our political class around, both on our domestic shores and overseas. Consider a story that appeared in the September 24, 2010 issue of The Week Magazine entitled, "The Fight Against Corruption In Afghanistan." According to the article:

- Afghan President Hamid Karzai has recently blocked several investigations of graft in his administration.

- There have been ongoing complaints of corruption related to members of his government including his two half brothers who are allegedly involved with drug trafficking, bribery, and smuggling cash out of the country.

- Karzai recently freed one of his senior aides from prison who had been arrested on corruption charges.

- A recent in-country survey in Afghanistan found that 70% of those Afghans surveyed said that their local government officials are engaged in drug trafficking.

In return for this web of corruption and deceit from the Afghan government, the United States taxpayer expends roughly $100 billion a year and many dead American soldiers trying to get this situation right. Who should one be more mad at, the Afghan government officials and crooks who get away with this theft or the American political class that allows them to get away with it.

Another article on foreign corruption of U.S. taxpayer money comes from a New York Times article that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on September 26, 2010, "Corruption Gobbles Up Gifts To Children." This article reviewed a program that the U.S. political class put in place to get almost 8,100 laptop computers into the hands of Iraqi children. The computers' value was estimate to be $1.8 million. The laptops arrived in Iraq last February but were not distributed right away.

While trying to track them down, it became known that in August, 4,200 of them had been auctioned off by some Iraqis for $45,700. The location of the other 3,900 computers was unknown at that time and still unknown today. Now, the article does acknowledge that ten government-employed customs people have been arrested in this case. However, seven months after the taxpayer funded computers landed in country, not a single on has been distributed to an Iraqi child and the location of the computers has apparently not been determined.

These are just two of the myriad of corruption instances that the American taxpayer has paid for in both war zones, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as always, there does not appear to have been any person in our government or political class held accountable for the corruption and the waste. From $100 billion a year we waste in Afghanistan supporting a thoroughly corrupted government down to the relatively small, but symbolic loss of $1.8 million of laptop computers in Iraq, we are left with the classic political class situation: everyone is in charge but no one is accountable.

But I guess we should not be too upset that taxpayer dollars are being wasted via corruption half a world away. Consider just a sample of political class corruption examples we have faced domestically in recent years:

- Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye has been accused of using the leverage of his Senate office to coerce government regulators to bailout a distressed Hawaiian bank in which the Senator had made a significant investment, an investment that would be lost if the bank was allowed to fail like the regulators wanted.

- Congressmen James Traficant, Randy Cunningham, and William Jefferson have been found guilty of various corruption violations and have served or are serving prison time.

- Many former Illinois governors have either spent time in jail (Kerner and Walker), are serving time in jail (Ryan), or are trying not to go to jail (Blagojevich).

- California Congresswoman Maxine Walters is accused of doing the same deal in order to save a bank that her husband had heavily invested in.

- New York Congressman Charles Rangel is likely to go on trial later this year in Congress for his alleged misdealings and corruption in many areas.

- Florida Congresswoman Ginny Waite Brown was reported by the Associated Press to have been trading stocks in financial institutions at the same time she was sitting on a House committee that would determine which financial institutions got how much government/taxpayer bailout money. For most Americans, this is called insider trading and is a felony. For political class members this is called business as usual.

- Many of President Obama's nominees for high level government positions were found to have not paid their fair share of taxes including Tom Daschle, ex-long time Senator, and Tim Geithner, currently the Secretary of the Treasury. Again for most Americans, this type of tax evasion is at least a misdemeanor. For the political class, it sometimes feels like it is a way of life.

- The government organization that runs Medicare is so rife with corruption and mismanagement that it wastes, loses, and misspends almost $100 billion a year in government/taxpayer funds.

- Various Associated Press reports have reported that employees in the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Interior Department and most recently in the Defense Department (The Week - September 17, 2010) have been extensively involved, on work time and on government computers, in searching and downloading pornography off of the Internet. The latest Defense Department pornography finding identified over 250 Pentagon employees and contractors, some with the highest security clearance, had viewed and purchased child pornography, sometime with their government issued computers. This form of corruption at best involves the misuse of government salaries dollars and equipment, at worst sets up users of pornography for blackmail and other forms of corruption.

- When the Democrats took control of the House Of Representatives in 2006, newly appointed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated that she would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history" and that she wanted to "drain the swamp" of Congressional corruption. Part of this effort was a bill signed by President Bush called the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" in 2007. Parts of this bill called for disclosure of lobbyists' spending and contributions to politicians, a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, curtailment of free vacations from lobbyists, creation of an independent ethics office, and the identification of earmark sponsors.

- While sounding great, the ethics bill and the push to root out corruption has fallen short, according to a recent Associated Press article:

1) It appears that few in Congress are disclosing how lobbyists are helping them raise campaign cash for their re-elections even though there is a provision in the above law that requires them to do so.

2) Even though the ethics office that was created by the above bill has found grounds for misconduct with two Democratic members of Congress, Maxine Walters and Charles Rangel, Pelosi will probably be able to delay their House trial until after the November elections. You cannot say you are fighting for good ethics if you use your power to postpone possibly embarrassing ethics violations and investigations for political gain.

3) Recent news reports show that three Democratic members of Congress awarded Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to their relatives. Talk about conflict of interest and a serious ethical violation, in spirit if not law.

4) While the 2007 ethics law that Bush signed required earmarks to be identified by lawmaker, it obviously did nothing to curtail earmark creation and waste since they are close to an all time high. Earmarks are nothing more than thinly disguised ways for the political class to direct taxpayer money to entities that turn around and give some of that money back to the lawmaker for his or her re-election campaign, i.e. it is a giant kickback scheme. In essence, the shell game of having taxpayers pay for incumbents' re-election campaigns is as healthy and as destructive as ever, it is just now we know who is doing the destruction.

- Recently, an influential former lobbyist, Paul Magliocchetti, pleaded guilty to funneling more than $380,000 to the re-election campaigns of three House Democrats. This $380,000 cash for incumbents cost the American taxpayer $137 million - this is the amount of defense contracts that the three Democratic Congressmen directed towards Magliocchetti's clients.

- Beyond the above ethics violations involving money, Pelosi could be considered in serious breach of ethics as leader of the House Of Representatives on many fronts. She has allowed members of her party to call American citizens, with legitimate differences of opinion with the Democrats actions and positions, racists. Pelosi herself called Americans opposed to Obama's health care plans un-American even though those Americans have a right to disagree with any politician. While she censured a Republican Congressman who called Obama a liar during a health care reform speech (even though the Republican apologized and his apology was accepted by the President), she had no problem with one of her fellow Democrats calling all Republicans "knuckle dragging Neanderthals." You cannot be considered an ethical person if you do not respect the opinions and rights of others to have those opinions. She should know better, she is a leading political figure in the country. However, her behavior in berating common citizens is unethical and despicable.

Thus, while Pelosi is taking credit for a law that is supposed to reduce corruption, a law that was signed by a Republican President and passed with wide Republican support, the fact is it does not make any difference who was responsible. Corruption, earmarks, lobbyists' influence, conflict of interest, non-disclosure, etc. are still major corruption issues with our political class. While her boat might look better, it is just as leaky as all of the previous political class boats of corruption.

As with the corruption that wastes our foreign policy dollars, nobody (so far) of any importance has faced an consequences from these domestic acts of corruption. That is what is frustrating the American people today, we pay and pay and pay through taxes and our dead soldiers just to have these types of wasteful corruption instances thrown back in our faces.

And the sources of the corruption are never fixed. We are so afraid of losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan that our political class tolerates the corruption from Afghan officials who are more concerned with their wealth and well being then fixing their country. We prop up another government in Iraq that is so corrupt that it would deny the simplest joys to their children, the ability to have a free computer. Our politicians feast for themselves on the taxpayer dollar while comparable behavior by those same taxpayers gets them jail time. Obama passes a multi TRILLION health care plan but never fixed the leaks of corruption in the current government health care plans. Thus, we will have a bigger boat that leaks more taxpayer money quicker.

When does it end and how do we fix the leaks? The following initial steps would be a good start:

Step 1 - reduce Federal spending by 10% a year for five years. If the political class has less of our money to spend, they are likely to waste less money also.

Step 2 - make a conscious and determined effort to crack down on tax and other government fraud and waste, aggressively bringing those crooks and fraudsters to justice. This step would also include the strengthening of ethics violations process and prosecution of current politicians in office.

Step 3 - bring home almost all of our foreign deployed troops. The world is full of corruption and criminals, why should we put them into power and then watch as they plunder our taxpayer money? Using this step and a much more restrained foreign policy should reduce the Defense Department budget significantly and eliminate the type of fraud that our political class subsidizes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Step 4 - remove those members of Congress, sitting on those committees that are responsible for the oversight of the waste, corruption and fraud, from their committee posts for incompetence when appropriate. For example, whatever House and Senate committees are responsible for those Iraqi missing laptops, and the other billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been flushed down the Iraqi hole of corruption, those politicians should be removed from their committee posts and replaced. No more being in charge but not accountable.

Step 5 - institute term limits for all politicians so that they are out of office in a relatively short time, before they can learn the ropes of Washington corruption and profit both personally and politically by that culture of corruption.

Until you fix the leaks in the boat, corruption will find a way in and our tax dollars will find a way out. With TRILLIONS of dollars of national debt piling up and American families struggling in a very weak economy, every patch is needed if you are to fix our financial situation and make our taxpayer dollars more impact and useful in honest ways. Hopefully, the above suggestions to fix our culture of political corruption float your boat also.

Political Blogging - Ethics of Making Money From Your Blog

Blogging about politics can be tough business. Many may drop away from your blog because they disagree with you. On the other hand you will attract very little attention if you stay away from having an opinion about the subjects you blog about.

People have easy access to information about what happens - all over the globe. What they get much less of from traditional sources are analyses and behind-the-scenes impressions about what happens. That creates a duality when you blog about political subjects.

• On the one hand you want to stay objective - to remain credible
• But you also want to have a twist - to differentiate yourself from the crowd

You will have to realize, from the beginning, that politics and religion are the two areas where you will never agree with everyone.

When that has been said, it is also important to say that you can be biased in your analysis without pushing other people aside. Doing that in the best way when running a political blog involves presenting both sides of the equation, and using careful evaluation to show why you have the opinion you do - and how it affects other people.

When you use that type of debate, people may disagree with some of your conclusion, but they will nonetheless respect you for standing by your opinion. When you analyze things from a respectful perspective you show empathy for other people's views while also giving them food for thought.

It's What People Want - Food For Thought

This is the single most lacking ingredient in most political blogging. People are so focused on writing about high profile subjects, and matching certain key words that they totally forget their audiences. This is the one area where you can truly make a difference if you want to do a decent job in blogging about politics.

I know from personal experience that this type of blogging has a tremendous potential. I have seen my blog rise in power and visitor counts within days after writing on an important subject. I did this in danish, but you can have the same experience in any language. The important part is to realize what your assignment is, and after you know that, you can increase your readership considerably by choosing carefully reviewed opinions at all times. You may also have an undecided opinion, and that would be an excellent chance to call in further opinions using feedback from readers.

Daily Politics Blog - How to Find a Good One

So you are interested in the world of politics but do not know where to find a good daily politics blog. In this article I will provide you with the best method for finding the blogs you want to read. I will not tell you what to read, I will tell you how to find a political blog you want to read -one that suits your specific tastes.

If you know essentially nothing about the world of political blogging you should understand a few things right off the bat.

Firstly, a daily politics blog can come in one of two forms. The first type is the kind most people probably think a political blog looks like. It is the "personal blog". It is made by one individual. The second type is the corporate type. It is like a company as it has several writers or "contributors" who make up the daily blog into what is very similar to an online newspaper.

Secondly, the thing you need to know right away upon entering the politics blog universe is that the vast majority of political blogs are biased or at least "lean" one way or another -they are opinionated news. There are however many politics blogs that take a non-partisan or neutral approach to their blogging. Remember, this kind of blog might be articulating a point of view just like partisan blogs.

Finally, the most important thing to do, in my opinion, is to do research on the political blogs you start reading. If the blog is a personal one try to understand where they are coming from. If the blog is a corporate one look them up on Wikipedia. See who owns them and possibly which way they "lean" (left or right for instance).

Alright, so now that you are schooled in spotting blog types and their content you can start searching for a great daily politics blog.

I suggest you immediately figure out what kinds of political blogs you want to follow before you start following them. You should have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish by reading a blog online. Are you trying to educate yourself? Are you looking for other people who will articulate your shared positions on politics? Or maybe you want to act like a media analyst by looking at daily politics blogs on both sides of the political spectrum!

Whatever you are looking for and wherever you might be on the political spectrum, there is really only one final step to finding a great blog you can follow every day and it involves Google.

Search Google for the words "politics blog" (or blogs) or "political blogs" (or blogs) while combining a word that specifies exactly what kind of material you want to see. For example, if you are a life long Republican in the United States you might want to put "conservative" or "Republican" in front of politics blog. If you are a centrist you might want to type "moderate" or "centrist" at the beginning. What you put in addition to the first words is up to you and will depend on your political views.

Using Google is the best way for newbies to get settled in to the political blogging world as the first page results are usually the more established personal and corporate blogs. Since so many mainly personal political blogs die in their first year (people just stop writing), using Google is the ideal first step. Keep in mind you can use other search engines but Google superior in my humble opinion.

Partisan Politics and the United States Supreme Court

America is truly a blessed country. When one is to consider the long unbroken history of its democracy and judicial system. This in itself is a hallmark for any civilized society. The instrument which is keeping everything intact in the Judicial System of the United States is the Constitution. The Supreme Court with its nine Justices usually interprets the law and based our their expert legal opinions; laws are either over turned, upheld or granted. There is but one single gray area that usually haunts this fine Legal Institution and that is the area of politics.

Interpreting the constitution mainly based on legal opinion is basically one area that most Justices on the Bench are faced with. However, when there is a political component or personal bias then the decision is not truly fair or honest. Legal opinions are sometimes tainted with personal experiences and each Justice on the Bench knows this, therefore, their decision/s and their vote usually trigger a chain reaction in some quarters. The supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 fully authorized by the U.S Constitution. The document provide the primary framework for the molding and shaping of laws in the United States.

In most recent years, politics have crept into the halls of the Supreme Court like a raging monster. At times, it can be a subtle descant or blatant legal opinions. America is at a crossroad, like any other country she is faced with social, political and religious influences that can infringe on the democratic fabric that is inscribed on the Constitution. Partisan politics in the US Supreme Court can shift this country into various directions which can destabilized the very foundation of its founding judicial principles. Legal opinions that is too extreme (right or left) can be considered partisan. Because the Justices see first their political agendas without first consulting the Constitution. When personal preferences (political, social or religious) are etched into the heart of an individual it is sometimes difficult to change their course of action. Justices on the Bench need to keep reminding themselves that their primary focus is Fidelity to the law; hold such tenants faithfully and keep their legal promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Get Elected With Political Campaign Yard Signs

During a political campaign it is imperative to get your name out there. You can hold press conferences, give speeches at local events, get involved in charity work, and run television promotions. All of these common methods make your voice heard. Another great way to spread the word is by posting political campaign yard signs.

Travel around town during an election time and you are bound to see plenty campaign signs. Whether it is a local judge running for reelection or the president campaigning for your vote, political yard signs have been an important part of candidate campaigns for many of years.

Why use political campaign yard signs to get your message across?

- Political signs are a cheap and convenient way of campaigning. They can be designed and purchased online at a reasonable price. And, they are produced in bulk so you will have plenty signs to spread throughout your area.
- Campaign signs can be displayed just about anywhere. Supporters of your campaign can put the signs on their yard. You can distribute them on popular street corners around the town that you are running in. And, you can surround the voting area with signs to help gain any last minute undecided voters. They are light, easy to transport, and they stick in the ground or can be attached to any surface.
- Political signs are an excellent way to reach thousands or people in one easy step. Think of how many people pass a certain area in one day or one week. Multiple that by the number of signs you distribute and you can see just how effective political campaign yard signs are.

In order to reap the benefits of using yard signs for your political campaign, the sign must be designed appropriately.

- A logo and colors should be selected early on in your campaign. Sticking with two or three colors throughout your campaign will help voters better associate you to your advertising methods. A political campaign sign should include these colors in a bright and easy to read manner. Make sure you choose a font and color where words are legible from a distance.
- Address one purpose instead of trying to fit multiple messages on one sign. Remember that passerby's have limited time to read your sign so you need to highlight and emphasize a single point for them to remember.
- Make your name the largest word on the campaign sign. The voters need to remember who they are voting for. Your name is the last thing you want them to miss seeing.
- Make the sign an appropriate size for where it will be displayed. Typical election yard signs are between 12 and 40 inches. A good rule of thumb is to judge the speed that the passerby will be traveling. If the speed is 30mph or less, 18 inch x 24 inch is a good size.