Here's a good column that has a nice set of classic definitions.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf/19990920_xcgme_speech_con.shtml
Speech Control Inc.?
Winston Churchill once observed, "If you will
not fight for right when you can easily win
without bloodshed; if you will not fight when
your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a
precarious chance of survival."
Churchill noted that, "There may be a worse
case. You may have to fight when there is no
hope of victory, because it is better to perish
than to live as slaves."
We may well be on the precipice of that "worse
case."
Have you ever noticed how the ACLU and usual
liberal agenda suspects defend the First
Amendment with the unbridled fervor of
religious zealots? That's a good thing, right? So
how and why do they display such hinky
diffidence in applying that same enthusiasm for
other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could it
be the routine anti-constitionalists' duplicity to
negate facts, which contradict their
pre-conceived opinions? Could it be myopia?
Prejudice? Bigotry? Or are they conditioned to
only defend political agendas, notwithstanding
the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?
Frederick Douglass observed, "Find out just
what people will submit to, and you have found
out the exact amount of injustice and wrong
which will be imposed upon them; and these will
continue until they are resisted with either
words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants
are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
they oppress."
Although Douglass wasn't talking about
incrementalism, he was describing
incrementalism. Testing the limits of endurance
of injustice is part and parcel of incrementalism.
An army uses probing attacks to identify
weaknesses, and harass an enemy. When a
weakness is identified, it becomes a target of
opportunity to be exploited. Tyrants,
anti-constitutional sycophants peddling the
panacea of socialism use the same tactics.
Lower standards, homogenize attitudes,
encourage and then mandate tolerance of the
intolerable while routinely defending the
indefensible. Sound familiar?
Some insightful anonymous student of history
once noted that "Patriots are not
revolutionaries trying to overthrow
government. Patriots are
counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent
government from overthrowing the U.S.
Constitution."
Recently, I made reference to an observation
by columnist/commentator Ann Coulter, in
which she noted if the Second Amendment were
to be defended with the passion they routinely
direct at the First Amendment, Americans
might well be required to own nuclear weapons.
Subsequently, I received an e-mail from a
listener/reader with an idea so sick ... it may
merit consideration.
I have often noted that on the basis of facts,
defenders of the Second Amendment should
win any debate. There is a huge body of
statistical evidence that proves two points as
being axiomatic: 1) In communities in which law
abiding citizens are armed (or at least criminals
are not sure if they are not armed), crime goes
down. 2) In communities in which law abiding
citizens are denied the opportunity to exercise
their free will to own arms, crime goes up. Both
scenarios are well documented with
overwhelming statistical analysis.
However, anti-constitutional socialists and
propaganda pundits continue to win the hearts
and minds of the sheeple by parading any and
all statistical aberrations in which the offensive
tool was a gun.
Tim from Carson City, Nev., wrote, "Dear Geoff
- It occurred to me last night that perhaps if
there were an anti-First Amendment
organization then perhaps the "mainstream"
press might begin to recognize the threat of
such organizations to our Constitution." Tim
may be considering facts not in evidence, but
here's his suggestion: "For example what about
something like: Speech Control Incorporated?
After all, there are plenty of words or phrases
that are not 'needed.' Especially given all of the
'hate crime' legislation, the need to eliminate
offensive words is all the more pressing!"
Imagine the benefits "for the children" if they
were never to be tempted with the potential of
using intemperate language. "Of course it
stands to reason that the manufacturers of the
machinery that can produce such horrible
words may well be subject to litigation. As a
consequence, computer, typewriter, paper, ink
and software companies should all be on notice
that they assume liability for the misuse of their
products in the creation of 'hate speech' or
offensive language." Venues for the distribution
of potentially offensive language (print, radio,
television, computers, et al) would and could be
subject to litigation (the lawyers would LOVE
this). "I guess it goes without saying that the
protection of the children from such speech
would be a significant benefit! What do you
think?" Tim even suggests that when 'Up'Chuck
Schumer retires he could start up just such an
organization, or maybe Sarah Brady might
expand her focus -- 'for the good of the
children.'"
Speech Control Inc. might be a cute academic
exercise, but as absurd a concept is to a
"reasonable" person, the dangers of letting
THAT genie out of the bottle is just way too
dangerous. Remember, the concept of Handgun
Control Inc., was an absurd concept to a
reasonable person 30-40 years ago. Stuff
happens. ... Consider the following:
Aristotle noted, "Republics decline into
democracies and democracies degenerate
into despotisms." Republic good --
Despotism bad. I'll buy that.
George Bernard Shaw observed,
"Democracy substitutes election by the
incompetent many for appointment by
the corrupt few." Sad but increasingly
true.
Lastly, classic definitions ... and multiple
choice.
1.A Democracy: Three wolves and a
sheep voting on dinner.
2.A Republic: The flock gets to vote
for which wolves vote on dinner.
3.A Constitutional Republic: Voting on
dinner is expressly forbidden, and
the sheep are armed.
4.Federal Government: The means by
which the sheep will be fooled into
voting for a Democracy.
Pick one of the above. There is only one correct
answer.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf/19990920_xcgme_speech_con.shtml
Speech Control Inc.?
Winston Churchill once observed, "If you will
not fight for right when you can easily win
without bloodshed; if you will not fight when
your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a
precarious chance of survival."
Churchill noted that, "There may be a worse
case. You may have to fight when there is no
hope of victory, because it is better to perish
than to live as slaves."
We may well be on the precipice of that "worse
case."
Have you ever noticed how the ACLU and usual
liberal agenda suspects defend the First
Amendment with the unbridled fervor of
religious zealots? That's a good thing, right? So
how and why do they display such hinky
diffidence in applying that same enthusiasm for
other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could it
be the routine anti-constitionalists' duplicity to
negate facts, which contradict their
pre-conceived opinions? Could it be myopia?
Prejudice? Bigotry? Or are they conditioned to
only defend political agendas, notwithstanding
the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?
Frederick Douglass observed, "Find out just
what people will submit to, and you have found
out the exact amount of injustice and wrong
which will be imposed upon them; and these will
continue until they are resisted with either
words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants
are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
they oppress."
Although Douglass wasn't talking about
incrementalism, he was describing
incrementalism. Testing the limits of endurance
of injustice is part and parcel of incrementalism.
An army uses probing attacks to identify
weaknesses, and harass an enemy. When a
weakness is identified, it becomes a target of
opportunity to be exploited. Tyrants,
anti-constitutional sycophants peddling the
panacea of socialism use the same tactics.
Lower standards, homogenize attitudes,
encourage and then mandate tolerance of the
intolerable while routinely defending the
indefensible. Sound familiar?
Some insightful anonymous student of history
once noted that "Patriots are not
revolutionaries trying to overthrow
government. Patriots are
counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent
government from overthrowing the U.S.
Constitution."
Recently, I made reference to an observation
by columnist/commentator Ann Coulter, in
which she noted if the Second Amendment were
to be defended with the passion they routinely
direct at the First Amendment, Americans
might well be required to own nuclear weapons.
Subsequently, I received an e-mail from a
listener/reader with an idea so sick ... it may
merit consideration.
I have often noted that on the basis of facts,
defenders of the Second Amendment should
win any debate. There is a huge body of
statistical evidence that proves two points as
being axiomatic: 1) In communities in which law
abiding citizens are armed (or at least criminals
are not sure if they are not armed), crime goes
down. 2) In communities in which law abiding
citizens are denied the opportunity to exercise
their free will to own arms, crime goes up. Both
scenarios are well documented with
overwhelming statistical analysis.
However, anti-constitutional socialists and
propaganda pundits continue to win the hearts
and minds of the sheeple by parading any and
all statistical aberrations in which the offensive
tool was a gun.
Tim from Carson City, Nev., wrote, "Dear Geoff
- It occurred to me last night that perhaps if
there were an anti-First Amendment
organization then perhaps the "mainstream"
press might begin to recognize the threat of
such organizations to our Constitution." Tim
may be considering facts not in evidence, but
here's his suggestion: "For example what about
something like: Speech Control Incorporated?
After all, there are plenty of words or phrases
that are not 'needed.' Especially given all of the
'hate crime' legislation, the need to eliminate
offensive words is all the more pressing!"
Imagine the benefits "for the children" if they
were never to be tempted with the potential of
using intemperate language. "Of course it
stands to reason that the manufacturers of the
machinery that can produce such horrible
words may well be subject to litigation. As a
consequence, computer, typewriter, paper, ink
and software companies should all be on notice
that they assume liability for the misuse of their
products in the creation of 'hate speech' or
offensive language." Venues for the distribution
of potentially offensive language (print, radio,
television, computers, et al) would and could be
subject to litigation (the lawyers would LOVE
this). "I guess it goes without saying that the
protection of the children from such speech
would be a significant benefit! What do you
think?" Tim even suggests that when 'Up'Chuck
Schumer retires he could start up just such an
organization, or maybe Sarah Brady might
expand her focus -- 'for the good of the
children.'"
Speech Control Inc. might be a cute academic
exercise, but as absurd a concept is to a
"reasonable" person, the dangers of letting
THAT genie out of the bottle is just way too
dangerous. Remember, the concept of Handgun
Control Inc., was an absurd concept to a
reasonable person 30-40 years ago. Stuff
happens. ... Consider the following:
Aristotle noted, "Republics decline into
democracies and democracies degenerate
into despotisms." Republic good --
Despotism bad. I'll buy that.
George Bernard Shaw observed,
"Democracy substitutes election by the
incompetent many for appointment by
the corrupt few." Sad but increasingly
true.
Lastly, classic definitions ... and multiple
choice.
1.A Democracy: Three wolves and a
sheep voting on dinner.
2.A Republic: The flock gets to vote
for which wolves vote on dinner.
3.A Constitutional Republic: Voting on
dinner is expressly forbidden, and
the sheep are armed.
4.Federal Government: The means by
which the sheep will be fooled into
voting for a Democracy.
Pick one of the above. There is only one correct
answer.
