Public Usage and Free Speech

The attempt by the current administration to regulate which views are aired on radio and TV hinges on the concept of "public usage" of radio frequencies and the regulatory powers of the Federal Communications Commission granted in the 1927 law. John Armor addressed this issue in his current blog, "The Myth of Public Airways." The following is my response to this.

***********************************************************

To many "public" means "governmental." This is a misidentification which falls right into the lap of leftists and other wannabe totalitarians. A little exercise of logical extension shows us where this leads:

1. We all breathe air and drink water and use the air we breathe to speak.

2. Since protection of the quality of the air and water is a public issue, then the "usage of public properties" includes all speech.

3. If the government has the right, even the obligation, to monitor and control the content of "public usage," then it must therefore monitor and censor, speech, even the most private.

4. But wait a minute! * Speech is protected by the Constitution. *

5. Don't let this let you breathe easy. The illiberal leftists will find a way to say that the First Amendment right of Free Speech is subject to the government's right and obligation to regulate the "public usage" aspect of our speech if it is in the interests of the "public good." And you can bet your last penny that if they think this will work in the courts, they will try it!

6. With that kind of reasoning, the entire Bill of Rights might as well have been written in sand.

***********************************************************

See John Armor's blog:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnArmor/2009/04/17/the_myth_of_public_airways

Open Request to Sen. John S. McCain

Dear Senator McCain:

We need this change in campaign finance laws:

Ban contributions made through anonymous pre-paid credit cards.

The reason for this? These cards are a vehicle through which enormously wealthy individuals and groups can make political contributions many times the size which they can openly make. You ought to be sensitive to this following the last election.

Please introduce a bill to make this needed change in the Federal campaign finance laws.

Sincerely,
Wesley G. Vaughn

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Reader,

If you agree with this, please let Sen. McCain know your views.
Go to http://mccain.senate.gov/public/, click on "Contact," select "Contact form."
On the Issues list pick "Not listed."
Say what you want in the message box.
Thank you.
-WGV

One Year to the Next

Years ago, members of a panel were asked, "What do you do on New Year's Eve?"
One panelist said, "I sleep through it."
"How's that?" the host asked. "You mean you don't party or pray or watch the ball come down or anything like that?"
"Nope."
"Why would you sleep through rather than see the new year in?"
"To me the year is like life," the panelist responded. "You go to sleep in one then wake up in the next."

(c) 2009

A Greeting for Christmas 2008 & New Years 2009

From an Old Rough Cradle

From an old rough cradle

To the old rugged cross,

From a manger of hay

To mansions of glory,

From Heaven to earth

To Heaven again,

Flows the steam

Of Redemption’s story.

© 2008, Wesley G. Vaughn

May the peace of God

reign in your hearts,

not only at this season,

but throughout the coming year.

Yours ever,

Wesley & Patty Vaughn

(c) 2008

'Goldilocks' faith serves lukewarm mush

I found this column by Michael Medved. It is just as relevant today as it was in April 2007. Just click on the link to go to the article:

"Goldilocks' faith serves lukewarm mush"
by Michael Medved
in USA Today
Posted 4/22/2007 8:07 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-22-oplede_N.htm#open-share-help

My reaction: I went to high school and college in the 1960s. This was the decade of the Hippies. Many of them were rebelling against the establishments of their parents, more particularly the watered-down liberalism of mainline institutions and the materialism of well-to-do families.

This decade also saw young people flocking to join the Peace Corps, drawn by the call to give of themselves for others.

What Would Jefferson Do?

Today the world is faced with piracy on the high seas. Sea-borne Somali brigands are capturing ships not only off the coast of Somalia, but in the Gulf of Aden and in the open waters of the Indian Ocean, holding the ships and crews for ransom. At least one major shipping firm is avoiding the area altogether, choosing to take the longer (and more expensive) route around the southern tip of Africa. Currently, the navies of several nations are patrolling the seas off East Africa, but the area is large and hard to police effectively.

What would U.S. President Thomas Jefferson do if he were in office today? What did he do two hundred years ago? Pirates from the north coast of Africa (the Barbary States) held maritime commerce in the Mediterranean hostage. They seized ships, claiming the ships and their cargo, holding the crew for ransom or selling them into slavery. Several European nations paid tribute to the Barbary States to exempt their ships from pillage. Even the United States paid tribute for a time. But after a while, Americans said, "That is enough." The cry arose, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

Thomas Jefferson was president at the time. He and the U.S. Congress declared war on the Barbary states. We fought two wars in the Mediterranean. Port cities of North Africa were captured, including Tripoli, and the piracy was brought to an end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

I believe that if Jefferson were in office today, he would take decisive action. He would take the battle to the home ports of the pirates. One proposal for today would be to work together with the other nations patrolling the waters off Somalia to neutralize the home ports of the pirates. One way would be to divide the targets. Have the U.S. Navy take one, the Russian Navy another, the Indian Navy a third, and so on until all are covered.

Why not do this unilaterally? This is an international problem. The pirates are indiscriminate as to the nationalities of the crew members and the ships’ ownership, registration, cargo, origin and destination. It needs to be made clear that the world as a whole is taking action. The accounts of the Barbary Coast piracy point out that the pirate regimes played off the European powers against each other. Dividing up target pirate ports is preferred for three reasons:
-(1) It reduces friction and difficulties in coordination among the allies.
-(2) It reduces the time needed to execute the plan, also facilitating the element of surprise. The assembling of multinational squadrons would tend to give away the intent.
-(3) Each power is responsible for its own objective, and can therefore take credit for it.

What about the hostage crews? Just pay ransom for all and get them back. As soon as they are safely out of the way, move in. If done quickly enough, most of the ransom money can be recovered.

What do you think?

PS: A "Crisco" version of this was published in the Times-Reporter of Dover/New Philadelphia, OH, on 12/02/2008 <http://www.timesreporter.com/opinion/x541372487/Readers-Viewpoint-What-would-Jefferson-do-to-end-piracy>.

Birthplace Issues: John McCain and Barack Obama

An issue was made this year of the "Natural-born citizen" status of the two major party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 and Obama's live birth location was questioned.

First, John McCain. This is the easiest to deal with. At the time of his birth, the Panama Canal Zone was a United States Territory. His parents were both US citizens and he was born on a US Navy base. So on all accounts, there should have beeen no question that John S. McCain III is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.

Next, Barack H. Obama. Somehow, someway, several persons publicized doubt that Sen. Obama was born in Hawaii. There have even been lawsuits brought in federal court to delay the election or otherwise force Obama to produce his vault original certificate of live birth. The Obam campaign has released the image of a certified copy of the original certificate. It is available on the following website:
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

Some people posting comments on this have questioned its authenticity on basically two counts: (1) no crease from folding and mailing, and (2) no embossure of the seal of the Hawaiian dept. of vital statistics. I downloaded this image and zoomed in on it. I saw the folding crease, which goes through the center of the state seal. Persons who have Hawaiian birth certificates say that they are signed and embossed on the back side. Near the bottom of the image, the date stamp of the copy is seen bleeding thorugh from the back. Just above it, under magnification, the embossing can be detected by distortions in the background pattern in a circular pattern. It is not as distinct as it would be on the side which was embossed. Just check out any embossed heavy paper document you have to see what I mean.

The birth certificate notwithstanding, his mother was a US citizen. And although at the time of Barack's birth she was only 18 (not yet five years past age 16), since she had been a citizen and resident of the US all her life, her citizenship still applies, since the five-year clause should apply only to those who are 21 years of age or older (which I believe to be the original intent of the law).

As one who supported and voted for John McCain, and as one who has serious questions about the direction Pres. Obama with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Maj. Leader Reid will take this nation, it could be a relief to have BHO disqualified from being President. But also being a person of reason, I say (barring future discovey of evidence of fraud and forgery) that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, is a natural-born citizen of the United States, thereby meeting that qualification for President of the United States of America.

The raising of this issue regarding both candidates in this year's election demonstrates the fact that in any campaign or controversy red herring issues will arise. (A "red herring" is a bogus or irrelevant issue brought up which detracts from the core issues.)

An Open Letter to Sen. Barack Obama

Senator Obama:

I have a couple of questions to ask you.

Considering that (1) your mentor when you were a teen, Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist, (2) you worked on the Woods Foundation with William Ayers, a radical leftist, (3) you have written that you were attracted to Marxism, and (4) you have stated publicly at least twice that you would redistribute the wealth, doesn’t this mean that you and your policies are socialist?

Considering your remarks about Fox News, and the reaction to Joe the Plumber and Barbara West, would you as President try to “manage the press” in violation of the First Amendment?

Sincerely yours,

Wes the Press Operator

PS: I’ve been asked to list on applications all of my driving citations. I thought if I asked these questions, you would check it out.

PPS: Maybe you’ll also look into all my school grades.

The Liberal Trifecta Agenda

The Liberal Trifecta Agenda

If a leftist president and a liberal supermajority in both House and Senate take office inJanuary, what will this mean for this country? We can be sure that they will use their dominanceof the national lawmaking process to enact their agenda. This is what I foresee as likely:

1. Re-enact the so-called Fairness Doctrine (FD). For those of us who are too young toremember the former FD, it required all broadcasters who promote one point of view togive equal time to proponents of the opposing view. I remember when, in the 1970s, aChristian radio station I listened to had to air statements by atheists and cults. The FDwas abolished in the 1980s because it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. It was also unfairly administered.
A new FD will be primarily aimed at conservative talk radio. Liberal talk radio hasbeen unable to attract enough listeners, so instead of competing fairly, the liberals want tohandicap the competition.

2. Enact the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama has said he wants to put intoplace. FOCA would invalidate all laws in all the states which regulate abortion. Whenone or more of the states challenge the law in court, my guess is that the federal judge(s)will be threatened (not publicly, of course) with impeachment if they make the “wrong”decision. With a liberal supermajority this threat will be credible.

3. Create the Federal Elections Standards Act (FESA). [The name is not official.] Thecurrent voter registration scandal and reported cases of vote fraud in several states and theelection mess it will create will provoke a demand for a way to prevent or rectify futuresituations. The most “foolproof” way (as though anything could actually be foolproof) isto tag each ballot with the voting number of the voter. Then validation of voters cancontinue through a set time (perhaps 30 or 45 days). If a voter’s registration is found tobe invalid, or if the voter has voted multiple times, his ballot can then be culled out andcancelled.
This might sound like a great idea until you realize that it abolishes the secret ballot. Who has access to the voting records? Database after database has been penetrated andconfidential information compromised. Do you want how you voted revealed to thosewho would harass you: your boss or union steward? Your opinionated neighbor? Theplace where you apply for a job? Or others?

4. Pass a very stringent hate speech law (HSL). This would make it a federal crime toeven call certain lifestyles “wrong” or “sinful” or “evil” on the pretext that disapprovalleads to violence. Since freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, andexception will be made permitting the criticism of religious beliefs and practices. So itwould still be legal to denounce and/or ridicule, even libel, Christians and Christianity,Jews and Judaism too. Don’t worry about the Muslims. People will be afraid to criticizethem (*POW*).

5. After the HSL is in place and tested, now is the time to pass a Right ofMarriageAmendment (ROMA) and send it to the states for ratification. ROMA wouldsay something like, “no state, territory, district or any other jurisdiction of the UnitedStates shall restrict or prohibit the right of any two persons to marry for reason ofgender.” In other words, it would permit same sex marriage nationally.
It only takes two thirds of each house of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment,but it takes three fourths of the states to ratify it. This is where the HSL comes in. Sincegender orientation is protected from disapproving comment by the HSL, it would now beillegal to campaign against ROMA if it is brought up for ratification in your state.

Does this sound scary? That depends on how much you value the free and open society wehave enjoyed for so long in this land.

Is Voter Registration Fraud a Threat to the Secret Ballot?

Is Voter Registration Fraud a Threat to the Secret Ballot?

At this time, we are in the midst of a massive voter registration scandal. Workers hired by ACORN to canvas people and register them to vote have ignored the law and common sense in several ways.

1. They have registered persons already registered. This has resulted in multiple registrations for the same person. One man in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was registered as many as 73 times.

2. They have falsified the registration applications. This includes entering the names of fictitious persons, deceased persons, celebrities, etc.

3. They have registered persons ineligible to vote, although the persons told them they were not eligible.

4. They have used aggressive tactics in canvassing, in some cases offering incentives to people to register.

According to the testimony of several persons, the canvassers claimed they had to get enough registrations to get paid.

During this time, I have been hearing that the secret ballot, which we have enjoyed in this country, may come to an end. So how does this relate to the scandal?

First, with such a widespread voter registration scandal, in at least fourteen states, so close to the election, it threatens the integrity of the election itself. The result of a vote count controversy in so many states will raise an outcry, a call by the public for some way to prevent this, or at least to cull out the votes of voters who are found to either be ineligible or to have voted multiple times.

One method would be to tag each ballot cast with the voter who cast it. This is easy to do with electronic voting. It can also be done with other voting methods, too. Then after the election, as verification of voter registrations continues for those the officials did not have time to verify before the election, if a voter proves to be ineligible, his ballot can be located and cancelled.

This may sound like a good idea to many, especially with so many late registrations pouring in. But there is a danger. Who has access to the records, the links between the votes and the voters? How secure are they? The past few years, database after database has been penetrated, making sensitive information insecure.

What if those on one side of an issue or for one candidate were able to comb through the lists of votes and voters? Would every union member want the union officials to know how he or she voted? Would every employee want his employer to know how he or she voted? Some people live in neighborhoods where they certainly would not want the neighbors to know how they vote. Would you want your voting record made public?

We see stories in the news of the government and political parties in certain other countries harassing those who vote against them. Elections are won by 90% or more, because voters are afraid of losing their jobs or defending themselves from trumped up charges. Do we want to see that happen here?