Witch Hunt (Speech I had given in 1997)

I stand before you – a man against the masses.  A symbol of hope for the common man – a flame to burn the embers of truth – a voice crying out in the wilderness trying to find an ear to listen.

            Although it doesn't show in my attitude or how I act, but when an issue such as the one I will be discussing tonight surfaces, you can bet that you will see those flames burning and you will hear my voice loud and proud, and the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that to me.  It guarantees to all of us that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”

            I’m proud to say – “Yes, I've read Huckleberry Finn,” or – “Yes, I've enjoyed the music of Prince or Judas Priest,” or better yet – “I’m a Howard Stern fan.”  But what do these issues  have in common?  I’ll tell you.  The book, the artists, and the man have been the targets of people with closed minds and one-sided views.  Being a supporter of First Amendment issues, you can bet that I’ll follow it until the Supreme Court makes a judgment on the case.

            There is some history behind my taking up this very controversial issue.  It started in 1985 when our, now, Vice-president’s wife, “Tipper,” formed the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), to fight “Dirty Records.”  When Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, and John Denver, and countless other musicians went to Capitol Hill to let their voices be heard, I was with them in spirit, because, in my heart, I knew the PMRC was going a little too far – dissecting lyrics for the sake of finding dirt.  Granted, there are artists that can go a bit too far, but to label them as bad influences is a crime.  I was (and still am) listening to these artists, enjoying their music and going to their concerts.  I followed the Congressional hearings until the very end.  This is the reason I feel so strong about the First Amendment.

            In high school, you’re taught right from wrong, how to play fairly, and coexist with others in social settings.  I felt I was being wronged by my government back then, and sometimes it comes back to haunt me in magazine articles, television shows, or other mediums.  They were coming into my home and judging what was good for me and what was bad for me.  About a year after graduation, a songwriter from Canada named Arnold Lanni wrote titled Should I See.  When I heard the words, I was (if you’ll excuse the use of a colloquial phrase) blown away.  The first verse goes, and I quote:

Cover my eyes and ears

‘Til it all disappears

How can you judge for me

What I should hear and see

You take away freedom of choice

Take away my right to voice

My beliefs and all my views

You take away my right to choose

After hearing that, I felt that it wasn't a sin against society to have a copy of a Heavy Metal album in my home.

            How would you feel if someone were to invade your thought, and tell you what you should be reading, or listening to?  You probably wouldn't like it very much.  Suppose someone told you that you couldn't read:

Huckleberry Finn, or

Catcher In The Rye, or

Of Mice And Men, or

Little House On The Prairie.

These books were on the list of questionable books in schools, tracked by the People For The American Way (a national anti-censorship organization).  They tracked a total of 375 for the 1993-94 school year.

            Those books I mentioned are classics in all sense of the word classic.  They portrayed the times in which they were written, and most have a moral at the end.  But now, with everyone being so Politically Correct, there are words in the context of the books, now deemed derogatory, are questionable.  Or they portrayed something we deem as different from the norm, and we want to shelter it from whoever wishes to read them.

            At a library in Weslaco, Texas, a librarian was fired for stocking Howard Stern’s book, Private Parts.  After ordering and receiving the book, the library received a complaint, and the book was placed in the reserved section.  After the same person complained about the book, the librarian was asked to remove the book from the library.  She told the library commission that the book had been removed, and ultimately, she was fired.  Her personal belongings had been vandalized, her life had been threatened.  But, luckily Howard heard of this and came to her rescue.  They appeared on the Donahue Show with members of the library commission, and they made it look like it was all her fault.  End result – Miss Librarian is in seclusion, the book is back in the reserve section, and Howard is still Howard.

            The FCC has levied millions of dollars in fines against Howard Stern for being obscene on the air.  When and where, I would like to know?  This is what I think is weird.  We have a bunch of people appointed to high ranking positions in our government in charge of free speech.  If they go after the likes of Howard, they should go after:  Phil, Oprah, Montel, Jenny, Days of Our Lives, and dare I say Rush Limbaugh at every direction.

            Recently we witnessed the murder of Tejano music star Selena.  The killing was unjust, and a life was taken before it was time.  Mr. Howard Stern reported the death in his own fashion, but not mocking the recently departed.  Of all the strange things Howard has said, or the malicious things Howard has said, he say something from his own standpoint and gets a lot of heat.  Howard said that Hispanics had bad taste in music.  What has happened since – a justice of the peace in Texas has issued a Disorderly Conduct Warrant against Howard Stern;  he is to be arrested if he enters the state of Texas.  All this for being a critic.  If that were the case – Siskel and Ebert, and the rest would be locked up for life.

            When and where does it end – I don’t know.  There are as many questions as there are answers.  You may not agree with everything I've said, but think of this…  When someone tells you that you can’t listen to someone, or read something, how would you feel?  There is time for a Witch Hunt – but let’s concentrate on the child molesters, the murderers, and the drug dealers.  Leave my books, music, and Howard Stern alone. 

Bush Uses Constitution to wipe his ass!!!

From the UK Times:

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

From USA Today:

Lakhdar Boumediene is an Algerian who emigrated to Bosnia in the 1990s and became a citizen. After the 9/11 attacks, Bosnian police picked up Boumediene and five other Algerians when U.S. authorities charged that the six had been plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo.

When a three-month probe found no evidence to support the charges, Bosnia's top court set the suspects free. At U.S. insistence and in defiance of the court, however, Bosnian police scooped them up again and they ended up in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They've been there ever since.

Is Boumediene a murderous terrorist? An innocent victim? Something in between? Who knows? More than six years after the 9/11 attacks, Boumediene and more than 300 other detainees still sit at Guantanamo, all but a few with no formal charges and the functional equivalent of a life sentence.


The Bush administration says these detainees are the worst of the worst, which is meant to sound like a good reason to lock them up and lose the key. But that's what former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said before hundreds were let go, many when authorities apparently concluded there was little or no evidence against them.

More important, locking people away indefinitely without charges, even if they are not U.S. citizens, violates one of this nation's bedrock principles. The doctrine of habeas corpus guarantees the right of the accused to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. It's one of the sacred rights that for centuries has distinguished the United States from dictatorships.

Regrettably, the Bush administration has an abysmal record of using the war on terror to justify brushing aside this and other safeguards. The U.S. Supreme Court has slapped down the White House and a too-compliant Congress three times already, ruling that imprisoning detainees on Cuban soil to keep them out of U.S. courts is a ruse, that even suspected terrorists have rights, and that the courts have a role in reviewing these cases.

Bush & Congress need a refresher course in the Bill Of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Via Raw Story:

The proposed House bill offers some concession to the administration, and it includes fixes in surveillance that Democrats and Republicans agreed were needed, such as a clarification that no warrant is required to spy on strictly foreign-to-foreign phone calls and e-mails.

Under the new law, the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence would be authorized to receive blanket warrants to eavesdrop on several foreign intelligence targets who could call into the United States, but the bill would restore FISA court reviews of targeting procedures and steps taken to "minimize" Americans' exposure to surveillance. If an American is to become the "target" of surveillance, intelligence agencies would be required to seek an individualized warrant from the FISA court.

The American Civil Liberties Union said that concession would allow "blanket warrants" to authorize the National Security Agency and other US intelligence services to gather information on untold numbers of Americans who may not be suspected of doing anything wrong.

Isn't it Ironic???

Chuckle-nuts is allowed to do extraordinary renditions, have secret prisons, hold people for years without access to lawyers, and yet he takes issue with Burma??? The man needs to read less books and try reading the U.S. Constitution!!!

Dana Perino:

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I have a statement on Burma, before taking your questions.

The President and Mrs. Bush remain concerned about the reports of violence and intimidation that continue to come out of Burma. The United States is pleased that U.N. Special Envoy Gambari was able to see Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr. Gambari remains in Burma in order to see the top junta leader, Than Shwe. We think it is important that they meet and that a process of national reconciliation can begin.

The United States is committed to working with countries around the world and especially those in the region to move Burma to a peaceful transition to democracy. President Bush had a good meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang last week. And today Jim Jeffrey, the Deputy National Security Advisor, will meet with Chinese Ambassador Zhou to the United States to further these discussions.

I think it's important to note comments made on Friday night by Chinese Premier Wen. He said that China is very much concerned with the situation and hopes that all parties show restraint, resume stability through peaceful means as soon as possible, promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy and development. The Chinese Premier said that China will continue to work with the international community to actively facilitate the proper solution to the problem.

I'll take your questions.

Q Do you have any reason to believe that junta leaders will meet with the U.N. Envoy?

MS. PERINO: I don't have any reason to believe one way or the other. We -- he is there waiting to meet with him and as soon as we have an update, we'll provide it.

Q And the protests, themselves, seem to have been stilled. What do you make of that?

MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing; and we understand that some of the monasteries have been sealed. Now, obviously, this has, again, a chilling effect on protestors, but we would ask that everyone show restraint and allow those who want to express themselves to be able to do so in Burma.

Religon and Government Office

In keeping with the theme of my last post... Over ar HuffPo St. John McCain would prefer a Christian president (he can clarify his remarks until he's blue in the face), so I would like to remind him of Article VI of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.