CPAC Closing Speech

Will We Soon See a Sedition Act of 2010?

I remember not so long ago that Glenn Beck leveled harsh criticism at a man holding high office. As usual, Beck spoke freely and without restraint, making his target cringe. President George W. Bush was used to being stung by the left. In the wake of the bailouts his administration pushed through Congress last year, President Bush found himself attacked more often than not on the Glenn Beck program.

Different year, different president, same gadfly. Beck still criticizes. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly get their shots in as well, just like Keith Olbermann used to bash Bush nightly. Bush maintained his dignity, did not respond, and simply did his job.

Free speech in under assault in this country. The Obama Administration blames Fox News for destroying its relationship with the public, thwarting its agenda. They expect Fox to fall into line, to not ask the tough questions, and to not criticize.

We have not seen this kind of direct assault on a news organization since Richard Nixon declared war on the New York Times almost thirty years ago.

Obama is acting as if he is in Britain circa 1750. What he is accusing Fox of in a roundabout way is sedition. Sedition was a controversial, but well entrenched concept in British law. Speech that criticized the government, but was seen to be an obstacle to policy was considered criminal sedition. During the Quasi Naval War in the 1790s, Congress passed a Sedition Act that made the Federalist Party so unpopular that it never again won control of the legislative or executive branches. The concept of criminal sedition has no place in American law, but Obama and the White House seem to be trying to resurrect the concept.

He does it through using the "rules for radicals" playbook. I hate using a conservative cliche, but there is a set of guidelines for radicals that includes personalizing and demonizing the opposition. Obama tried doing that with Rush Limbaugh and got nowhere. Then he tried it on Glenn Beck and only boosted his ratings. Now he wants America to turn against a legitimate news broadcaster because they dare to disagree with him. Here's the problem with using that playbook. It only works in opposition, not when you are the incumbent. When those in power use these methods, they just look like bullies if not heroes standing up for the First Amendment.

I foresee a lot of liberals, not leftists, but liberals quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote, commonly attributed to Voltaire, this week, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defedn to the death your right to say it." Incidentally, this was the Bush Administration's attitude towards Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and others. A cold wind is blowing in the world of American civil liberties.

Defending to the Death His Right to Say It

Lou Dobbs has accomplished quite a bit recently. Bill O'Reilly and the CNN US president defend him while Ann Coulter and liberals from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center attack him.

Dobbs has reported from CNN since the inception of that network. At one point he concentrated on business matters, but now he has a prime time show. This program focuses on important, but little reported issues.

The birth certificate issue has gotten Dobbs in hot water with some and has led to liberal and left wing calls for his firing from CNN. Dobbs went on the record saying that he believed Obama was born in the United States, but he ran a story about the dissenters that apparently did not represent them as kooky lunatics. The outraged left fought back by trying to get CNN to fire him.

The fact is that this was not like the Dan Rather hatchet case against George W. Bush. The story focused upon those that dissented, it did not try to investigate the issue itself. Even then, so long as Dobbs and his team did not suppress vital information or lie outright, they are still well within the realm of professional journalism.

CNN has much to fear from dismissing or downgrading the sometimes prickly Dobbs. The more popular Fox News would love to have him, although fitting him into a good time slot would be an issue unless he worked for their business network. Dobbs also has a popular national radio show that could be used against CNN if they fired him.

Journalists need to step up for Dobbs. So what if his program reported on a genuine news story and stuck to basic facts? Liberals (remember their root word is supposed to be the same as liberty!) want Dobbs shoved off the air for ideological reasons, not factual, not professional, but ideological.

Fox News handled a controversy of its own when Glenn Beck referred to Obama as a racist due to his comments critical of police in the Gates arrest. He said that Obama may like white people, but also seems to have a problem with them. Fox News released a statement saying that its commentators have freedom to express their opinion "as with all commentators in the cable news arena." Could this have been a shot on behalf of Dobbs?

To his credit, Dobbs did not back off and apologize, but called his critics "limp minded, lily livered, lefty lemmings."

Now that is a man worth keeping around. Right CNN?

Star Spangled Banner

Glenn Beck shows why Government must follow the law

Is Hyper Inflation coming?

Glenn Beck does a good job explaining how the US money supply has changed over the years. This is worth watching.