Take for example Rep.-elect Allen West (pictured above). He's a true fringe right-winger and has said a lot of nutty things, but his latest utterance has me believing he really shouldn't have been elected to any position -- not even dog-catcher. He is so far to the right that he believes the government should have dictatorial powers, regardless of what the Constitution says.
Listen to what West had to say about WikiLeaks and the American media while on a conservative internet talk show last week. He said, "Regardless of whether you think it causes any harm, the fact that here is an individual that is not an American citizen first and foremost, for whatever reason gotten his hands on classified American material and put it out there in the public domain. And I think that we should also be censoring the American news agencies which enabled him to do this and also supported him and applauding him for his efforts."
Those are some pretty scary words. The best protection our democracy has is freedom of the press and free speech. Our Founding Fathers knew that the representative democracy they were creating wouldn't last very long without a free press that couldn't be censored by government -- that's why they put it in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The fact is that if the government can censor one thing in the media, they can censor anything. Does this fool really want the government to have the power to tell the media what they can and cannot say? It makes me wonder if he's even read the Constitution or has any idea of the freedoms guaranteed to Americans by it. Personally, I think anyone who thinks the government should be able to censor the media has no place serving in the government. What were the Florida voters thinking when they elected this guy?
And then there is Rep.-elect David Rivera, also from Florida. He won't even be sworn in until January 5th and he is already being investigated for corruption. It seems that while in the Florida legislature he spearheaded a political campaign to get voters to approve letting parimutuel venues install slot machines. Just weeks after he ran this campaign, the Flagler Dog Track (now called Magic City Casino) paid $510,000 into a company called Millennium Marketing -- a company co-managed by Rivera's 70 year-old mother, Daisy Magarino, and his godmother, Ileana Medina.
Rivera denies that he received any of the money, but admitted being "designated by Millennium" to work on the campaign after they were hired by Flagler. He also admits suggesting that Flagler hire Millennium Marketing when they expressed an interest in the slot machine campaign.
However, an attorney for the dog track, Roberto Martinez, says it was Rivera who approached the track owners and asked to manage the campaign. It was also Rivera who suggested that instead of giving money directly to him they should hire Millennium Marketing. And the contract between Millennium Marketing and the Flagler Dog Track contained the signatures of both Medina and Rivera.
Does this fool really expect people to believe he didn't receive any (or most) of that half-million dollars? This whole affair reeks of corruption, and now he is about to be sworn in as a U.S. congressman. Again I ask, what were the Florida voters thinking when they elected this crook? Do they even care about honesty any more? If he can sell his position and influence as a state legislator for $510,000, just think how much more he can make as a U.S. congressman.
Just think about how much trouble this country is in when a fool and a crook can be elected, and all they had to do was parrot the talking points of the teabaggers and other right-wingers.
"Personally, I think anyone who thinks the government should be able to censor the media has no place serving in the government."
ReplyDeleteDid you know that yesterday marked the 69th anniversary of Executive Order 8985, Establishing the Office of Censorship, signed by none other than your hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Here's a link to the Order.
The voters made the right choice by voting in col. Allen West. And Assange is a criminal.It was "censure" and these documents were stolen and top secret and published without authority. Whatever are YOU thinking?
ReplyDeleteWhat he said was CENSOR, and absolutely NONE of the documents were TOP SECRET. They were classified, but that is far from being Top Secret. Check your "facts".
ReplyDeleteCongressman-Elect West apparently isn't the first person to mix up the words "censor" and "censure."
ReplyDeleteCheck out this article on the subject.
The man hasn't even been sworn into office yet. Can't you give him the benefit of the doubt?
Whether is was "top" or not is irrevlant. The improper release of such information could be prosecuted as a crime under the general theft of government property statute 18 U.S.C. § 641.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to debate left-winged free speech politicos. It is a waste of time when you can't see what is wrong with what he did.
CT-
ReplyDeleteIcan't believe you're falling for that censor/censure crap. It doesn't even make sense to censure the media.
LA-
You are absolutely right that I don't think the release of the information was right. In fact, I consider it downright heroic. I believe in free speech and a free media (press). Why don't you -- it is in the Constitution.
And if you don't wish to debate "left-winged free speech politicos", why do you come to a left-wing political site and comment?
The first definition of "censure" in the Free Online Dictionary is "[a]n expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism."
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Colonel West's statement, using that definition:
"And I think that we should also be strongly disaspproving or harshly criticizing the American news agencies which enabled him to do this and also supported him and applauding him for his efforts." [Emphasis added]
That doesn't make sense?
I don't find myself agreeing with Vice President Biden very often, but last Sunday on Meet the Press, he made a very important distinction. If Assange conspired with Bradley Manning, rather than merely receiving the pilfered documents from him (as was the case with the Pentagon Papers), then both are guilty of a crime under U.S. law.
The distinction between whether the documents were top secret or secret is a merely a matter of degree. The disclosure of top secret information is deemed to cause "grave harm" to national security, whereas the disclosure of secret or confidential information is determined to cause "serious harm" or "harm" to national security, respectively. Harm was done, and when pieced together, that harm may ultimately be more than the sum of its parts. At a minimum, sources and methods may have been irreparably compromised, and those who have cooperated with our government in the past will think twice in the future, lest their identities be revealed and their careers (or even their lives) be put in danger.
But what gets me is the abject hypocricy of some on the Left regarding this issue. When Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative was disclosed (admittedly a breach of national security), most on the Left were absolutely apoplectic. Yet when hundreds of thousands of documents are leaked, it's somehow "heroic." It reminds me of the famous quote attributed to Joseph Stalin - "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
Likewise, the New York Times considered it ill advised to publish any of the Climategate emails (none of which were classified, as far as I know), yet they had no such compunction about publishing the WikiLeaks documents.
Having been an intelligence collector in Europe for nine years during the Cold War, I'm well aware of the dangers of wholesale government censorship to a free society. I still own a copy of the two-volume Czarna Księga Cenzury PRL (the Black Book of Censorship of the Polish People's Republic), which was smuggled out of Poland in the 1970's. But just as there are reasonable limits to free speech (i.e. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater), freedom of the press cannot be totally absolute either. Reasonable people can argue over where that line is drawn, but the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact.
You can't compare this to the Valerie Plame affair. In that it was obvious that an agent was outed. Who was outed by WikiLeaks? Can you name a single person? The fact is that such information has been self-censored by WikiLeaks and the media.
ReplyDeleteAs for the censor/censure thing, I believe West meant censor. He can back up all he wants to now, but he said it and I think he meant it.
And yes, I still hold this was a heroic action. Most of this stuff should never have been a secret in the first place.
On an entirely different level, you seem to be saying that African Americans and Hispanics can only "parrot the talking points of the teabaggers and other right-wingers" [emphasis added], implying that they are somehow incapable of independently arriving at the same political conclusions as other conservatives.
ReplyDeleteSince many on the Left seem to think that they "own" Blacks and Hispanics on a political level, I suppose it's important to attack early and often anyone straying from the liberal plantation so as to discourage others from doing the same.
Although a bit more subtle, it reminds me of the incredibly offensive political cartoons of Dr. Condoleeza Rice during the Bush era, depicting her as a mammy and even a "house n*gger" (their words, not mine).
If you were trying to offend me, then you've come very close to succeeding. I don't own anyone, black white, brown or any other color.
ReplyDeleteI think West is "parroting" the views of teabaggers because he is not very bright - not because he is black. And I'm shocked that you read it that way. Maybe you should check your own views.
Ted,
ReplyDeleteI'm really sorry if you were offended by my comments. I only hope you realize now how offensive it has been over the last two years when people who've opposed President Obama, not for his race but for his policies, have been lumped together with racists. Now that you find yourself opposing a few more of his policies, perhaps you'll be a little less quick to use the racist epithet against others.
Regarding Allen West being "not very bright," the only evidence that you've offered is misusing a word. It seems that Congressman-Elect West and I have a lot in common. Aside from the fact that both of us loved our country enough to make the military a career (some, like Senator Kerry, think that's evidence enough of stupidity), we've both earned two Master's degrees and are married to women with similar educational levels, although my wife, like myself, only has two Masters degrees. Angela West holds a PhD in addition to an MBA.
But another thing West and I have in common is the fact that I too have been known to choose the wrong word on occasion. Back in graduate school (my second Masters), I told a professor that I tend to "levitate" toward a particular point of view (what I meant to say was "gravitate"). The professor, who was not a native speaker of English, immediately picked up on it - how embarrassing!
More recently, I was texting a good friend of mine and mentioned that I'm an opera "affectionado". My friend (who never went to college, but is one of the most brilliant people I know) asked: "Don't you mean aficionado?" Once again, I was highly embarrassed.
So I guess if Allen West is "not very bright" for not having found le mot juste on one occasion, I must be twice as stupid as he is, all other things being more or less equal.