Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Diametrically opposing viewpoints--First Amendment and the Quelling thereof

Via Insty, two posts regarding the proposed NYC mosque project.  I read them back to back and the complete opposite viewpoint were rather stark.  First we'll talk about Pelosi--she wants begin investigations of the folks who are questioning the funding and the motives of those wanting to build the mosque. 

So there are people out there who, while not questioning the RIGHT of those to build the mosque, question the MOTIVES for and more importantly, the FUNDING for this project.  This does not coincide with La Pelosi's presumed multi-culturalist/let's be sensitive to everyone BUT those in our great country views of the world, therefore questioning is wrong and she will do her best to bring the might of the federal government down on those who question authority (previously the most patriotic duty of a citizen-Pre-Obama/Pelosi/Reid).

Contrast this with an editorial from the New York Post, wherein the author further reads the First Amendment and notices that there is a little something in there about petitioning the government for 'redress of grievances' as well as Mayor Bloomberg finally recognizing the fact that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, even when it does not agree with him rather than chastising opponents and telling them they are being intolerant bigots (in essence, not a quote).  It's interesting that his turnaround came very closely on the heels of the connection between Bloomberg and a financial hub in Dubai.  (ht Mr. B).

The thing we need to remember is that free speech isn't.  It is a right that must be jealously defended or else folks like Pelosi, with her threats of retribution, or the PC crowd and their lawsuits causing us to self-censor (which is worse) may well successfully quell dissent and our individual voices and the First Amendment will effectively cease to be.