Supreme Court Trades Robes for Vestments. Deny Jesus Being a Pothead.

Three Supreme Court decisions today reveal the court's bias towards aiding Christian causes.

It is unfortunate that fiscal conservatives must often defend their reasoning for voting Republican because of the actions of social conservatives. Today, the Supreme Court came to a few decisions on how much they can bastardize our Constitution. Apparently, anything the bible-thumpers want, the bible-thumpers get.

The three cases resolved issues unrelated to their initial causes and implications. It is perhaps only a coincidence that three decisions in a row today were issued within hours of each other on the side of the church.

The three cases are(All 5-4 decisions split along party lines):

1. Anti-abortion fanatics get campaign finance reform deballified.

2. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - Not free speech

3. Taxpayers cannot challenge W.'s "Faith-Based Initiative".

Like many conservatives, I was not particularly a fan of the campaign finance reform legislation, but that is a different story. Why must it be decided because of religious groups? Was no one else making a case against the legislation? An issue like this is too important to muddle with religion. Surely, a similar position could be reached without crucifying the Constitution.

Now, on to "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

While there is no problem in the minds' of the Supreme Court justices with burning flags or holding signs comparing our political leaders to despots and demons, they find highschoolers speaking out to be spine-chilling. Today, the Supremes also decided that it was OK to harshly reprimand a student for displaying a banner which read "BONG HITS 4 JESUS".

Perhaps, the court is trying to stifle outbursts from minds not yet fully indoctrinated.

Perhaps, they actually thought their decision did not violate the 1st Amendment.

Most likely, their savior was insulted, and this petty action was in their mind a "Get Out of Hell Free Card"

Also today, it was decided for us, that in fact we are not allowed to have a problem with faith-based initiatives. Nope. In the third 5-4 decision of the day, Roberts-Alito & Co. repayed Bush with the ultimate suck off. He's allowed to give money to religious social programs, and us common folk aren't allowed to challenge it.

Really funny guys; I'm guessing I'll wake up tomorrow to headlines of the Court's insistence that a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary be placed in the National Archives immediately.

Why must the Republican Party be run by religion. The constitution clearly has references to the Bible; the laws and rights bestowed upon this nation are largely derived from biblical teachings. Can't that be enough. Can't they fight for the causes of liberty and justice, and just allow people to offend them sometimes, if that's what it takes. They should follow their own advice and "turn the other cheek".

And anyway, until they find Jesus' body and carbon date its contents, no one will know if Jesus ever danced with Mary Jane. So, case not closed...

Live Free or Die,

Marc

Talk Radio About to be Neutered

In the distance, one can hear the faint drumbeat of the upcoming revival of the "Fairness Doctrine". It will be hailed by First Amendment haters as "leveling the playing field" and "reviving the hate filled airwaves", but it is quite more dystopian and utopian.

Talk radio has in the past couple of years grown exponentially. For a while, there was even a progressive station, Air America, and throughout that time, no one mentioned equal time amendments. It's failure was brought on for reasons which in hindsight appears obvious. People just don't want to listen to Bush hate and progressive falsehoods on their way to work.

Well, as the old saying doesn't go, "If you can't beat 'em, socialize them."

In what way is allowing the market to function properly unfair? The same way it's unfair that the length of innings in baseball is based on performance, not time. In what way is free speech aided by government intrusion? How can alternate views be forced onto private broadcasts and call it fair? Those pushing for the change, progressives, attempt to evade media constantly, as evidenced by the Democratic Parties refusal to participate in a debate on Fox News and their persistent refusal to be seen and heard on any media that takes calls.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage would love to bring on as many Democratic senators as would join them. That won't happen. Even though it would be a perfect chance to spout Democratic views, they know their arguments can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Instead, they will just make the medium unmarketable using their unmarketable progressive broadcasters.

My argument on this hinges on the fact that, unlike the ignorant masses, I realize that there are more than two sides to every issue. Who will be the arbiter of all views? Which expert will decide if something is on the left or the right? Does business news count as political speech, and if so, will there be a communist to chime in from time to time? Will there be Muslim prayer brakes five times a day during the sermons on Sunday?

I can see it now, Howard and Oprah in the Morning; or perhaps the The Falwell-Khomeini Drive Time Happy Hour. Should be interesting.

Live Free or Die,

Marc

Unconventional Thompson

Does Fred Dalton Thompson have the perfect plan to tromp his rivals this primary? From the old to the young, even before his official declaration, he has produced a tremendous grassroots campaign worth noting.

What is it about Fred Thompson that has generated such an immense following without even an official declaration for a presidential run?

He cuts the shit, and gets to the point.

He confidently and articulately responds to questions pointedly, and in a measured tone (traits that don't quite befall our current commander in chief). He doesn't sound like he is towing a party line constantly, but that he might really mean what he is saying.

This is not to say that he won't have problems. First of all, he has a lifelong reputation of laziness following behind him. Even with his possible display of sloth, one of seven deadly sins, he seems to have the Christian vote. This can surely be a blessing and a curse. Too many references to God and spirituality may remind voters of the current administration. This is somewhat of a third rail for the candidates, who see Bush as a boon to their party's chance of an election win.

Another arena where Thompson has been successful is in the "net roots". Just look at the professional appeal of these independent supporter sites.

-Draft Fred Thompson

-Fred 08

-Thompson Rally

-Grassroots Voter

And then there's the official site ImWithFred.com, and clicking that link will show you its sleekness. It's not filled with ambiguous positions and talking points like the sites' of other candidates. Positions or some official texts would be nice, but it will surely be there soon. In the mean time he and his team have created a clean, respectable campaign outpost.

Finally, he seems like he might actually be capable of unscripted wit. I don't know what to make of it. Here is a video in response to Michael Moore's request that he join him for a debate on health care(the cigar is an affront to Moore's assertion that Thompson displays hypocrisy by berating him on his recent trip to Cuba while openly lighting up the Cubans).

If, but it seems to be more of a when, Thompson enters the race, it seems like it's his to lose. Some of the most recent polls have him leading the Republican primary race. With his candor and charisma, it may seem normal for a candidate of his type to take an early lead, but I repeat, he hasn't even said he's running yet. Whatever it is about him, he's got the support of millions of Americans, most of whom only knew his face a month ago.

It's going to be a fun year. Come back for more!

Live Free or Die,

Marc Bacon