We're strong enough to survive Michael Reagan.
"...former Presidents and their spouses receive protection for life unless they ask that it be withdrawn. Children are protected until the age of 21."*
"And while the 2008 campaign gets going, the [Secret Service] is also gearing up for January 2009, when President Bush is set to leave office ... The service has begun training agents to fill 103 full-time slots as to be part of the current president's retirement detail."
"OK GUYS- I know this sounds ridiculous but it is 100% true. Yesterday I wrote an article which appeared on the front page of prisonplanet.com, entitled 'How to properly file an official FCC complaint against Michael Reagan for death threats against Mark Dice'. Today, our group INLAND EMPIRE 911 TRUTH had a meeting and decided that we will stage a protest against Michael Reagan on Monday June 16th. In my research tonight, I found a number for him, called it, and by freak chance accidently got his direct personal line. He answered, and we spoke about the issue. Here is what happened.
...I had been digging around the net for a few hours trying to find out where they broadcast the show from. So at 10PM, (let this be a lesson about privacy issues..) I find what I believe to be the guy's home address and what turns out to be his CURRENT CELL PHONE NUMBER.... i was expecting to get some office line, but no, I called it and Michael Reagan answered it personally , which took me by complete surprise, and we ended up talking for 4 minutes and 15 seconds.
...I told him initially, after my shock that he answered, that I was calling about the Mark Dice issue, that I was Catholic and I think it's very wrong for him to issue death threats. I also said that I'm a lifelong republican, a Ron Paul supporter, and that I do believe that the evidence shows there was government involvement, government sponsored terrorism on 911. He went immediately back to saying, if you think we should send these type letters and dvds to the troops i think thats wrong. I tried again to say, 'but aside from sending dvds...'
He said he was sorry for his comments, that he apologized, and that he shouldn't have said it and confirmed that he will have Mark Dice on his show Monday. He explained that when he made the comments, he had recently given a speech and just got off the USS Ronald Reagan, he sees the troops and supports their work, and was upset, but that he acted wrong in making his comments. I said that many people are saying there should be criminal charges filed against him for his remarks, and asked him what he thought of that,. He said no comment on that but reiterated that he and Mark had a nice conversation and will discuss it on the show.
I told him I appreciate the time, and asked, can i just address one point, (I was gonna mention the larger issue of govt black ops) and he said it's Saturday night, father's day tomorrow and he has to go,. and added 'and thats the story'.
Then we both said bye and he abruptly hung up."
Whatever the power of the state to control public dissemination of ideas inimical to the public morality, it cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts.
Perhaps recognizing this, Georgia asserts that exposure to obscene materials may lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence. There appears to be little empirical basis for that assertion. [n9] But, more important, if the State is only concerned about printed or filmed materials inducing antisocial conduct, we believe that, in the context of private consumption of ideas and information we should adhere to the view that "[a]mong free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be [p567] applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law. . . ." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 378 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). See Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 938 (1963). Given the present state of knowledge, the State may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit possession of chemistry books on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits.
Now, sure, you could say that to equalize rights for everyone we'd have to eliminate the rich and eliminate the poor and make a huge middle class and be socialists.
« Older "A small statement that says a lot of things to... | I wonder if Sumo Wrestlers... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments