Joe Biden 1974: ‘Politicians Can Take Away’ First Amendment ‘If We Want’

Is there an old saying that goes something like: “Once a creep, always a creep?” Well if not, there ought to be.

AP Photo

From Breitbart News by Haris Alic

Former Vice President Joe Biden told a journalist in 1974 that “cruddy politicians” like himself could “take away” the First Amendment if they wanted.

The current 2020 Democrat frontrunner made the comments to Washingtonian magazine while being interviewed for a profile published in June 1974. Biden, then only 31-years-old, came to regret the interview, as his penchant for gaffes and insensitive remarks—traits defining later portions of his career—heavily colored the piece. At the time, however, Biden appeared eager to discuss his life as the nation’s youngest senator.

“I am proud to be a politician,” Biden told then-Washingtonian writer Kitty Kelley, who authored the profile. “There is no other walk of life which can do more good for mankind than politics. It influences everything that happens to the American people.”

Biden proceeded, according to Kelley, to lean “over his desk to shake his finger at me” while explaining elected officials like himself had the power to “take away” constitutionally protected rights if they saw fit.

“And, whether you like it or not, young lady,” he said. “Us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.”

Biden’s remarks to Washingtonian mirror those he made in an address to the City Club of Cleveland, Ohio in May 1973. Although that speech initially drew notice for comments Biden made likely to be offensive to women and his use of racially insensitive language —notably when he lectured about what “was good for the Negro,”– it also provided insight into his views on power and politics.

“We spend a lot of time talking about the United States being a melting pot, well that’s true, but quite frankly I think it’s overrated,” Biden told the City Club. “We’ve been able to move forward because of politics. In my opinion, politics need not necessarily be a dirty word.”

Biden expressed that despite the conventional feeling politics was “dirty,” politicians like him do more good for society than doctors or lawyers or “Indian chiefs.”

“Politics should be the most honorable of professions,” he said. “Those of you who are doctors and lawyers and Indian chiefs in the audience, how can any of you possibly do as much good, if you are very good at what you do, as I can do if I am very good at what I can do?”

‘You can’t,” Biden added. “So the point is, this is where the action is.”

At other points in the speech, Biden declared that politicians were just “as moral,” if not more so, than doctors. He also admitted to taking “great offense” at what he saw as the public’s “perilous” attempt to label anyone in elective office a “thief” or a “crook.” Read the rest HERE.

 

Pollak: The Attack on Alex Jones Is An Attack on Free Speech

We YOU need your help. This is a frontal assault on our YOUR free speech.

InfoWars/YouTube, Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty, Justin Sullivan/Getty

by Joel B. Pollak:

Internet provocateur and InfoWars proprietor Alex Jones is being systematically excluded from social media platforms. This is, plainly, an attack on free speech.

Over the weekend, Facebook removed several Alex Jones-related pages, and Apple deleted many of his podcasts. On Monday, YouTube followed suit by deleting his video channel. Pinterest closed its InfoWars page. Twitter may soon do the same.

The timing is no coincidence: all of these outlets are responding to a campaign by left-wing activists who are determined to shut down conservative voices — including Breitbart.

It is a shameful effort — which is why some of those responsible for the boycotts have tried to maintain their anonymity.

Today, they are circulating “copy/paste” talking points that argue they are not abusing freedom of speech or the press by pushing companies to ban Jones, because “free speech protects you from your government.” Jones is being censored by private companies, not the government. He has no right, after all, to force anyone to carry his content.

It is true that the First Amendment is not implicated by private censorship, but free speech certainly is damaged by it.

From the point of view of the person being silenced, it makes absolutely no difference whether the censor is a policeman or a mob. And freedom of speech is a social value, a characteristic of an open and democratic society that has exists quite independently of the government. It is — or ought to be — sustained by civil society, even and especially when the views expressed are objectionable. Read the rest of this article HERE.

Related article: ‘We the People Should Decide Whether’ Google, Facebook Can Censor.

 

The Swamp Just Bounced Trump Into A European-Style Assault on Free Speech

Photo by Creative Creative Touch Imaging Ltd./NurPhoto via Getty Images

by Raheem Kassam

Many Americans don’t seem to appreciate as much as outside admirers do, that the United States is the only country in the world with a commitment to free speech enshrined in the nation’s Constitution. Many nations do not even have codified constitution of which to speak.

Which is why it is almost more egregious to the outsider than the American that such protections are under assault, not just on the streets of Berkeley or Charlottesville, but in your legislature — and soon in your Oval Office.

This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed President Trump would “absolutely” be signing a resolution drafted by Republican and Democrat lawmakers “condemning” hatred.

“He and [Senator Tim Scott] talked about that and discussed that and agreed that that was the appropriate place to be,” Sanders said. “In terms of whether or not he’ll sign the joint resolution, absolutely, and he looks forward to doing so as soon as he receives it.”

But the resolution is manifestly a ruse — the first line of attack in a new wave of assaults against free speech in America.

Let’s examine what the motion, passed by both legislative chambers early this week, says. Read the rest of the article here

The preamble, in addition to expressing “support for the Charlottesville community,” demands of the President that he rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups” and urges him and his cabinet to “use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups”.

From the outset this is disingenuous and troublesome.

The President has already disavowed these groups, including Neo Nazis and the KKK. Why are elected members, alongside the White House, wasting time virtue signaling over it?

Perhaps because it backs POTUS into a corner, especially when you consider many establishment media organizations call his former Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon — who has mocked and derided ethno-nationalists — a “white nationalist” or “white supremacist”. This week, ESPN even let one of its hosts off with no more than a slapped wrist for suggesting the President himself was a “white supremacist”.

So by whose definitions are we going? And what exactly does “use all available resources” mean?

The President and his cabinet ostensibly have all resources available to them. The U.S. military, trillions of dollars, three and a half years of power. To what is the President subscribing?

Whatever happened to the old line by Voltaire, “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”, or as it was paraphrased by Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre in Friends of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Personally, I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant for hateful beliefs. Read the rest of this article HERE.

Click the following link to read the resolution “condemning hatred” [and the First Amendment – ADB]”

Stand With Pam

From Newsweek.com with a warm hat tip to Trevor Loudon.

After organizing the contest for Prophet Muhammad cartoons in Garland, Texas, where two men opened fire, the conservative blogger has drawn scorn from both sides of the aisle and made her way to the top of an ISIS hit list. Geller is promising more controversial events like the one in Texas. While many are calling her an Islamophobic provocateur, Geller calls herself a freedom of speech champion.

Few would argue about your right to draw any cartoons you wish, but isn’t it just bad manners? Why insult a religion? Why not make your point in a way that doesn’t offend people?

The point was not to insult a religion. It was not I, but the jihadis, who made Muhammad cartoons the flashpoint for the defense of the freedom of speech. If they had announced that they were going to kill non-Muslims for not obeying any other element of Shariah law, we would have made our stand on that. They are trying to intimidate free people into submitting to Shariah blasphemy laws by killing over the cartoons, so it was over the cartoons that we had to make a stand.

All cultures have contributed in their own way to making their imprint on America. What, specifically, is wrong with the Islamization of America.

The problem with Islamization in America specifically involves the aspects of Shariah that conflict with principles of human rights and constitutional freedoms. I stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all before the law, and individual rights. I oppose the elements of Shariah that deny the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, non-Muslims, and gays, etc.

Do you attribute the violence in the Muslim community to an extremist faction within the religion? Or do you view this as deeper problem involving the core worldview inherent in Islam?

The Islamic jihadists refer to the texts and teachings of Islam—the Koran and the example of Muhammad—to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Those Muslims who reject that understanding of Islam are not doing anything to combat it. There is, for example, not a single program in any mosque or Islamic school in the U.S. to teach young Muslims to reject the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam. With the Islamic State [ISIS] energetically recruiting young Muslims in the U.S., that is a significant omission.

Since you have been calling out Muslim extremists for violence and intolerance for years, what, if anything, surprised you about the violent reaction to the contest? Or was it expected?

I have been working in defense of freedom since 9/11. I always have security because I understand the threat. This art exhibit was no exception. I was aware that something could happen (something can always happen)—that’s why we spent tens of thousands of dollars on security. People say I was hoping for an attack or trying to provoke one—that’s a repulsive libel. I was standing for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation. In doing so, I knew the risks and took them into account, and our security measures worked: The jihadis were prevented from entering the event and committing mass murder.

Does anyone think that these two jihadists would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn’t held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed. The FBI can now go after the sources. They are gleaning intel from their computers as we speak. We smoked out a terror structure. This was a watershed.

ISIS has made a clear terrorist threat against your life. What kind of support, or protection, have you received from the federal government? What kind of contact have you had? Are your children protected?

I have no comment on security issues, for obvious reasons.

Could you elaborate on the nature of the death threats you have received from ISIS? Were there others that the public doesn’t know about? If possible, please go into depth and be specific.

I have received many death threats over the years. Some have been made public, and some haven’t. The Islamic State threat is a matter of particular concern because they have made clear their intention to strike in the U.S. and have shown that many Muslims in the U.S. are anxious to heed their call.

If ISIS manages to make good on the threat against your life, will it have been worth it?

Is freedom worth fighting for, worth dying for? I love life, it’s why I do what I do. I do not want to die. But I am not willing to live as a slave. I have fought for freedom for well over a decade now and will continue to do so to my dying breath, with no regrets. There is no other option. Silence is far scarier.

What is next for Pamela Geller? Specifically, do you foresee yourself engaging in future contests or activities to draw cartoons of the prophet?

We have been holding events like this for years. I think that more events like the one in Garland have to be staged, or the jihadis will get the message (again) that terrorism works, violent intimidation works, threats work.

If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Shariah enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again.

Everyone seems so eager to surrender. I never will.

Judge Jeanine: Stop Blaming the Victims

On Saturday’s open monologue, Judge Jeanine once again staood up for the First Amendment and against political correctness; a partial transcript:

“… Was anyone drawing a cartoon of Mohammed when they hit us at the World Trade Center?  They hate us; they don’t need a reason to kill us. Look, we need to stop blaming the victim and start killing the murderers. A simple example: You don’t protect the batterer or the abuser by telling the victim don’t get ’em upset, don’t provoke him and you’ll be alright. Since when are we willing to surrender our Constitution to keep peace with those hell bent on killing us anyway. The United States needs to stop wimping around and worrying about talk and start walking the walk – political correctness be damned. We are at war it’s never been more clear on one side free speech, on the other, the Sharia blasphemy law…”

Pamela Geller Battles CNN Host Over Garland, Texas Shooting

Pamela Geller, executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative sparred with CNN host Alisyn Camerota the morning after two Islamic terrorists were shot dead by a local policeman in a foiled mass murder attack outside the Draw Muhammad cartoon event, in Garland Texas. Although the purpose of the event was to stand up for free speech and our First Amendment rights, many in the media attacked Ms. Geller and the event itself accusing her of inciting violence against Muslims.

In this clip, which covers about the last quarter of the interview, Geller explains that speech, no matter how offensive it may be to some, is no excuse for violence, and that the fear of violence has lead to political correctness and intimidation.