It might be a good time to look at the First Amendment to the Constitution again. What does it say? Why is it there? What ever made us think we needed this amendment anyway?

The First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When the Constitution was written in 1787, the delegates to the convention believed that the concept of the document included the right of citizens to engage in debate over issues. Such debate had enabled and empowered the Revolution and it continued to be important to citizens of all the states in the new country. However, as the proposed Constitution circulated among the states for ratification, many states expressed deep apprehension over the absence of specific protection for speech. There was such a ground swell of concern over this issue and several others that ratification of the Constitution was only achieved by virtue of an agreement that the first Congress would quickly provide protection for speech as part of a group of amendments popularly referred to as the Bill of Rights. Wise leaders rightly discerned that rights not specifically protected might well disappear in the muddle of history. The First Amendment provided that Congress could not pass any law abridging freedom of speech.

Currently, one of the most visible expressions of our right to free speech is talk radio. Around the country, AM radio stations offer many opportunities for people to talk about all sorts of things. The writers of the Constitution would be proud if they could see this phenomenon in action. Benjamin Franklin fervently advocated for mail service in this nation in order to achieve precisely what talk radio does so well. Franklin wanted the citizens to be able to talk with each other about their concerns and to communicate with the various officials and representatives they had elected to their government. He would have been ecstatic if he even imagined that one day private citizens would have the opportunity to speak to huge audiences using the power of talk radio.

I hear that there are people in Congress who don’t like talk radio. They think that people might have too much freedom of speech unless someone “reins in” talk radio. We must not let Congress institute restrictions on our freedom of speech by making rules for talk radio. As it exists today, talk radio owes nothing to anybody. No political force runs it, no political force limits it. We, the people, talk about everything, and sometimes we even talk about Congress. We need that freedom, and it is our Constitutional right. We, the people, must tell Congress to forget writing any laws that restrict our right to free speech. Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and George Washington are watching. We must stand strong and tell Congress our message: Don’t even think of trying to restrict our freedom of speech.

   Conservatives are seriously in need of a voice and a leader in today’s election. The Republican candidate for president, which should be the conservative leader, is a better liberal than either prospective Democrat candidate. I know this to be true, because my best liberal friend has said that she loves McCain. It isn’t just my opinion that he is committed to a liberal agenda; liberals see the same thing. I know that I will vote for McCain because he is the Republican candidate. I could not possibly vote for either of the Democrats still in the running. McCain is my only choice I will vote for him with serious reservations. My politically liberal friend will vote for him enthusiastically.

   What are the principles I seek in a conservative candidate? I look for a commitment to the US Constitution, and very particularly, I look for a commitment to the principle that the federal government is entitled only to powers listed in the Constitution; it is not entitled to claim and exercise other powers for any reason. I look for commitment to low taxes, because that is the natural expression of a commitment to limited powers. Finally, I look for a commitment to free enterprise. The economic engine of our prosperity is free people risking their own fortunes on the possibility that they can provide products and services other people want.

   I also look for a well-educated candidate, and I consider an education in the scientific method to be critical. The scientific method is a discipline scientists use as they look for the answers to questions in the physical and biological realms. It is the method that must be applied to studies, models, and hypotheses used to describe the climate of the earth. A candidate who understands the scientific method will not accept hysteria and political agendas as science.

   I test this concept by looking at a candidate’s statements about climate change. Al Gore and an assortment of green environmentalists are pushing a political agenda based on some weather facts over a period of about 100 years of weather records. They allege that they can assert the following:

   ·        The earth’s climate is warming, and the rate of warming is increasing

   ·        The warming can be precisely attributed to human activity which increases the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

   ·        Humans can slow or perhaps reverse the warming by reducing the levels of CO2 they put in the atmosphere

   ·        CO2 levels can be managed effectively by buying and selling carbon credits.

   So this is my first dive into political blogging. I welcome any comments, disagreements, complaint, and even compliments if you feel so inclined.