Obama says America is Exceptional because of our ability to help others. Putin thinks exceptionalism, whatever the motivation, is wrong and dangerous. Is America exceptional? If so, why? Today we’ll discuss some of the week’s top stories from the perspective of exceptionalism, with respect to the country as a whole, and in more specific contexts.
Join in on the discussion live, either by phone or in the chatroom!
The show can be accessed here.
To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Finally, if you would like to support the podcast financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.
Mark Levin at the Reagan Library
Support The Undercurrent — and tell them I sent you!
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria
NY Times: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: The United States of America
Noonan: Vladimir Putin Takes Exception
Washington Post: American exceptionalism, explained
California Legislature approves raising minimum wage to $10
Senate Panel OKs Measure Defining a Journalist
15 Journalists Have Joined Obama Administration
Drudge calls Feinstein ‘Fascist’
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor 80% of all credit card transactions!
WSJ: Poll finds Republicans Gain Favor on Key Issues
Second City Mocks Liberals Supporting War: ‘Americans for Whatever Barack Obama Wants’
5 responses to “Enemies of Exceptionalism & More, Today at 12 p.m. PT (3 p.m. ET)”
This is what integrity and courage look like.
Thank you, Amy and Bosch for another thought provoking, pro-American show.
I was happy to hear you bring up the issue of the Senate panel attempting to define journalism. I do hope that this important topic does resurface in your upcoming podcasts.
I question the very legitimacy of the government to force an individual – journalist or not – to disclose the identity of a source of information with whom the individual agreed to confidentiality. I am no legal expert, but It is my understanding that someone can be held in contempt of court or possibly be charged with obstruction of justice by refusing to disclose whatever information the government deems critical to a case or to national security.
Is this right? Whose individual rights are being violated by a witness in keeping with his or her confidentiality agreement?
Something else that seems to be part of this piece of legislation is a provision that would empower a judge to decide whether any new form of “journalist” not covered in the Senate panel’s definition actually qualifies for the protection.
If I understand that correctly, that provision equates not to a government of law but to a government of men and thus a subjective government; a government that is free to change with the arbitrary tides of whim. This leaves the citizens to guess and try to read the mind of which ever judge is subjectively making the decision to know what the criteria for qualification are. This is not what our forefathers intended. This is not consistent with the Constitution. This is not American.
I know I’m a few days late to respond to this, and I would truly like to listen and participate live. However, I am currently deployed to a time zone that is seven hours ahead of the U.S. east coast. I was logged into the chat room as “independence1776” a couple of weeks ago when you had Yaron Brook on, but unfortunately I was unable to stay awake toward the end of the first hour.
I look forward to your show every week. Keep up the great work!
Jonathan, thanks for listening and for commenting. Sorry we didn’t take up the Senate trying to define “journalist” again this week, but I’ve been obsessed with the fight to defund Obamacare, which is the only thing going on in politics right now that gives anyone a shred of hope!
You’re right that asking a judge to define a journalist based on the content turned out by the organization he works for completely violates the idea of free speech and turns our government ever more into a government of men, not laws. As I was trying to say in the show, confidentiality agreements should be protected so long as someone is not shielding evidence of a crime, or is not committing treason by, e.g., giving away the location and plans of our military, and thereby putting them in harm’s way.
Thanks for replying. I agree on every point. Keep up the fight to defund Obamacare! I look forward to revisiting the topic of free speech and confidentiality agreements when the time is appropriate.
I thought I’d also share this with you as it fits with your theme of American exceptionalism.