Introductions are decadent and weaken our national resolve; anyway, Ben Shapiro's latest column awaits:

Sen. John McCain is no conservative. He opposed the Bush tax cuts. He sponsored the greatest lasting crackdown on political speech in American history with campaign finance reform. He allies himself with radical environmentalists. He's an open-borders advocate on immigration. He voted against the constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. He cobbled together the Senate's Gang of 14, which stifled the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench. His pro-life rhetoric is lukewarm at best.

Much of this is true. But what of this "greatest lasting crackdwon on political speech in American history"? Shapiro refers here to McCain-Feingold, which, among other things, limited the degree to which certain organizations can run ads in support of a candidate, and which Shapiro and many other conservatives consider to be an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech. They may be right; but can such a thing truly be deemed the "greatest lasting crackdown on political speech in American history?" Perhaps more importantly, is that really why Shapiro opposes it? Of course, I'm being all rhetorical here.

The Sedition Act of 1918 provided for fines and jail time for those who engage in

disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein

... which, taken together, constitutes such a blatantly blatant violation of the First Amendment that the sheer blatantness of its blatantness is so blatant as to render all other acts of blatantless blatantly blatant to the max, yo. 

Comrade Shapiro is hardly ignorant of this law; he has, in fact, praised it on at least one occasion in the course of calling not only for the prosecution of those of his fellow American citizens who speak out against U.S. foreign policy while the nation is engaged in a military conflict, but even for those of his fellow American citizens who speak out U.S. foreign policy when the possibility exists that the nation will become engaged in a military conflict at some point in the near future. If any such legislation is ever enacted, I would suggest calling it the Wars and Rumours of Wars Act, but then no one listens to me. At any rate, Shapiro's proposal will certainly save our Republic a lot of time and effort. And if he manages to implement a grandfather clause, we can prosecute that large portion of the Republican legislature and affiliated punditry which openly opposed the Kosovo conflict back in the '90s, although I'm not sure whether or not Shapiro has thought that far ahead, or, rather, that far backwards, or at all.