Bloodthirsty Liberal

The Usual Suspects line up on opposite sides of free speech:

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court abruptly called a halt to encroachments on political speech in the name of campaign finance reform. It ruled that spending limits imposed on corporations and unions infringed on constitutional rights, ending decades of attempts to limit advertising on their behalf. It also overturned McCain-Feingold provisions barring some kinds of advertising in the weeks before an election.

…

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

…

No great shock to see Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy on one side with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor on the other.

But Clarence Thomas dissented from one part of the ruling:

Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nly
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recog­nized in California.” Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions.

Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this informa­tion and created Web sites with maps showing the loca­tions of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other sup­porter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.”

Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the meas­ure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposi­tion 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.

Those accounts are consistent with media reports de­scribing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festi­val was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because oppo­nents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. And a woman who had managed her popular, fam­ily-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protest­ers” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.”

The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Some sup­porters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.”

He concludes:

The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be consider­ing giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.”

These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.

First of all, can we now set aside the racist notion that Justice Thomas didn’t know how to write?

He’s put his finger on the problem. We should call for transparency in all political transactions, but what about the people—the Left, invariably—who take advantage of and abuse that transparency?

I know people who didn’t want to be seen (literally seen) working for Brown, and who wouldn’t give money because they didn’t want their names showing up on his donor list. And it wasn’t for fear of ostracism, I can assure you—these people are open with their friends about their beliefs. Maybe Scott Brown’s campaign didn’t bring out the street thugs on the Left (then again, maybe it did), but something, sometime, will.

How can you have a gentleman’s agreement to respect Free speech and privacy when some members of the other side are the furthest thing from gentlemen?

It’s not what you might think it is, but when you read this, I ask you to cite any statement more disgraceful, any initiative more insulting to the history of this country:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

…

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt.”

If you’re not already throwing up in your mouth, you should be. The United States making joint human rights policy with Egypt? E-freakin’-gypt???

What common policy do we share with Egypt? I hope you’re sitting down. Soon, you’ll be lying down:

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

…

The idea of protecting the human rights “of religions” instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.

Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution’s adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that “human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions.” The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that “the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media” goes “well beyond” existing international law and “the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms.”

The European Union is the rear guard of inalienable rights? An American president has sold the First Amendment down the river?

I need to draw on Sir Alec Guiness again: Dear God, what have we done?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

But it doesn’t say anything about “Chief Diversity Officers”!

The far Left Center for American Progress has its tentacles everywhere.

…

At Newsbusters, Seton Motley reports on the new FCC “Diversity Officer” — a racial engineering czar who has been targeting conservative talk radio since his days working for CAP.

…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”

Oh dang, who was it who said…

Yea[h], [the American people] get confused sometimes. They watch the wrong t.v. shows. They listen to the wrong radio talk show hosts.”

Whoever said that is a very happy man today. If someone remembers who it was, can you pass the good news on to him? Maybe he’s at flag@whitehouse.gov; just cut and paste the link to this post.

I always like to give people good news.

We learned of the triumph of democracy in Gaza the other day, when Hamass announced it had won an election held in secret, and even the winners of which were kept secret.

With such “democracy” running amok in Gaza, can it be a surprise to learn that “civil liberties” are following suit?

Several NGOs, including radio stations, are facing closure after the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip decided to impose high fees and new conditions for renewing their licenses.

Human rights organizations in the Gaza Strip on Sunday sent a letter of protest to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urging him to cancel the new measures.

Last week the Hamas-controlled Communications Ministry sent letters to the owners of radio stations in the Gaza Strip asking them to pay nearly 10,000 Jordanian dinars (about $14,000) as an annual fee for licenses.

In addition, the Hamas government has asked dozens of non-profit institutions to make public statements about the sources of their funding and the financial status of their employees. These institutions have also been asked to pay new taxes to the Hamas government.

The measures are seen by human rights activists in Gaza as an attempt to take control over the international organizations and maintain a tight grip over the local media.

I am really ticked off by this. I mean, major-league outraged. They’re giving President Obama more ideas!

Let Europe or left-wing crackpots have Hamass if they love them so much. If it weren’t for Israel, the left would recognize Hamass for the neo-fascist organization that it is. If you allow that premise, then it is only the existence of Israel that entices people to engage with Hamass.

I was thumbing through my worn copy of Bernard Lewis’s Crisis of Islam, and I was struck—again—by this passage from the afterward (found online in an likely place):

The kind of dictatorship that exists in the Middle East today has to no small extent been the result of modernization, more specifically of European influence and example. This included the only European political model that really worked in the Middle East — that of the one- party state, either in the Nazi or the communist version, which did not differ greatly from one another. In these systems, the party is not, as in the West, an organization for attracting votes and winning elections. It is part of the apparatus of government, particularly concerned with indoctrination and enforcement. The Baath Party has a double ancestry, both fascist and communist, and still represents both trends very well.

So, the Europeans are intrigued with Hamass not only because it is anti-Israel, but because it reminds them of their own fascist/communist pasts (”which did not differ greatly from one another”).

I stand corrected.

Thou shalt not say anything derogatory about Islam, Allah, Mohammed, Muhammed, Muhammad (watch it…), Mecca, head-chopping (you’ve been warned), halal, hijabs, mosques, minarets, the Koran, toilets (what’s that supposed to mean?), marriages, more marriages (now wait just a—), even more marriages, honor killings (wha— you!), marriages to six year-old nieces (That does it! WHISTLE)

The U.N.’s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism.

Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat “defamation of religion.” Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution was proposed by Pakistan. Muslim countries have cited the inflammatory effect of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

Critics say the resolution, while not binding, will have a chilling effect on free speech and may worsen relations between faiths.

I can sure imagine some Egyptian clerics (hell, all Egyptian clerics) who won’t be happy with this ruling. No longer will they be able to say all those slanderous, hateful, genocidal, deranged things about Jews without the UN’s human rights body (stinking and rotting as it is) leaping to its leprous feet to object.

Chilling indeed.

Some people just don’t get it:

A Cedar Rapids group will do a symbolic tea dumping into the Cedar River on Saturday because state officials won’t let them use the real thing.

An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.

Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that can’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNR’s Manchester field office.

“Discoloration is considered a violation,” Wade said.

It’s an act of civil disobedience, you nincompoop, it’s supposed to be a violation. But if it will make you happy, maybe they can dump green tea. The fish will live longer, and it’s a nice color.

How fitting that an act of protest against government overreaching is curtailed by government overreaching.

George III is laughing his tail off.

Some CNBC correspondent engages in a good old-fashioned populist rant against Obamanomics—echoing the sentiments of more than a few economists and financial industry types—and Robert “Hoot” Gibbs tells him to watch what he says:

“I also think it’s tremendously important that for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what it is they’re talking about,” he said.

Remember the outrage, wrath, and fury that greeted Ari Fleischer when he cautioned people to “watch what they say, watch what they do” barely two weeks after the atrocity of September 11th? We were still burying our dead (or un-burying them from the rubble), people were saying the craziest things, and Fleischer was issuing a “calm down”.

People reacted as if he’d just staged a beer-hall putsch.

Christopher Hitchens helpfully returned to the transcript a few years ago to relive those fateful days:

Shortly after the assault of Sept. 11, a buffoonish Republican congressman from Louisiana named John Cooksey—incredibly enough, a member of the Committee on International Relations—had made the following contribution to the debate on ethnic profiling:

If I see someone come in and he’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked.

…

Ari Fleischer was duly asked about the congressman at the briefing on Sept. 26 and responded as follows:

Q: Has the President had any communication with Representative Cooksey regarding his comments on Sikh Americans? And does he have a message for the lawmakers and members of his party in particular about this issue?

A: The President’s message is to all Americans. It’s important for all Americans to remember the traditions of our country that make us so strong and so free, our tolerance and openness and acceptance. All Americans—and we come from a very rich cultural heritage, no matter what anybody’s background in this country. And that’s the strength of this country, and that’s the President’s message that he expressed in his speech to Congress and as he has done when he visited the mosque a week ago Monday, and in the meetings that he’s hosting here at the White House today with Muslim Americans and Sikh Americans.

…

Q: As Commander-in-Chief, what was the President’s reaction to television’s Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our armed forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed (sic) are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?

…

A: I’m aware of the press reports about what he’s said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it’s a terrible thing to say, and it’s unfortunate. And that’s why—there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party—they’re reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

I defend Bill Mahar’s right to say what he said, just as he would defend my right to call him a ball-less stooge or an imbecilic hypocrite. Or even a bony-assed, nancy-boy coward. That’s just the kind of guy he is.

But Ground Zero was still smoking. Irresponsible Democrats and Republicans needed to be reminded of who we are as a nation.

For which Fleischer was made out to be the love child of Pol Pot and Augusto Pinochet.

I await the same outrage over Hoot Gibbs’ stifling of dissent. But I ain’t holding my breath.

Hey, half of America (rounding up)!

Bob Herbert says “shut uppa you face”:

What’s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin? Are they so divorced from reality that in their delusionary state they honestly believe we need more of their tax cuts for the rich and their other forms of plutocratic irresponsibility, the very things that got us to this deplorable state?

The G.O.P.’s latest campaign is aimed at undermining President Obama’s effort to cope with the national economic emergency by attacking the spending in his stimulus package and repeating ad nauseam the Republican mantra for ever more tax cuts.

…

When the G.O.P. talks, nobody should listen.

Nobody needs to listen, Bob. The Dems have majorities in both houses and a president in the White House. How can the GOP undermine anything? That’s like saying Rush Limbaugh, a single radio talk-show host, is Public Enemy Number One.

I note that Bob Herbert is a black man. What is it with high-profile African Americans demonizing the White Man? If it makes you feel good, knock yourselves out, I guess.

But this is going to be a lo-o-o-ng four years.

The marketplace of ideas is about to be shut down like a gin mill in a vice raid. Except these cops are scrupulously earnest, full of righteous certainty—the worst kind. Watch yourselves, because you know they’re watching you:

Danny Glover at Eyeblast reveals a nine-year-old NPR interview with Eric Holder regarding how the government needs to regulate Internet communications. The rumored front-runner for Attorney General told NPR that the Columbine killers may have found some of their venom through Internet access, as well as a bomb recipe or two. If the government can regulate pornography, Holder insisted while serving as Deputy AG during the Clinton administration, surely the government can restrict speech in general.

The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.

How can he fix his mouth to speak such heresy? His job, as chief enforcer of the law, is to uphold the Constitution, not defecate on it. This makes the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (ptui!) sound not probable but certain.

Remember all the howling about Bush’s and Cheney’s stifling of dissent, how said dissent was alleged to be the highest form of patriotism? Show me their act or threat that is anywhere near as chilling to free speech as this suggestion is.

You can’t. There isn’t.

One picture is worth a thousand words

If you haven’t been paying attention, the Obama campaign is now threatening critics via prosecutors and law enforcement people in Missouri. The governor is furious. The relevant info is posted in previous posts.

And perhaps people who are concerned with free speech are beginning to fight back:

Well there is more. I’m told that the DOJ will be looking into (most likely referring to the FBI) this as a possible civil rights violation as well as violation of free speech. Specifically St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, could face individual jeopardy for misuse of office.

Actually Governor Blunt himself could order his State Attorney to open an investigation.

Remember it was the democrats that accused President Bush of politicizing the Justice Department and this is far beyond that. Most likely the announcement of the DOJ will come this week.

- Aggie