Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Freedom, History, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Freedom of Speech, The Bill of Rights, The Temptation towards Tyranny
The Democrats attempt to rewrite the Constitution and amend the First Amendment to curtail the rights of Americans to free political speech has died in the Senate. It needed 60 votes to advance. Free political speech is the very essence of liberty, and the envy of the world.
Fifty-four Senate Democrats actually voted to give Congress the power to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” Think through what that would mean.
Some, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) said the amendment would allow Democrats to enact more of their preferred legislation. Exactly. Democrats want to be completely in charge, without any interference from those pesky Republicans. They just want Republicans gone — so they can rule.
This bunch rejects 223 years of liberty and political freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights since it was ratified in 1791 — because they want their own way. No arguments. No questioning our policies. No criticism. No unpleasant speech. Can they win elections without cheating?
Somebody remarked that there used to be a “Sandinista wing” of the Democrat Party. Not anymore, it’s entirely Sandinista now.
Filed under: Freedom, Law, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Statism | Tags: As Long As It's Nice Speech, Freedom of Speech, You Must Not Offend
—Jeff Olson is a 40-year-old man who was being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on the sidewalk in water-soluble chalk faced a 13 year sentence. A judge had barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during the trial. The San Diego Reader reported that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from”mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial.”
Olson faced 13 counts of vandalism. In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson would also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left in washable children’s chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the federal government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent in the financial crisis.
Olson was a former staffer for a Washington State senator, and involved himself in political activism inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest regarding debit card fees. He scribbled slogans such as “Stop Big Banks” and “Stop Bank Blight.com.” One Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the washable chalk.
Darrell Freeman, Vice President of Bank of America’s Global Corporate Security, and a former police officer, decided to take Olson and his friend on. He threatened them with “running a business outside of the bank,”and when that didn’t work pressured members of San Diego’s Gang Unit on behalf of Bank of America, until the matter was forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office.
Olson did not deny that he scrawled anti-bank messages and artwork outside the banks last year, such as “No thanks, big banks” and Shame on Bank of America.”
His attorney argued that vandalism law required jurors to find something was “maliciously defaced.” He added, “His purpose was not malicious. His purpose was to inform.
The mayor condemned the City Attorney’s Office, calling it a waste of time. Defense attorney Tom Tosdal said it was an “enormous waste of public resources.” He said bank officials demanded the prosecution because they didn’t like his client’s message. The jury agreed and acquitted Olson.
The judge forbade any mention of freedom of speech or the First Amendment? Wow.
—In West Virginia, a 14-year-old student wore a National Rifle Association tee shirt to school. Uh Oh! His teacher demanded that he remove it, and he refused. Jared Marcum, 14, was charged with obstruction following the April 18 incident after police were called to Logan Middle School. Police said he wouldn’t stop talking. After he was charged, Marcum faced up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.
Ben White, the Marcum family attorney, claimed the demand that he remove the NRA shirt violated his right to freedom of speech. Logan County Circuit Court Judge Eric O’Briant signed an order dismissing the charge.
After Marcum was arrested, students throughout Logan County wore similar NRA shirts in a show of solidarity. Prosecutors sought to have a gag order imposed on Marcum and his family. After reviewing statements from the arresting officer and the school principal, White said he and a prosecutor agreed that creating a criminal record for the 14-year-old boy was not a good idea. Annoying a prosecutor is apparently not a good idea.
—The BBC headline ran “U.S. Bloggers Banned From Entering the UK.” “Bloggers” Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were denied entry to the country that gave the world the Magna Charta. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are both prominent critics of Islamism — the strand of militant Islam that attempts to spread the intolerant ideology of Islam throughout the West through the imposition of sharia.
What Geller and Spencer do is speak. They give lectures, they write books. They were traveling to Britain to participate in a commemorative ceremony for Drummer Lee Rigby, the young soldier who was returning to his barracks when two Muslims ran him down with a car, then stabbed and hacked him to death with knives and a cleaver. Rigby had to be identified with dental records.
Geller and Spencer speak about the intolerance of Islam and the requirements of sharia. A government spokesman said individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” may be denied entry by the Home Secretary. He explained: “We condemn all those whose behaviors and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.” We’re trying to be very tolerant, don’t be disagreeing with us or disturbing our fantasies.
Another few incidents in today’s world where freedom of speech means being very, very careful what you say. How did we get here?
Filed under: Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Freedom of Speech, The First Amendment
“I was expelled from Syracuse University for comments that I posted on Facebook.”
Syracuse University School of Education graduate student Matthew Werenczak was just trying to finish his masters degree early when he decided to take a summer course that involved tutoring at a local middle school. But after a comment he posted on Facebook about an experience he had at the school caught the attention of the Syracuse administration, Werenczak would be lucky if he graduated at all.
On the first day of Werenczak’s tutoring program at Danforth Middle School, he and another Syracuse student were introduced to their students by a member of the Concerned Citizens Action Program (CCAP). They happened to be the only two white people in the room. Shortly after the introduction, in the presence of Werenczak and the other white student teacher, the CCAP member, who is black, said that he thought that the city schools should hire more teachers from historically black colleges.
“This [comment] offended me, as well as the other student teacher in the room,” says Werenczak in FIRE’s latest video. “It just seemed inappropriate considering that the two student teachers happened to be from Syracuse and a not a historically black college.”
So Werenczak took to Facebook to write about the incident.
“Just making sure we’re okay with racism,” wrote Werenczak. “It’s not enough I’m … tutoring in the worst school in the city, I suppose I oughta be black or stay in my own side of town.”
“I was kind of trying to see if my friends or other peers, classmates would have a similar reaction to what I had,” says Werenczak about the reason for his posting the comment.
One reaction Werenczak didn’t see coming was an expulsion from the School of Education for the Facebook comments, which the school described as “unprofessional, offensive, and insensitive.” The school told Werenczak he could avoid expulsion by voluntarily withdrawing, or he could fulfill several requirements in order to gain a chance of “re-admittance.”
When Werenczak fulfilled the requirements and was still not readmitted to the school, he contacted FIRE for help.
“Hours after FIRE took the case public, Syracuse University backed down and I was brought back [into the program] and later graduated.”
Why is it always the educators in our universities that don’ t grasp freedom of speech. Our colleges and universities are hotbeds of attempting to censor speech that they don’t like. Thank goodness for FIRE.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Islam, Middle East, National Security, The United States | Tags: Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Complete Security Lapse, Freedom of Speech
Benghazi is the worst scandal in memory, and the compliant media — the PR arm of the Obama campaign — is ready to brush it aside as if it were “just a bump in the road.” the president’s own callous designation for four murdered Americans. The administration story clearly departed from what was known and when it was known. Brett Baier has compiled a timeline of events.
It has been confusing, as the administration tried valiantly to insist that it was a spontaneous mob reaction to a 14 minute YouTube video critical of Islam that apparently no one had seen, which resulted in mob violence and attacks on embassies in 20 countries. The administration knew within 24 hours of the 9/11 attack that it was a planned attack by terrorists. Secretary of State Clinton announced on the 13th that she found the anti-Muslim movie trailer that sparked violent attacks on American embassies across the Middle east “disgusting and reprehensible.” President Obama said there were going to be “a few bumps in the road,” and headed off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
Nakoula Basili Nakoula who made the You Tube video was ‘coincidentally’ picked up on the 13th for questioning about a probation violation of using a computer. He was judged a “flight risk” and sentenced to solitary confinement for at least a couple of weeks.
To push the video story on September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was dispatched to the Sunday shows, where she obediently, 5 days after the attack said it was a spontaneous uprising in reaction to the video
“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
That wasn’t true either. The “consulate” was an unsecured building, the Libyan security ran away, and the two former SEALS were not there to protect the ambassador or the facility, but lost their lives when they stepped forward to try to help.
So a week after the attack Obama and his administration were still trying to push the video story. Or to rephrase it — they have been deliberately lying to the American public. And eventually they gave up that story and started lying about lying about it.
Mr. Obama has had a great deal invested in his brag about killing bin Laden, and decimating the bin Laden terrorist group. After considerable (a year) hesitation, he agreed to the raid, which any president would have done. The organization is still alive and well.
For clarification I turned to the DiploMad, a former State Department official who reported from Banda Aceh on the 2004 Indonesian tsunami rescue efforts. He said:
The attack on the US facility in Benghazi is a scandal of–literally–murderous proportions. The lack of concern for even basic security procedures, the mishandling of intelligence information, the willful blindness towards the causes of the attack, and the outrageous and outright lying to cover up the incompetence by Carney, Rice, Clinton, Obama, and now Clapper is breath-taking.
The late Ambassador Stevens, I am sorry to say, has a share of the blame for the failure to use common sense and to behave in a manner that would have protected him and his people. This failure cost him his life and those of three other Americans, and apparently produced a catastrophe for US interests.
I will be criticized for criticizing a murdered Ambassador, but he was the man in charge. His greatest apparent shortcoming, and I would gladly retract this and apologize if the evidence points elsewhere, was allowing that facility, which apparently played a key role in our intel efforts in the region, to operate with nothing that approximated even basic security standards. In addition, he drew attention to the facility by announcing that he would go to Benghazi, and that he would inaugurate an “American Corner” there. He did this although, apparently, he had concerns about the security of the facility in Benghazi, as well as his own safety,
Read the whole thing. It strikes me as straightforward common sense from someone who knows the ropes.
This is a cover-up, a deliberate attempt to hide the truth by an administration that claimed it wanted to be the most transparent in history. It involves the murder of four Americans, one our ambassador, and involves our national security. The attack on the Benghazi safe-house indicates that it was well known to the terrorists, and more than 15 days later the FBI has not been to Benghazi to secure the premises. What documents were taken is still unknown. Why was there an unsecured ‘consulate’ in the first place. We’ve learned that the Administration actually deleted damning State Department memos from the Internet, in which State expressed the view that it had “no credible information to suggest that al-Qaeda or any terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11.”
Congressional Democrats have actually demanded some detailed information. Obama is still out on the campaign trail. Appearances on Letterman, and shamefully on the View were fine, but the President was too busy to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This seems to be just another occasion where Obama’s self-concern is larger than the national interest. It is still all about him.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, Statism, The United States | Tags: Citizens United Decision, Freedom of Speech, U.S.Supreme Court
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.
Democrats do not like disagreement, so the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision which knocked down curbs on companies’ political donations that fuel political free speech, is something they really hate. During the Supreme Court’s hearing, an Obama-appointed lawyer said the law could be used to ban political movies or books. The court’s five to four decision brought howls of protest from Democrats, who get a larger proportion of their donations from unions and professionals, but not so much from corporations
Corporations still cannot donate directly to candidates, but they can donate to political action committees (PACs).
Attempting to distract attention from the Republican convention where multitudes of speakers were disagreeing with his policies, President Barack Obama tried to regain the limelight with a call for a constitutional amendment to amend the free-speech rights of wealthy people and corporations. Thy hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Democrats excoriate the Libertarian Koch brothers who head Koch Industries, yet make no mention of George Soros and the Democracy Alliance, and welcome the funds public sector unions extract from their membership.
“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United. … Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change,” Obama said during 4:30 p.m. EST online event.
The publicity-grabbing gambit complements his campaign-theme portrayal of himself as the defender of middle-class Americans, and Gov. Mitt Romney as the champion of wealthy, job-exporting plutocrats.
Those “super PACs “fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voice of ordinary citizens,” he claimed, as many of his 2008 Wall Street Donors are supporting Mitt Romney.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Freedom, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Freedom of Speech, Important Readings, Respect for the Rule of Law
Three must read articles for a Monday.
— Victor Davis Hanson, one of clearest and most thoughtful observers of current affairs looks at the increasing national security scandals coming out of the ineptitude of the Obama administration. He compares their significance to scandals from other administrations fairly and cogently. It’s not a pretty picture.
— Senator Mitch McConnell, GOP Minority Leader, addressed the Heritage Foundation with a speech about how the Obama administration is pursuing restrictions on political speech, by every means possible, including bypassing Congress and the federal judiciary. Democrats don’t like to be disagreed with, and they want to stamp out the right to disagree. Conservatives understand that debate is an essential part of the American polity. Liberals want to shut you up by whatever means possible. The speech is here. Long, but worth it.
— Douglas Ross, excellence in blogging, looks at ten things that a President Romney can do, by following the example of what the current president has accomplished with the approval of the Media in rescinding laws by executive order. Indifference to the rule of law can have unintended consequences too. This is tongue-in-cheek, but points out the real problems with the president’s actions.
Filed under: Education, Freedom, Humor | Tags: Affirmative action, Freedom of Speech, Redistribution of Income
The intellectual climate of the nation today came from the public schools, where almost every one of us was schooled in the work of the mind. We are a people who imagine that we are weighing important issues when we exchange generalizations and well-known opinions. We decide how to vote or what to buy according to whim or fancied self-interest, either of which is easily engendered in us by the manipulation of language, which we have neither the will nor the ability to analyze. We believe that we can reach conclusions without having the faintest idea of the difference between inferences and statements of fact, often without any suspicion that there are such things and that they are different. We are easily persuaded and repersuaded by what seems authoritative, without any notion of those attributes and abilities that characterize authority. We do not notice elementary fallacies in logic, it doesn’t even occur to us to look for them: few of us are even aware that such things exist. We make no regular distinction between those kinds of things that can be known and objectively verified and those that can only be believed or not. Nor are we likely to examine, when we believe or not, the induced predispositions that may make us do the one or the other. We are easy prey.
Richard Mitchell: The Graves of Academe
Also, affirmative action had a disastrous effect. We created two universities during affirmative action. We had a super-elite university of people who were admitted on the most competitive criteria in the history of the university, but then we had this other university of people who could not have been admitted on those criteria, and who had to have special courses and special departments set up for them.
Now affirmative action meant two completely different things. When it first started out the definition was that we were going to take affirmative actions to see that people who would never have tried to get into the university before would be encouraged and trained so that they could get admission. I was all for that —that we were going to get people into the competition. What happened though, and this was the catastrophic effect, is that race and ethnicity became criteria, not for encouraging people to enter the competition, but for judging the competition.
John R. Searle, Professor of Philosophy, Berkeley
We are telling students what to think, not teaching them how to think. Without teaching them how to draw meaning, significance and wisdom from those facts, we are teaching mindlessness. Teaching kids how to think means teaching them how to weigh and consider ideas, see implications, follow an argument to a logical conclusion, integrate knowledge, and apply creative and critical thinking to solve problems and make decisions.
Vincent Ryan Ruggerio: Warning: Nonsense is Destroying America