From Quieting Corporations to Banning Books

President Obama is angry at the Supreme Court for upholding free speech

"the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books"

The Washington Post reminds us that the ACLU fought on the winning side of this decision.  Why?  Maybe it was the specter of government book banning.  Maybe this will convince the angry anti-corporatist liberals that there's more to this than meets the eye...

Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon's Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office.

As David Barry would say, "I am not making this up."
The Court said "no," and the only shocking thing about the decision is that the four liberal justices said "yes."
 
The next time you download a book on Kindle, buy a Michael Moore screed at Barnes & Noble, or order up a political movie from video on demand, remember that it is the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United that guarantees you the right to do so. (WSJ - Bradley A. Smith)

Modern-day legislation is an embarrassing congeries of capricious fiats and clawing usurpations.  The Supreme Court just knocked one down.  

Lady Liberty won this one, but we must remain vigilant.  The progressives' Long March will continue, this time with more louder propaganda!.

Steve Chapman also has good commentary on this

Congress Shall Make No Law... Let Free Speech Ring!

 
Echoes of FDR in Obama's attack on the Supreme Court


Is anyone else besides me worn out listening to this constitutional ignoramus of a president rail against some God-given freedom or another?  

Despite what his slobbering lefty sycophants say, he's not a "constitutional scholar." He merely taught constitutional law at a college for a few years, so we can drop the fancy honorifics, especially in light of his bald constitutional ignorance

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Unlimited Amount of Special Interest Money?  Has he looked around lately? 
He and his fellow hogs at the DC trough are wallowing in special interest money.  Mr. Obama is the All-Time Special Interest Money Gathering Champion.  His shakedown skills are unmatched!  

"It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't. This ruling strikes at democracy itself," Obama said.

But it's OK when unions do it.  And a liberal press can sing the praises of a hope and change candidate all day long up to and through election day without incurring government wrath.  Your argument is BOGUS, Mr. President! 

Scrape the constitution off the sole of your $500 shoes and read the First Amendment!

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...

What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand? 
It says nothing of citizens or corporations or special interests.  Free speech is a God-given right and the constitution says government cannot abridge it. Maybe liberals are too stupid to think for themselves and must be protected from "dangerous" speech, but We the People are not.  

This is about Power and Control
Like FDR, Obama has a great progressive agenda he must advance in spite of the unenlightened simpletons standing in the way.  Like FDR, he is now excoriating the Supreme Court for daring to reassert a constitutionally-guaranteed right.  He wants the power to control who says what and when they can say it.  It's how they rig the game in their favor. 

Well, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas just patched over the constitutional rat hole created by McCain-Feingold, Mr. President.  You and you progressives will have to find another way to undermine the foundation. 

Excerpts from Chief Justice Roberts:

"This careful consideration convinces me that Congress violates the First Amendment when it decrees that some speakers may not engage in political speech at election time, when it matters most."

Roberts warned: "The fact that the law currently grants a favored position to media corporations is no reason to overlook the danger inherent in accepting a theory that would allow government restrictions on their political speech."  (Source:  WaPo)

Here is the money quote:  

Roberts also pointed out that an exception in the McCain-Feingold law for media companies was "simply a matter of legislative grace."

A grace that congress has no right to grant, since they also have no right to take it away in the first place.   This is what liberals do.  They confiscate our freedoms and then dole them back out as favors for good behavior. 


Modern-day legislation is an embarrassing congeries of capricious fiats and clawing usurpations that cry to be knocked down.

The Supreme Court has ripped one board off of the creaking, rotten House That Progressivism Built.  That is why Obama and his followers are howling so loudly.  Time to grab hammers and crowbars and finish knocking the damned thing to the ground.

Obama, UN Muslims Join to Kill Free Speech

Muslim nations are agitating at the UN to silence criticism of their 7th century, obscurantist, global freak show

They're using the UN to push a kind of international thought crime speech code, and the Obama Administration is helping, according to Stuart Taylor at National Journal:

I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.

The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.

This is all part of the Muslim agenda to stifle all criticism of their religion and its adherents, to include calling an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist. 

But the real problem is a provision, which the U.S. championed jointly with Egypt, exuding hostility to free expression.

That provision [...] condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human-rights law, to address and combat such incidents" (emphasis added).

Taylor is a moderate man not prone to wild alarums.  Neither is the scholarly Eugene Volokh, but he cautiously backs Taylor in this post at The Volokh Conspiracy.

I’m worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and possibly of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.”

Our UN diplomats should be nowhere near this issue; it violates our very basic principles of free speech.  Both articles are short and quite informative.  I recommend you read them both, and then write to your elected officials.

Volokh Conspiracy
National Journal - Stuart Taylor

Attention Angry Shoppers!

Another Thanxmas shopping season, another collection of news stories about social retards who don't know how to behave in public...

People in other parts of the world fight over food, water or religious freedoms; we fight over DVD players and toys

Store employees are to blame when two women get in a fight over a pair of discounted pajamas.  Just like...

... Teachers are to blame because our kids behave like spoiled brats, little sluts, and junior gangbangers.

... George Bush is to blame when people too benumbed by corrupt liberal governance don't know how to get out of the way of a hurricane

... People who dis Islam are to blame when wild-eyed radicals slash, bomb and burn

It's called personal responsibility.  People who don't know how to behave should be jailed or cast out beyond the pale of civilized society.

I Agree With the Italian Socialists

UK's Times Online reports:

Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in 'poofter devils' gag

An Italian comedienne who said that Pope Benedict XVI would go to Hell and be tormented by homosexual demons is facing a prison term of up to five years.

Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

I greatly respect and admire Pope Benedict, and I don't enjoy seeing leaders of any religion insulted, but I hate free speech laws even more. Could you imagine being jailed for insulting the president? Give me a break!

I'm not Italian, so on one level this is none of my business, but we're all part Western Society, and an erosion of freedom in one area can quickly spread.

Even Catholic Priests have chimed in on the side of the tasteless joker:

Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. "We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona."

Supporting free speech means sometimes hearing things that may offend you. Voltaire said it best:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Free Speech: A Radical Concept

Our Friends to the north are having free speech problems. So what's it all aboot, eh? Of course, offended Muslims are at the root of it. Mark Steyn, a witty conservative thinker, is on trial in some quasi human rights kangaroo court that has never found anyone not guilty. Rich Lowry has some entertaining comments on the proceedings. Here are two very un-funny excerpts:

One of the principal investigators of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was asked in a hearing what value he puts on freedom of speech in his work, and replied, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

"It is the genius of Muslim grievance groups to leverage Western anti-discrimination laws to their advantage."

This is scary. There is an excellent article in the International Herald Tribune discussing free speech in the west. I was shocked to learn that our first amendment rights are considered quite radical by many of our western cousins. It takes some major insecurity to want to use the power of government to shut up those you disagree with. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summed it up nicely 100 years ago:

"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," Holmes wrote. "I think that we should be eternally vigilant," he added, "against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

Wise words. Remember David Duke? He revealed himself to be a racist goomer, so no one listens to him anymore. Obama's reverend is another example. No one outside his aggrieved flock pay attention to his rantings, other than out of morbid curiosity or for a twisted laugh. How about the Dixie Chicks? They and their fans tried to turn the blowback from their comments into a free speech issue, but it was not: The government didn't tank their CD sales, individual Americans upset at them trashing our president overseas did. It is way more satisfying to see fellow Americans ignore these people than it would be to see some government star chamber shut them down. That's the American Way.

Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment:
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.

Protesting Those Who Protect The Right To Protest

I love this picture. It reminds me of that great patriotic poem about how the soldier guarantees our freedoms. Click on the picture for a full-size view. WARNING: Contains a vulgarity.

It Has Always Been The Soldier.
It is the soldier,
not the President who gives us democracy.
It is the soldier,
not the Congress who takes care of us.
It is the soldier,
not the Reporter who has given us Freedom of Press.
It is the soldier,
not the Poet who has given us Freedom of Speech.
It is the soldier,
not the campus Organizer who has given us the
Freedom to Demonstrate.
It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag;
who serves beneath the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
that allows the protester to burn the flag.

(Father Dennis O'Brien, US Marine Corp. Chaplain)

Poem source: http://www.vfwpost1503.org/it's_the_soldier.html

Free Speech!

A Picture is indeed worth a thousand words. A man protesting the military while soldiers impassively look on. I'd like to see him try that in the Middle East or Venezuela! He'd probably be picking his eyeballs up off of the sidewalk. Nice touch by the guy on the left. Click the picture for a better view. Warning! Contains a vulgarity (that's why I have the picture so small). Props to my buddy Dave for the picture and the idea.
Original Picture

Finally! A brave Frenchman, er... woman.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. --Ronald Reagan

60's actress Brigitte Bardot speaks her mind and is prosecuted in French courts, for the fifth time. This is repugnant, and I only mention it because the same thing can happen here. This is where the political correctness road eventually leads us.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that this is happening in a country whose greatest and bravest war hero is Joan of Arc, a woman.

Yes, we have brave women who are heroes in the USA, but we also still have brave men. But how long will it be before political correctness has us imitating Old Europe, shivering and piddling ourselves like an inbred dog at the first challenge to free speech?

Free Speech, Religion, and the Fed Up British Man

Does free speech include the freedom to criticize the religious views and practices of others? By now, I suppose everyone has seen the video of the British man calmly explaining why he is fed up with Muslim demands on Europe and the old continent’s capitulation. He doesn’t really insult Islam, but he sure slams some of its more radical practitioners, especially the Saudis. He is very well-spoken and stays away from wild claims as he presses his case.

If you applaud him, as I do, you must be prepared to accept speech like this as well. Yes, it’s the same guy. He’s an atheist who criticizes Christians with equal gusto. And he is liberty’s best friend. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other. I am free to practice my religion, as long as doing so places no demands on you. You are free to criticize my religious practices, and I am free to criticize your non-practice.

This balance has worked well for us in the US, but Europe is struggling. Scared Europeans are self-censoring in the name of political correctness. Or perhaps out of fear at being stabbed on the street. Our country was founded on religious tolerance and free speech. We need to guard both. If the first video delights you but the second one angers you, you have some soul searching to do, because you are in danger of becoming no better than those you criticize.