Obama Unbound (Part 1)

Dreamstime.com

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

If President Barack Obama is reelected, he will be in office four more years without having to worry about another election, and hence even less accountable to the American people than he has been thus far. The mainstream media will cover for him, slant things his way, rarely criticize him, and generally be his obedient servants. He won’t have to worry much about the truth being published, and even when it is he won’t be much affected.

So what would be the prospects for America in an Obama second term? We haven’t fared too well during his first term. Most of the “change” we’ve seen has left us “hoping” for something to reverse many of the changes. Perhaps the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare, but there is no guarantee. If they do, a second Obama term would likely see an effort to introduce single-payer insurance, especially if Democrats are somehow able to retain the Senate majority and regain the House majority. Only a GOP filibuster would stand in their way.

In all probability, we would see several more Solyndra-type debacles with billions of dollars wasted in grants, loan guarantees, and subsidies to enterprises that are doomed to failure from the start for lack of market. All to satisfy the enviro-fascists, who are willing to sacrifice economic recovery for ill-fated “green” programs that won’t work. Oh, and Mr. Obama might get another crack at cap and trade, though at the moment it seems the global warming scare is being more widely seen as the fraud and hoax that it is.

The Food Stamp president would further expand the poverty rolls, create even more government-dependent families and do a great deal toward allowing the illegal immigrants to receive social services, unionize, and vote (Democratic, of course.)

The Buffet Rule states that no millionaire should be taxed at a rate less than 30 per cent. This would likely be heavily propagandized as a great necessity, using typical Marxist/Alinsky techniques of class warfare, claiming that failure to enact the Buffet Rule is the grossest injustice ever, and economic inequality is the main problem (except for the “God-awful recession we inherited,” as Vice President Joe Biden recently described it). Apparently the Bush Administration was so bad, its ill effects can never really be overcome. Not true, but it may take generations to undo Obama’s damage to our liberty, let alone our economy.

Obama, unfettered by electoral concerns, and already on record as having favored infanticide, may try to promote the killing of newborn babies because of their cost and carbon footprint. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently testified that more contraception would be an economic cost-saver.

Gay marriage figures to be even more of an in-your-face demand than ever, with Obama probably “pivoting” to a full endorsement of it in a second term. That would surprise basically no one.

Religious liberty would suffer further, with attempts to make it a “hate crime” to preach or advocate against homosexuality or Islam, as it already is in much of Europe. You can contrast Europe and other Western countries with America and see the still-great contrast between the U.S., which has the First Amendment (still sort of intact) and the others, which have no First Amendment guarantees, but still claim to be part of the “Free World.” And they are, in the sense that totalitarianism has not yet resorted to death camps, and it’s still possible to have a relatively pleasant life as long as you don’t say or do anything that someone might find offensive. In America, the First Amendment is under attack and needs special efforts at protecting it. A new Obama Administration would make progress toward finishing it off.

These are a few of the doubtful prospects under an Obama second term. Maybe he would do a lot of positive things, but I wish someone could show me even one beneficial policy he has got enacted in his presidency thus far. It is a sick joke for Democrats to accuse Romney of being “out of touch” compared to Obama, who daily displays his disdain for the Constitution and the American people. He is a special interest in himself, constantly grasping for more power and more money.

I like Rick Santorum and hope he will be the GOP nominee. But any of the four remaining GOP candidates, or whatever dark horse may emerge from the convention, would be greatly preferable to another four years of Obama as president.

Socialist dictatorship should not be our fate.

Stay tuned.

Related articles

• Obama Pushing "Buffett Rule" Tax (inquisitr.com)
• Why the Liberals made up the 'Republican War on Women' (examiner.com)

The FCC Wants More Control of Broadcast Media

Image via WikipediaMichael Copps’ speech (PDF here) was on December 2, 2010, but the issue remains open for discussion. Conservatives should target this for fierce debate.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says that American journalism is in bad way, and that it’s up to the federal government, specifically the Federal Communications Commission, to fix it. Of course, to the current powers that be in the Executive Branch and Democratic leaders in Congress, it’s the federal government’s duty to define and fix everything they imagine to be wrong, and to assign blame to conservatives.

Copps wants to spruce up traditional media by requiring a “public value test” for licensing, and reducing time between renewals from eight years to four years. How he longs for the days when the FCC could closely control or influence content, based on the fact that spectrum was scarce, and as a public resource, could be controlled to a great extent by government.



If that line of argument ever had merit, it has next to none now. There is no lack of “diversity” (which government claims to want but doesn’t want to allow), as there are innumerable sources of information available to anyone who has cable or satellite TV and the Internet. The only diversity the government wants is ethnic diversity and male-female diversity, and not diversity of ideas that may stray from the liberal-socialist-fascist mold.

Copps’ “enhanced disclosure,” especially in regard to political advertising, serves no real purpose except to place onerous restrictions and red tape on broadcasters.

As reported by CNS News.com, concerning Copps’ speech at Columbia:

Copps said the FCC and Congress in the future will need to examine the rules governing the structure of media ownership. And he advocated increasing support for public broadcasting, which he described as “the jewel of our media landscape.” [1]

Apparently, he’d like all broadcasting to be more like NPR and PBS. Ghastly thought!

The problem with all this is that it seriously would violate the First Amendment. But liberals are a lot less interested in the Constitution and Bill of Rights than they are in silencing their opposition. Where is it written that the federal government shall control public discourse? Not in the Constitution. It is a document which prescribes a government that is strong where it needs to be, but strictly limited in its powers.

As Michael Hurd points out in Capitalism Magazine.com,

Obama undoubtedly realizes that his greatest enemy is dissent. The apparatus is in place for impairing if not crushing dissent, and it’s known as the FCC. It's probably true that no prior President could have gotten away with it. This one might, not because he's widely respected or wildly popular (he's neither). But America, especially in the last few years, has been in a downward spiral of what psychology calls, “learned helplessness.” The more the government takes away our freedoms, the more helpless too many of us feel – leaving the government in a position to take away still more powers. It's a vicious cycle that ends with totalitarianism. [2]

According to Adweek.com,

In a Dec. 6 letter to Copps, [Rep. Joe] Barton [R-TX] asked Copps to explain in more detail what he meant by imposing a public-value test on broadcast news every four years as a contingency of license renewal.

“I hope...that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the FCC, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” said Barton.

“Although your concern for providing American citizens information they need to ‘make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country’ may stem from the very best of intentions, increasing the federal government’s role in the composition of the information Americans have at their disposal—in an information marketplace that is bigger and more easily accessible than ever before—is unwise policy and raises serious questions of constitutionality.” [3]

I would urge the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, as they prepare to defund Obamacare, to also defund NPR, PBS, and the FCC. And while they’re at it, the EPA and a several other government agencies.

When we have officials such as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) calling for restructuring the boundaries of free speech, and Michael Copps advocating such federal control of broadcasting, along with the FCC’s other initiatives to censor the internet, we are in danger of losing constitutional freedoms. It doesn’t have to happen. Conservatives in government now have enough power to stop it. I hope they have the courage to do so.


[1] Susan Jones, “FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station,” 12/03/2010, CNS News.com.


[2] Michael Hurd, “FCC’s ‘Public Value Test’: An Essential Step to Dictatorship,” 12/10/2010, Capitalism Magazine.com.


[3] Katy Bachman, “GOPer Pounds Proposed ‘Public Value Test,’” 12/06/2010, Adweek.com.


Photo: Portrait of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. Public Domain.

Obama Orders Changes in National Security Vocabulary

It may be yesterday’s news, but some items need a certain amount of reflection and consideration of what their consequences might be, or just how developments might fit into overall trends.

As Noam Amdurski at Matzav.com points out, President Barack Obama has ordered a significant change “in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: ‘The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.’” [1]

This conflict, previously considered to be so great, now cannot even be described as what it actually is against, “militant Islamic radicalism.”

This change is supposed to reassure Muslims that America doesn’t view them primarily as terrorist threats. But why is it necessary to change national security documents? To achieve a little positive PR that will not in any way change or ameliorate the actual threat? Well, we don’t want Muslims mad at us, but why would they care about such a document that only factually describes a situation, and should not be seen as offensive to anyone, except maybe actual terrorists.

The President has received criticism about this change. Just one example:

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech. [2]

Of course, the White House dismisses such criticism, as they dismiss most criticism. But the professor’s point is valid, and his opinion is probably shared by most Americans familiar with the situation.

But some people live to be offended, and if they speak up (certain politically-favored ones, particularly), then everything must stop and be changed to appease them.

It may seem laudable that the President is taking steps to avoid offense, but, in fact, he is taking steps to prevent effective communication. In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother saw to it that the Newspeak Dictionary was revised at intervals, and always by the removal of words the regime didn’t like. He knew that words are the building blocks of thoughts, so making certain words unavailable (soon to be forgotten, it was hoped), would stop people from having thoughts offensive to the regime.

Apparently, it is offensive to Obama to refer to militant Islamic radicals in those terms, although that is the most accurate way to refer to them.

Obama’s revision of official vocabulary put FBI Director Robert Mueller in the awkward position of communicating the Islamist terrorist threat without using the prohibited words:

In Senate testimony, Robert Meuller does everything he can to suggest that he is talking about Islamic extremists. He cites Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers at Fort Hood. He cites Mumbai attacks planner David Headley. [3]

How long before the government tries to mandate that everyone follow Obama’s example, such as schools receiving government aid, other agencies, etc.?

Front Page Magazine online had the following comments:

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote….

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation…. [4]

The article reports that the French ambassador, while prefacing his remarks with kind words for the resolution, pointed out that “human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems.” [5]

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms. [6]

Fortunately, the United States voted against the 2010 UN resolution on “defamation of religion,” promoted by the 57-nation OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference).
The non-binding resolution did pass 20-17 in the UN Human Rights Commission, with eight nations abstaining.

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that any effort that could lead to the criminalization of the defamation of religion is ‘a false solution, that exchanges one wrong for another….’” [7] An accurate comment.

Atheists were concerned over the resolution, since they want to be free to criticize religion and don’t want government surveillance and control over religious or anti-religious views. [8] Under the resolution, if implemented, any negative comments about a religion could be regarded as offensive.

What seems to be desired by the proponents of this resolution is something like Canada’s ill-named “Human Rights Commission,” which has resulted in taxpayer-funded prosecutions simply on someone’s complaint of being offended. Defendants are given no legal help, and lack the rights of a criminal defendant, yet are subject to heavy fines, lifetime speech bans, etc., and truth is no defense. More information here.


The proponents want to get this resolution added to international law, so that any criticism of Islam can be criminalized. We should not move any further in that direction, but Obama is a little too inclined to follow the lead of Britain and Canada.

The unstated secret is that going to great lengths to avoid associating terrorism with Islam, and further, also making strong efforts to accommodate Muslim demands, is finally based on fear. Some Muslims have shown that they are willing to react violently when they perceive an insult. Everyone is supposed to understand this and agree that it’s justified. But it isn’t. It’s a culture clash of sorts, but freedoms deserves protection and illegal violence deserves punishment.

I certainly advocate respecting, not insulting religions, but that leaves room for criticism, even strong criticism. I advocate protecting the God-given right to free speech, which includes saying or printing things some might find offensive. If ideas have merit, they don’t need the government to protect them from competition, and if not, they don’t need the government to suppress them.

Punish illegal actions, not opinions and words. When words are suppressed, thought is impaired, as Big Brother knew well. The deterioration of language is a significant aspect of the “dumbing down” phenomenon of recent decades. And without free exchange of ideas, we don’t know who thinks what, or how to truly engage in debate or discussion.


[1] Noam Amdurski, “Obama Bans Terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Jihad’ from U.S. Security Document,” 04/07/10, Matzav.com.


[2] Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, “‘Islamic Radicalism’ Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents,” 04/07/2010, at CNS News.


[3 ] Alec Rawls, “FBI Director Tries To Warn About Home Grown Islamic Terrorists, Without Mentioning ‘Islam’ [Reader Post],” 04/17/2010, Flopping Aces, republished (found) at InfidelsAreCool.com, which identifies itself as an anti-jihad site.

[4] Deborah Weiss, “Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss,” 10/16/2009, Front Page Magazine, republished (found) at The International Free Press Society.


[5] AND [6] Ibid.

[7] Editorial, reflecting the views of the United States Government, “Defamation of Religion Resolution,” VOANews.com.


[8] American Atheists, “Atheists Concerned over UN Defamation of Religions Resolution,” Opposing Views.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

This Leftist Tactic Has Been Used Before: Classifying Opponents as “Seditious”

“I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.” – Joe Klein of Time [1] See video here.

This theme has been taken up by some liberal websites, such as alternet.org. Sara Robinson writes,

Openly advocating acts of sedition has become the conservatives' main political stock in trade over the past year… You hear it everywhere from Rush to Glenn to Michelle Malkin to Michelle Bachman. Everybody on the right is now roundly convinced that the fairly-elected President of the United States isn't even a citizen. He's a Muslim, and thus in treasonous league with terrorists. The main goal of his administration is to turn the country over to the One World Government. He's a socialist. He's a fascist. All of these are direct attacks on Obama's fundamental legitimacy and authority to lead the country -- and thus a deliberate incitement to revolt against his administration. [2]

Robinson leads her piece with a paragraph about the Hutaree militia group, [3] but this is not really part of the issue at hand, because this group is not right-wing, and certainly not Christian. They are a lunatic-fringe group accused of a truly seditious murder plot.

Accusing President Obama of not being a citizen and being a Muslim? I don’t think we’re hearing that from the most popular conservative commentators. Although the President has refused to produce a birth certificate, the issue is hardly worth pursuing at this point. Yes, he is a socialist, and yes he is a fascist. If you like socialism and fascism, he’s your guy. He daily demonstrates his disdain for and willingness to severely violate the U.S. Constitution. If there’s any problem with his ability to govern, it’s not because of conservative critics, it’s because of his own lack of knowledge and skill, or else a lack of desire to govern by the Constitution.

This new twist is in addition to the Administration’s constant whining and blaming George W. Bush for everything. If they’re going to be such cry-babies, they shouldn’t be too shocked if people criticize them for it.

Robinson goes on to note that some protesters have carried guns with them to protests, in places where that is legal. [4] They are within their legal rights. If the liberals want to read something into that, it’s their problem. It should be noted, that while we hear of a few fringe incidents of threats against liberals, the actual political violence in America comes mainly from the left, such as the attack on the Jindal aide Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joseph Brown. Barack knows something of political violence from his close association with his friend Bill Ayers. He knows a good bit about racism and anti-Semitism from his good friend and mentor Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the white-hating, Jew-hating so-called Christian preacher. It is not surprising that he is distancing himself from our traditional strong ally Israel to curry favor with Muslim leaders.

ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS
As our title suggests, this tactic of using accusations of sedition against opponents by the party in power is nothing new. The Federalist Party did it in the late 1790’s with the Alien and Sedition Acts. The law virtually prohibited any criticism of the government or the President (Federalist John Adams). Thomas Jefferson’s response was, among other things, to write the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, affirming the states’ ability to nullify federal laws considered unconstitutional. Madison’s Virginia Resolutions did much the same thing.



WILSON AND WORLD WAR I ERA
As Woodrow Wilson got America into World War I, there was another crackdown on “sedition,” which, in the government’s view, was saying, or printing, anything the government might not like. In addition to valid laws against espionage and treason, the new laws made it a crime to criticize the government or the war effort. (How well would that have gone over in the Vietnam War era?)

Harvard Law Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr. published his Freedom of Speech in 1920 and gave accounts of states’ sedition laws, such as :

These statutes and regulations are, for the most part, different from the normal criminal law in three ways: (1) They label opinions as objectionable and punish them for their own sake because of supposedly bad tendencies without any consideration of the probability of criminal acts; (2) they impose severe penalties for the advocacy of small offenses as much as for serious crimes; (3) they establish a practical censorship of the press ex post facto. [5]

Chafee states that such laws are constitutional insofar as they are used to meet a “clear and present danger,” but in general, the cases in which they were used fell short of that standard, such as criminalizing ipso facto a person’s membership in certain organizations. [6]

Chafee, in an appendix, gives the text of the federal law of 1918, and lists cases involving freedom of speech. Numerous cases, with punishments up to 20 years are listed. Through 1919, there had been cases involving “language intended to defame the flag,” “language urging curtailment of production of war materials,” “language intended to defame form of government,” etc. [7]

After noting that the longest term for sedition in England under George III was four years, the severity of punishment under the law is described by Chafee as follows:

Our judges have condemned at least eleven persons to prison for ten years, six for fifteen years, and twenty-four for twenty years. Judge Van Valkenburgh summed up the facts with appalling correctness in view of the virtual life terms imposed under the Espionage Act, when he said that freedom of speech means the protection of “criticism which is made friendly to the government, friendly to the war, friendly to the policies of the government. [8]

Chafee risked losing his job at Harvard, being criticized for his free-speech views. Answers.com recognizes him as “the father of modern free speech law in the United States.” [9]

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who used Chafee’s work in his Supreme Court opinions regarding free speech, said to him “You did a man’s job. The persecution will make it more productive. By such follies is liberty made to grow; for the love of it is re-awakened.” [10]

WHERE WILL THIS LEAD?
Perhaps the Obama Administration will use Mr. Klein’s and similar statements as a trial balloon for possible legislation to limit free speech in opposing government policies. There have been some voices in favor of a return to the “Fairness Doctrine” in some form, which would limit freedom of speech. The laws struck down in the Citizens United Supreme Court case were unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech, and Obama wants legislation to counteract that decision. So restricting freedom of speech is not exactly out of the question in recent government thinking. The current Administration has the least respect for the Constitution of any since Wilson. They prove this day in and day out.

The Democrats’ typical response to effective opposition is: rather than engage on the issues, try to silence the opponent, try to destroy him or her in the court of public opinion, and, if possible, criminalize him or her.

Klein, Matthews, and other hypocrites of their ilk probably think no one remembers the G. W. Bush Administration and the abuse that was heaped upon the President, or the often-violent anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960’s. The Tea Party rallies have been energetic but not violent, unlike many leftist demonstrations.

Mr. Obama said he was “amused” by the tax day Tea Party rallies. What the left doesn’t seem to care about is that the Tea Party speaks for the majority of Americans, and at least 70 percent of Americans don’t trust the government and in fact are angry about government policies. The problem is not critics, the problem is a government that stubbornly governs against the clearly-expressed will of the people, and is bringing about destructive results both as to freedom and the economy. I hope the Republican Party will be the “Party of Hell, No!” and stop Obama’s socialist-fascist agenda to the greatest extent possible under the rules of Congress. I doubt that Obama will be amused by the election results in 2010 and 2012. Perhaps that’s why he has to push his widely and deeply disliked policies so urgently.


[1] Jeff Poor, “Time’s Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition against U.S. Government; Heilemann Adds Limbaugh,” 04/18/2010, Newsbusters.org, quoting from
NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” of 04/18/2010. (Emphasis his)


[2] Sara Robinson, “Guilty of Sedition? How the Right Is Undermining Our Government's Authority and Capability to Run the Country,” 04/06/10, Alternet.org


[3] and [4] Ibid.

[5] Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1920, p.191. Book scanned by Google, found at books.google.com.


[6] Ibid., p.192.     [7] Ibid., p.896.     [8] Ibid., p. 87.

[9] “U.S. Supreme Court: Zechariah Chafee, Jr.,” at Answers.com.


[10] Quoted by John Anderson, “Louis Brandeis: Free Speech Champion: A Supreme Court Justice Committed to Facts and Fairness,” 03/24/2010, at AmericanAffairs.Suite101.com.

Photo: Portrait of Zechariah Chafee, Jr, 1907 (Brown Archives), wikipedia.org, via Answers.com.

Americans Are Greatly Blessed To Have First Amendment Freedoms

“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,” 
  -- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Americans generally believe that, as our Declaration of Independence says, our rights come from God. Not government. Governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

It’s always surprising to me to read about how some supposedly “free world” countries are so infested with political correctness that they ban or punish expression via speech, the press, or media that in America would hardly do more than raise an eyebrow, or even if it did, there would be no legal attempt to stop or punish it.

I say no legal attempt, but, in a high-profile instance, possibly there would be calls for someone to apologize, resign, be fired or whatever. America has more than its share of concern with “political correctness.” But up to now, it’s unlikely the offender would be in danger of jail time or fines. In fact, some of the most awful, distasteful, and disgusting, not to mention false, stuff publicly said and published and broadcast raises hardly any protest.

My own respect for the First Amendment is only enhanced when I hear of how a genius like the provost of the University of Ottawa threatened Ann Coulter with possible criminal prosecution in connection with her scheduled speech, before she even got near the school. A raucous demonstration (riot?) led police to cancel the speech. The protesters didn’t want Ann to be spreading “hate speech,” but their own demonstrations constituted “hate speech” if anything does. Or maybe these weren’t students at all, but a convention of loudmouths whose meeting just happened to coincide with Ms. Coulter’s scheduled speech. I like her column that appeared just after the incident.

Dear old Canada also gave some grief to Mark Steyn via their so-called “Human Rights Commission,” which seems to be more of an anti-rights commission. A magazine published an excerpt from Steyn’s excellent book America Alone, which unfortunately was not filled with praise toward Muslims, so some people complained. I think he escaped any serious punishment, but just the idea that he would need to answer such a complaint strikes me as ridiculous.

This is all Orwellian “thought-crime” and is the underlying idea for “hate crimes.” “Hate crimes” are based on the theory that if someone committed a crime motivated by “hate” toward some politically favored group, it’s somehow worse than if it was motivated by something else. Just common sense and constitutional principle would require that offenders be punished for what they did, not what they thought. Using motive to demonstrate guilt of a crime is quite different from punishing someone for having a certain motive. Just more liberal nonsense.

An article at American Renaissance, points out Britain’s recent affinity with thought-crime:

Britain appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely….

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”…

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name. [1]

Is Ingsoc coming to England?

From Reuters, quoted by Scarlett Crusader: “Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol [Brigitte Bardot] a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts.” (Emphasis apparently added.) [2] Bardot has been prosecuted and fined several times for remarks that would hardly incite anything, although some extremists might use them as an excuse for something.

And at present the blog-publicized, but (U.S.) media-ignored trial of Geert Wilders of the Netherlands represents another thought-crime trial. To have and express a certain opinion is, in America, constitutionally protected. While Mr. Wilders’ opinions that I’ve read don’t seem extreme, though some view them as unfavorable, no American politician would face charges for saying any such thing in the U.S. Our constitution protects freedom of speech even if other people find it demeaning, insulting, erroneous, or whatever, as long as it stops short of defaming an individual or directly inciting violence. For public figures, there is a much looser standard as to what may be said about them than for others.

I am not anti-Muslim, anti-British, anti-Canadian, anti-French, or anti-Dutch, but I am anti-tyranny. I am saddened to see freedom tossed aside to placate any special interest or political group. All should be equally free to peacefully express their opinions.

I have certainly criticized some things people have said (see my previous article as an example), but I have not questioned their right to say it. About the only exception that I can think of today would be the “Westboro Baptist Church” and their vicious demonstrations at military funerals. Their guilt is not in what they said (although it’s evil, it still would be allowed in a different forum), but in the emotional distress they intentionally inflict on families and others burying their loved ones and mourning their deaths. A Supreme Court case is pending. As a Baptist, I can assure you that what they are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with fulfilling the Christian faith, Baptist or otherwise.

The items mentioned above illustrate not only the ease with which free speech (and freedom in general) can be lost, but also the putrid rot of political correctness. I’m about to come to the conclusion that the United States of America is one of the very few truly free countries left. That is one reason, among many, that Americans dread and detest any suggestion of one-worldism or anything like that. But the U.S. is not without problems: There are more efforts than ever to suppress religious expression, for example, despite its First Amendment protection. More on that in another article.

But it seems the U.S. is one of the few countries that still values individual freedom and opportunity and does not always pigeon-hole people into some convenient group.

I say that cautiously, because our present government is moving ominously in the direction of enforced political correctness. They just haven’t yet figured out an easy way around the First Amendment. Too bad it’s unique to America.



[1] Hal G. P. Colebatchm, The Australian (Surry Hills, New South Wales), “Thought Police Muscle Up in Britain,” 04/21/2009, American Renaissance.


[2] “Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur,” 04/18/2008.


Photo: Image of U.S. Bill of Rights, 1791, found here.

Double Good News for American Freedom

This has been one of those rare weeks when two noteworthy and favorable political events happened.

I. Scott Brown (R) defeats Martha Coakley (D) in U. S. Senate race in Massachusetts

This defeat ought to at least force the Democrats to consider the fact that people are mostly opposed to their “health-care reform” plans, and are willing to vote accordingly. Democrats want us to believe this election was not a “referendum on Obama,” but it clearly was. It appears the Democrats’ 60-vote super majority is gone, and if they try to ram some form of the health-care legislation through without another Senate vote, they’ll look desperate and dishonest, and lose even more esteem among the public.

Therefore, we are hearing talk about a scaled-back approach to the issue. As you have read in numerous places, the election sent a shock through the Democratic Party, as it now appears many Democrats are vulnerable in the 2010 elections, if a blue state like Massachusetts can choose a Republican over a Democrat – especially, a Republican who campaigned with a conservative message, and presented himself as the candidate of the people, rather than the government.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but it looks like the Obamacare program may very well be rejected. Certainly the voters across America are rejecting it, and are prepared to punish, at election time, incumbents who voted for it. Despite liberal pundits urging and predicting a full-blown effort to get the program passed, lawmakers who are facing the 2010 elections will probably be cautious. Are they willing to give up their congressional careers in order to give President Obama a face-saving “legacy” in the form of a hated socialist program?

If Obamacare is not passed, look for the economic outlook to quickly improve, especially if taxes associated with it are not somehow enacted. It really would be good news for America if Obamacare is dumped.

II. The Supreme Court overturns key parts of the campaign finance laws

This is a significant victory for the Constitution, as some serious limits on free speech have rightly been found unconstitutional. Now corporations (gasp!) will be permitted to freely advertise for and against candidates, right up to election day. So will unions, although they have been doing that, in effect, all along. All sorts of entities have been freed to express political views for and against specific candidates.

Democrats are in a huff about this, having lost the security of knowing that political speech was basically controlled by the politicians in power. As a matter of free speech, if this is a free country, political speech ought to be especially protected, and especially as elections draw near. The restrictions that were overturned were blatantly aimed at silencing opposition to incumbent politicians. The idea that this has somehow protected Americans from “big money” influence is given the lie by the fact that the Section 527 organizations have helped politicians by raising many millions of dollars to influence elections.

The court left intact the rules prohibiting corporations and unions from giving money directly to campaigns. [1] The main thing changing is that corporations can now spend their money on political ads, if they choose to do so, at any time. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech applies to corporations and other organizations as well as individuals. The Constitution is pretty clear about prohibiting Congress from making laws abridging freedom of speech or of the press.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), quoted at The Hill praised the decision: “‘For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day,’ he said.” [2]

Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer (D-NY), supports legislation to restrict the effects of the decision: “‘The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners of next November's elections,’ Schumer said. ‘It won't be Republicans, it won't be Democrats, it will be corporate America.’” [3]

President Obama is pushing for such legislation [4] Democrats in Iowa, the state where the case arose which resulted in the Supreme Court decision, were critical of the Court’s action. Republicans had less to say, emphasizing their concern for disclosure, which was not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. [5]

Union leaders don’t particularly like the decision. For example, The Wall Street Journal has the following quote from SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes: “I don't think working people would ever have as much to spend as corporations. For us, being able to spend a few extra dollars isn't worth allowing decisions to be made from boardrooms instead of the polling booth.” [6]

If Democratic incumbents and their favored client interest groups stand to lose any influence from a decision that widens freedom of political speech (as required by the Constitution), then, by all means, protective measures must be taken. If such laws are passed, I predict that test cases will soon get to the Supreme Court, and the new laws will be struck down, too. Here’s hoping, anyway.

Conclusion
It has been a better-than-usual week for the American people in terms of freedom.

As Bojidar Marinov, at American Vision, points out, in an article citing the fact that British pensioners are buying books from charity stores to burn as fuel, because they can’t afford highly taxed gas, coal, and electricity, then describing, in general, the “gray market,” “Socialism is an ideology that calls for the confiscation of the individual’s life, liberty and property by the state; but whatever resources socialist governments commit to their propaganda, they can never talk the individual people out of loving their life, liberty, and property.” [7] The current socialist-fascist administration in Washington, and the Democratic Congressional leadership are shining examples. But fortunately, America has retained enough freedom to put up some effective resistance. Both of the events mentioned above show that the American spirit will not be defeated by would-be oppressors.

[1] James Oliphant, “Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling could bring flood of ads,”
01/21/2010, Los Angeles Times, at http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

[2] Alexander Bolton and Aaron Blake, “Democrats plan to push bill to limit impact of campaign finance decision,” 01/21/2010, The Hill, at http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/77261-supreme-court-strikes-down-campaign-finance-restrictions

[3] and [4] Ibid.

[5] Kathie Obradovich, “Iowa Democratic leaders rake SCOTUS ruling’” blog posting, 01/21/2010, Des Moines Register, at http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/01/21/iowa-democratic-leaders-rake-supco-ruling/

[6] Brody Mullins, “Big Donors Plan Boost in Campaign Spending,” 01/22/2010, The Wall Street Journal, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423204575017152825109576.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLETopStories

[7] Bojidar Marinov, “God’s Rhapsody in Gray,” 01/20/2010. American Vision, at http://www.americanvision.org/article/gods-rhapsody-in-gray/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+AmericanVision+%2528American+Vision%2529&utm_content=Yahoo%2521+Mail

Photo: Dreamstime.com

A Minor Instance of Abuse?

WAUSAU, Wis. – An American flag flown upside down as a protest in a northern Wisconsin village [Crivitz] was seized by police before a Fourth of July parade and the businessman who flew it — an Iraq war veteran — claims the officers trespassed and stole his property. – from an AP news item by Robert Imrie, July 10, 2009, found on Yahoo! News.

The flag may properly be flown upside down as a distress signal.

The news article states that Mr. Vito Congine, Jr. was flying an American Flag upside down as a protest. Police removed the flag and returned it to him the next day. Congine, according to the article, was protesting because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license although he had spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a building for a restaurant. The flag was removed hours before a Fourth of July parade, the article said.

So what’s the problem?

Simply that a man had his property seized and his protest halted by police for no good reason. This incident, though relatively minor compared to some things governments are doing to abuse citizens by denying them their rights, represents a disturbing attitude by the authorities and an ignorance of or disdain for constitutional rights.

I’m not in favor of flying the flag in any way that is not in accordance with legitimate flag-display standards. But what Mr. Congine was doing is a legitimate act of expression, if not the best flag-flying etiquette. What happened to him was abuse of a law-abiding citizen. I am certainly not a fan of the ACLU, but in this case, I wish them and Mr. Congine success if they challenge this action in court.

Mr. Imrie’s article stated that the flag was seized on the advice of the district attorney.
The DA should know better. The Supreme Court has held that even burning the flag is a legitimate act of protected free expression (Texas vs. Johnson, 1989 and United States vs. Eichman, 1991). Flying the flag upside down is not an act of violence and arguably not disrespectful of the flag.

However, the authorities showed disrespect for Mr. Congine and his rights. The sheriff gave about the lamest excuse possible for their actions. According to the news article: “Marinette County Sheriff Jim Kanikula said it was not illegal to fly the flag upside down but people were upset and it was the Fourth of July.” He said it is illegal to cause a disruption.

Disruption? Now a flag-burning in the middle of a July Fourth parade could have been a disruption. But apparently legal. Mr. Congine did not “cause” a disruption. If people were upset, it was their own responsibility, not his. Free expression is free only if it can be done even though people don’t like it.

This is a seemingly small example of government interference with a citizen’s constitutional rights. As noted in other articles in these blogs, the Obama Administration seeks to destroy important constitutional rights on a large scale. But constitutional rights deserve protection at all levels.

The AP article quoted Mr. Congine as saying, “It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else, and then I come home to find it right here at my front door.” He also said he plans to keep flying his flag upside down.


Photo: Detail of AP photo, furnished by Susan Willems, taken July 5, 2009