Gallaudet Univesity Official Punished on 2nd Amendment Grounds

According to OneNewsNow.com, Gallaudet University President Alan Hurwitz has placed chief diversity officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, on suspension simply for signing a petition supporting the amendment banning homosexual marriage while attending a church  service.  Here's the letter that I sent to the University president.

Dear President Hurwitz:
As an American, I am deeply concerned by your suspension of Dr. Angela McCaskill for signing a petition expressing her fundamental right to participate in a fully legitimate democratic process.
Your action represents a gross misconduct and abuse of power by someone who should understand and defend the most basic of constitutional rights.

Dr. McCaskill signed the petition on her own time, in her church. For the sake of democracy, I urge you to fully reinstate Dr. McCaskill immediately.

Furthermore, I ask you to publicly apologize to Dr. McCaskill for punishing her for simply exercising her constitutional right as an American citizen.  So much for diversity of thought in American academia..."free speech for me, but not for thee" seems to be your message here.

American academia has become so narrow minded that their concept of "diversity" is limited to race, and not political or social thought.  This is one of the biggest issues that confronts academia today, yet colleges and universities have become so one sided as to be mere propagandizing or indoctrinating our youth.  The fact that conservative and libertarian thought lives on is goes to show just  how bankrupt Liberal thought is.

Obama Doesn't Like Questions

It seems Mr. Obama doesn't like anyone asking him questions. 

Police Abusing Power

Law enforcement in this country is beginning to believe that they don't have to follow either the Constitution, or any other laws.  Recently in North Carolina, a black Dodge Charger was filmed driving erratically on the freeway, but according to news reports, The Secret Service owns the care and the was acting "...in an 'official' capacity"?  I call this bullshit. 





The Secret Service has no authority on the roads.  Yet another example of too much police power at all levels of government.  Too many cops don't think that any laws are binding upon them.  "Law Enforcement" has run amuck with police all over the country arresting people for filming them.

Recently in Chicago, police arrested a journalist for filming them.  The cop was caught on camera saying, "your 1st Amendment rights can be suspended..."  Homeland Security needs to be abolished along with the DEA, ATF along with Federal Security Police.

Sen Schumer Blocks Tea Party Debt Commission

Senator Charles Schumer, an early supporter of the Occupy Wall Street groups, blocked the Tea Party Debt Commission from meeting in the Capital building in Washington DC. via The Other McCain , but then, that's what Liberals do when they are afraid of your speech. Do do their damndest to supress it. "Free speech for me, but no for thee." If this was a "political" meeting, then why does Congress allow Congressman Conyers to hold his bull-shit "commission" meetings on Capital building grounds? Yet another intellectually bankrupt Democrat stopping the 1st amendment rights of others.

NJ Supreme Court: Bloggers Not Journalists

I received this today from a retired AP journalist.

TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.

The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.

The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.

Shellee Hale claimed customer information was compromised and that she should be protected from revealing her sources.

New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law.

Just what does the first amendment cover then?  What does the NJ SC think the 1st amendment covers?  I believe it covers both free speech and a free press.  Anyone who owns a printing press is a journalist...today that means anyone with a computer and the ability to write a coherent sentence.  After all, did the MSM actually report on Congressman Anthony Weiner's indescretions...Andrew Breibart did.  Andrew isn't a  journalist under this ruling, though I'd beg to differ on that.

Hopefully, this will be overtuned in the federal system as any 'journalist' shield law is at it's heart, a shackling of anyone who speaks out on any topic that "offends" someone.

Reason TV: The Greates Threat To Free Speech

Here's a great video on the biggest threat to freedom of speech...via InstaPundit.

Ground Zero Mosque To Get Federal Funding?

It seems that the Saudi funding for the Ground Zero Mosque has fallen through due the the profound unpopularity of the proposed site.  John Avlon of the Daily Beast is reporting that the organizers of the proposed Mosque near ground zero are seeking Federal Grants to pay for their project.  This money is available from multi-billion dollar trust fund that was set up to revitalize the area around the World Trade Center.

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from ground zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter.  The application was submitted under a “community and cultural enhancement” grant program administered by the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation (LMDC), which oversaw the $20 billion in federal aid allocated in the wake of 9/11 and is currently doling out millions in remaining taxpayer funds for community development. The redevelopment board declined to comment on the application (as did officials from Park51), citing the continuing and confidential process of determining the grant winners.

If this money is granted, I expect that the hue and cry that will be raised will show the previous anger to be a mere bump in the road.  No Federal, state or local money should be used in a private religious center for any faith!  I wouldn't support a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist center, much less a Muslim Mosque or even a "non-denominational" centre.

Media Matter's Group Think

Professor William Jacobsen of Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has an interesting point to make on Media Matter's charging ahead in it's attempt to limit our 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.  He quotes Eric Boehlert of  MM as saying: 

News that Juan Williams' contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network's evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR's Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions. This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.


I'm not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.

But Prof. Jacobson's point very simple: 

No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.


There is a real threat to freedom in this country, and it does not come from conservatives. Media Matters is just the symptom, not the disease.

Emphasis is mine,  but he does make an important distinction.  Freedom of Speech means permitting those who think differently from you the means to speak their opinions without being punished, no matter how stupid, or ignorant those opinions may seem to you.  This is something that many liberals don't understand.

What You Can't Say On Campus

FIRE's Greg Lukianoff speaks about what you can't say on today's college campuses.




I think that people forget that "Freedom of Speech" means you have to permit opinions that you don't agree with.  When you begin to censor any speech, you open the door to all speech being censored.  If you don't agree with something, you don't have to listen to it, but that doesn't mean you have the right to forbid it.

''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''  -- John Wayne

"First to go, Last to know, we will defend to the death your right to be misinformed, United States Marine Corps" 

That was a motto on a banner that hung in the Ready Room of HMM-266, The Gryphons, when I was a young Marine, back in the early '80's...and no truer words were ever penned.

I think that's what fundamentally wrong with Political Correctness, when you place limits on speech, you end up twisting the basic fabric of a free society. 

Reason TV: Who Is Publius? Who Is Afraid of Anonymous Political Speech?

So...who is Publius?

Freedom Of Speech

Recently the Left has begun attempts to place limits upon political speech.  One form of that is in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC.  In that case, the Supremes ruled that corporate bodies (companies, small businesses, as well as unions and membership based groups) may now choose to a voice in politics.  All too often, however, free speech is seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp by the  liberal left.   They often feel that such freedom only applies to those with whom they agree with, and that any possible opposition to them is evil and must be stopped forthwith.

Freedom of speech means that you have to allow all of those who don't agree with you the chance to voice their opinions.  That's the dichotomy between the liberal and conservative movements in this country.  Liberals see opposition to be EVIL, thus must be supressed; while conservatives see those in  conflict with them to be MISGUIDED...and thus, should be convinced to the correct course.

As a young man, I volunteered for the United States Marine Corps.  In the last unit I served from August of 1983 until June 1984, HMM-266 the Griffins (now VMM-266, the third unit to activate to fly the MV-22).  There was a banner that hung upon the walls of the "Ready Room".  It said: 

"FIRST TO GO, LAST TO KNOW, We Will Defend To The Death Your Right To Be Misinformed" UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

In a nutshell, that's what freedom of speech means.  You have the right to be misinformed.  That being said, you don't have the right to keep OTHERS from being misinformed either.

Earlier this year, Senator Charles Schummer, D-NY, introduced a bill that  would have the effect of stiffling political speech.  His bill, The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”), would in his words,

“Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there’ll be many fewer of them.”

The reality is that by forcing everyone (businesses, etc) to disclose whom they are contributing money to, would have a chilling effect upon political speech. 

Their solution was the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation that creates a burdensome new regulatory scheme as well as requires that political ads feature disclaimers which may be as long as 14 seconds in length. This will increase the costs to small businesses and membership based organizations that seek to have a voice – many won’t be able to afford the additional compliance costs and will have their voices silenced.

This of course would add not just regulations, but would have the additional effect of having to hire more governmental workers to ENFORCE the act...thus adding yet more to the size and scope  of government at a time when we need just the opposite.  The time has come for us, as a nation to roll back, not just this attempt to further expance the size and scope of government, but to down size the government, just as many companies have reduced their work forces.

We don't need more regulations that muzzle our natural right to free expression.  We need to stand up and fight yet more attempts to reduce the people of this country to servitude to the government.

Pelosi: Invetigate Those Who Oppose Ground Zero Mosque

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, wants to investigate those who oppose the building of a Muslim mosque near Ground Zero in NY City...instead of applauding those who are exercising their 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, Mrs. Pelosi seeks to intimidate or silence those who oppose this.  That's rather Stalinist isn't it?  Rather against the spirit of our Constitution which guarantees our G-d giver right to freely express our opinions on any matter we so desire to expound upon

“there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”


“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

 

Of course...after receiving harsh critizism to her threats to investigate anyone who opposes the mosque, her office issued this statement this morning: 

"The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.


"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'

"For all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families, we call upon them to join us in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act when Congress returns in September."

Yid With a Lid translates this as: 

OK people are pissed off about the first statement, which I admit was stupid, but I can't walk it back completely so I will add an investigation of the mosque funders so I can now appear to be even handed.

The US Constitution: Freedom For Everyone...

I was reading some of the JournoList emails that have surfaced recently. One thing that struck me rather forcefully was when of the members wanted to get the FCC to revoke Fox News' broadcasting license because he didn't like the content of the opinion shows that are aired by the network. I found this very disturbing on a number of different levels.


First of all, the FCC doesn't control content on cable and thus can't revoke the license of Fox News. But that wasn't what really bothered me. What really awakened my ire was how easily someone could dismiss the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that you have to allow those whom you disagree with, the right to voice their opinions, howsoever repellent you may find their views to be personally. While there are clearly some limits on speech, you can't for instance, shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, but you can give your opinions upon current events to your heart's content.

How a "journalist", "editorialist" or "professor" who makes their living by reporting, commenting or teaching s could summarily discharge out of hand, someone else's right to voice their opinion merely because they disagreed with it, is shocking at the very least. I think this goes to a fundamental problem with how many people have come view the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't "give" us freedoms. The Constitution gives us nothing at all. What the Constitution does, at its heart, spells out the limits of governmental powers. It derives those powers from the consent of the people. Those powers limit its ability to interfere directly in our lives. The Constitution isn't a "positive" document, it's a negative one. It sets negative limits on just what the government is permitted to do. The 10th Amendment clearly spells this out, when it says that "all those powers not contained herein, are reserved to the states or the people."

Empty Holsters

Obama Administration Blocks Media Coverage Of Oil Spill

This report is from CNN and Anderson Cooper! You know, one of the biggest cheerleading networks for Obama over the past 3 years...so, the Obama Administration has tossed out the 1st Amendment and Freedom of the Press...






AC repeatedly states "We are not the enemy here...", but it  seems that transparency isn't what the Obama Administration wants...but then, this Administration promised to be the most open and transparent ever.   This, sadly, has not been the case.




Via Hot Air

Dearborn Police Arrest Christians

The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal defense organization, has agreed to represent four evangelists who were arrested on charges of disturbing the peace Friday night at the Arab International Festival.


Dearborn police officers violated their free speech rights when their video cameras, which were used to record conversations with festival-goers, were confiscated, said lead attorney Robert Muise…

Muise faxed a letter Monday to Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad requesting the return of his clients’ cameras and tapes.

The Police Department has not responded to Muise’s request

Soo...it's ok to protect the rights of muslims...but not Christians?  What ever happened to the 1st Amendment?

FTC Seeks To Federalize News Media

In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission began a staff study on how to "save journalism". This week, the FTC released a 35 page document that purports to show how the Federal Government can "save journalism" by taking it over and regulating it.

Under the proposed guidelines it will be possible to "own facts" just as it's possible to own a patent, or a piece of propety. This is perposterous! Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine says,

What disturbs me most in this section is that the FTC frets about “difficult line-drawing being proprietary facts and those in the public domain.” Proprietary facts? Is it starting down a road of trying to enable someone to own a fact the way the patent office lets someone own a method or our DNA? Good God, that’s dangerous.

Mark Tapscott, in the Washington Examiner gives three examples why this is a very dangerous proposition;

* Journalists must understand that there is no way the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press will survive if the federal government regulates the news industry as envisioned by the FTC. Those who accept at face value protests to the contrary or the professions of pure intentions by advocates of government takeover of the news business are, at best, incredibly naive.

* Journalists who remain silent or apathetic about what is being prepared by the FTC for their profession become unintentional accessories in the strangulation of independent journalism.

* Journalists who support or assist, for any reason, the FTC process are accomplices in the strangulation of independent journalism.

Freedom of the press, is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,

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

What the Obama Administration and the FTC seek to do is to eliminate this freedom through regulation by the Federal Government. Doing so would effectively prevent bloggers like me, and just about anyone else from ever being able to speak freely or comment on news of the day. This would have the end result of eliminating any opposition to this Administration or any other.

As it is, many on the left, such as the Governor of Massachusetts have proposed that speaking out against the Obama Administration is "dangerously near sedition." The last time I looked up that word it meant "incitement to or insurrection against lawful authority." Speaking out in opposition to the government is our guaranteed right, not sedition.

Mr. Tapscotts conclusion is illuminating and spot on,

Elected officials' first thought is always about re-election, while career government workers' is job security. A journalist's first thought is supposed to be getting the facts. To that end, we're supposed to be adversaries, not co-conspirators, partners, favored "stakeholders," or beneficiaries. That's why the Constitution made us independent.

The proposed regulations would make our news media...a state run and regulated enterprise wherein journalists would only report what the government wanted reported. It didn't work all that well in the Soviet Union (which no longer exists) and doesn't work well in either China or Iran. Instead of news, we'd only havew propoganda organs...and while the left leaning media isn't too far from that, they are still independent and have begun to finally do their job, a la the Obama Administration by asking those difficult questions that they have refused to ask of this Administration or his campaign over the past 2 years.

Maryland Police Say Its Illegal to Tape Them In Public

There's a debate that's beginning to heat up here in the Police State of Maryland.  Police officers here are telling people that it's illegal to tape them in public.  Unfortunately, it's permissible for police to tape YOU on their dashboard cameras.  However, several legal organizations say that's wrong,

"For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.

And then there's this,

"When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."

Delegate Sandy Rosenberg, D-Dist 41, Baltimore City, is pushing the Maryland Attorney General to render an opinion on whether or not it's "permissible", as if an AG can say you have a right that's already implied under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, and has been ruled such in a number of states already.  But if the AG advises otherwise, Mr. Rosenberg plans to introduce legislation the specifically permits such recordings in public of public officials.

Roger Ebert & Cinco de Mayo

Last Wednesday...5 students at a high school in California were sent home for  wearing either t-shirts or bandana's that bore the American flag.  Roger Ebert, that paragon of American patrioism and virtue equated those young men to...communists who wave a hammer and sickle on July 4th. 

@ebertchicago Kids who wear American Flag T-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.

Personally, I think Mr. Ebert is an idiot...but to say that these young men are...the same as those who wear communist symbols, is stupid and ignorant. Now...that being said, this particular photograph really pisses me off.



 
Mr. Ebert...you are an ignorant man.   But who is truly ignorant is the principal of the High School involved.  He basically told those young men that they could NOT EXPRESS AMERICAN PATRIOTISM IN A CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL   More importantly, that principal has admited that he may have acted prcipitously...

The Morgan Hill Unified School District has launched an investigation into the matter, and the school's principal has since apologized. "In this situation, I may have moved too quickly in drawing the line of when to take preventative action," Nick Boden, Live Oak High School's principal, said at a press conference May 7. 

For those decisions, both the pricipal and the assitant pricipal should lose their jobs.  More over, Mr. Ebert...

Writing on his blog Sunday, Ebert expounded on what he had meant in his original tweet. "The question is obviously not whether Americans, or anyone else, has the right to wear our flag on their T-shirts," Ebert said. "

So...wearing an American Flag t-shirt is not acceptable on a...non existent "Mexican-American" holiday (um...Cinco de Mayo celebrates a battle in the Mexican/Franco War, NOT Mexican Independence Day-which is Sep 15, NOT May 5)...Mr. Ebert, you are wrong.  Both, in your precept that it is not acceptable to display an American flag on a holiday that doesn't exist.  What you are espousing is throttling Freedom of Speech...which last I checked you made a living from...

Hispanic Students in CA Protest American Flag Wearing

85 Hispanic students from Morgan Hill, California, rallied yesterday to protest against the wearing of the American Flag (on t-shirts, shorts and bandanas) by 5 five non-hispanic students on Wednesday, May 5th.  That was "Cinco de Mayo".  This is...unconsciounable. 

An assistant principal at Live Oak told the group of boys on Wednesday to take off bandanas and shirts bearing American flags or turn the shirts inside out, according to some of the boys. At least one of the boys was also wearing shorts with the U.S. flag. "They said we could wear it on any other day," said Daniel Galli, one of the boys involved. "But today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday, so we were not allowed to wear it today."   The boys said they were told the clothing was offending some Hispanic students and could spark fights.  They were given the choice to leave or face suspension, they said.

Being told they can't wear symbols of America at a school that DOESN'T prohibit such is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constition.  If they offended the Hispanic students, oh well.  Cinco de Mayo isn't an American holiday.  It's a Mexican holiday that celebrates a military victory of Mexican forces over those of France.  Once student is quoted as saying,

"I think they should apologize 'cause it is a Mexican heritage day," student Annicia Nunez said. "We don't deserve to get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

Well Alicia, in America, you should know that you don't have the right to be offended.  It's tough to be an American because the people around you have a right to express themselves.  If you don't like it, go home to Mexico.  That is obviously where your heart lies.  What you don't have, is the right to force other people from expressing their rights, that's called oppression.

UPDATE:  It used to be that burning the flag was considererd to be "patriotic protest"...of course, you have to burn the "right" flag to get that consideration.  4 Students at Vintage High School in Napa Valley were suspended for burning a Mexican flag in protest of Cinco de Mayo.