Destroying Joe The Plumber
I knew the second he opened his mouth to ask The One a question, Joe Wurzelbacher AKA “Joe The Plumber” was gonna be in for a bumpy ride. Sure enough, the left’s vicious smear machine went to work right away taking the man apart.
Michelle explains better than I ever could the step by step destruction of Joe by the Obama thugs. Obama supporters don’t give a damn about free speech unless it’s their free speech. Predictably, Joe The Plumber is now being labeled a racist much like anyone else who dare’s to question his holiness The One.
-Chris Jones
Michael Barone: The Coming Liberal Thugocracy
When John McCain told a group of supporters the other day they have nothing to fear if Barack Obama gets elected, he was was wrong. Anyone who enjoys exercising their free speech rights has a lot to fear from an Obama administration. No campaign in history has done more to chill free expression than Barack Obama and his ultra left-wing pals.
Michael Barone’s latest column in the Washington Times explains in detail the dangers of an Obama presidency as it relatest to free speech.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-’02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama’s ties to Mr. Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.
Let’s not forget about NBC’s hideous behavior during this election cycle which has even infected ‘Saturday Night Live’:
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. “Saturday Night Live” ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC’s Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don’t want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Barone also points out the extremely troubling activities of labor unions which are certain to run wild under a liberal administration:
Then there’s the Democrats’ “card check” legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions’ strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees’ homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Everyone should read the rest of Michael Barone’s piece. All this “Change We Can Believe In” crap makes for a great campaign slogan, but many Americans have no idea just what kind of change is coming.
-Chris Jones
Feds: Sheriff May Have Broken Law By Campaigning For McCain
Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott may have violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for John McCain say federal investigators.
Federal investigators are now looking into whether Scott broke the law by campaigning for John McCain.
Officials with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel say they have received so many phone calls from the public that they launched an investigation into Sheriff Scott on Tuesday.
The question is - did he use his position as sheriff to influence an election? If so, he could be in violation of a federal election law called the Hatch Act.
I would agree that no Sheriff should use his position to try and effect the outcome of an election. Which is why I find it so concerning that Barack Obama has both prosecutors and Sheriffs in Missouri promising to prosecute anyone who runs “misleading” ads or makes “misleading statements” about Obama’s record. They also promise to “remind” voters about Barack Obama’s tax cuts and other proposals.
This unprecedented and illegal activity by the Obama campaign outraged the governor of Missouri who said this:
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election…
Again, I would tend to agree that Sheriff Scott should not be campaigning for McCain. But if we’re going to investigate one instance, then we need to investigate them all.
-Chris Jones
Adult Filmmaker Gets 46 Months In Prison, $1.4 Million In Fines
What do you consider ‘obscene?’ What do you think your neighbor would consider ‘obscene?’ Is is possible that you and neighbor might differ? Do you know people who might disagree with what you consider ‘obscene’?
These are all questions that must be considered when looking at the outrageous case of Max Hardcore. Max is a pornographer pure and simple. His real name is Paul Little and he makes some of the filthiest and most degrading porn around.
If you saw one of his movies you would likely be totally disgusted. However, as despicable as his films may be to the average person there are some people who like his movies. Let me be clear, we’re not talking about child porn here. I’m talking about consenting adults who are in these movies and who watch these movies.
The federal government decided that Paul Little’s movies offended them so they charged Little with 10 counts of distributing ‘obscene’ materials through the Internet and mail.
Little went on trial and 12 jurors sat through several hours of his movies, and after a lengthy deliberation they too decided his movies were offensive. This was despite testimony from some of the women who starred in Little’s movies. The women told the jury that they were well paid and had no regrets about doing the films and were certainly never forced to do anything.
Today Paul Little was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and fined more than $1.7 million dollars for distributing material that some deemed to be ‘obscene.’
My point here is not to gain sympathy for a pornographer, but to highlight the bigger picture and what it means for free speech.
The Supreme Court uses what is called “The Miller Test” to determine whether or not something is ‘obscene’ or not. There are 3 factors all of which must be satisfied in order for something to legally be considered ‘obscene.’
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
The reason this is deeply flawed is because it lacks a national standard. How can you apply a ‘community standard’ to something transmitted over the Internet? Moreover, a community standard might be different in Georgia than it would be in California.
For these reasons, Little has a very good shot at overturning his conviction on appeal. However, that still doesn’t change the seriousness of these kind of prosecutions by the government and what they mean for free speech.
You may not care about the porno guy, but what if next time it’s a song? Or maybe a painting? What if next time the federal government decides a certain book is obscene? The real truth is that ‘obscenity’ is in the eye of the beholder.
One person may find a rap song riddled with the n-word to be obscene and offensive, while another person may like the rap song buy find pornography to be offensive.
In the United States pornography provided all parties involved are at least 18 years of age or older is completely legal. So for the government to single out certain adult filmmakers for prosecution because they don’t like the kind of stuff consenting adults are doing in the films is totally unacceptable.
Pornography does have its legal limitations in the U.S. as well it should. It’s flat out illegal to film persons under the age of 18. It’s illegal to have sex with animals and dead people — which we can all agree are good laws.
At no time was it ever alleged that Paul Little’s movies contained any illegal acts — but merely taken as a whole they were deemed to be ‘obscene.’
The government cannot make pornography illegal, because that would be unconstitutional. So the idea is to try and put pornographers out of business by charging them with ‘obscenity.’ Little’s case is the first one they’ve actually been able to secure a guilty verdict.
In the end the feds don’t really care if they get a guilty verdict, because the cost of defending an obscenity case in court usually bankrupts the porn company in question — so the government ‘wins’ either way.
This is the kind of crap you would expect to happen in Russia, but not in America. Underhanded tactics like that are the real obscenity in this country.
Regardless of how you may feel about porn, this is an outrageous prosecution and represents a shocking abuse of power by the Justice Department and is fundamentally unconstitutional.
-Chris Jones
Gov. Of Missouri Responds To Obama’s Abuse Of Justice System
Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt said this about the Obama campaign’s use of Missouri law enforcement to suppress free speech:
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
Obama’s repeated attempts to get law enforcement involved in this election to silence critics is about as despicable as it gets.
Missouri Law Enforcement Targeting Anyone Who Unfairly Attacks Obama
The Obama campaign has asked Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who runs a ‘misleading’ ad or makes ‘misleading statements’ about Obama’s record.
Sheriffs from across the state and at least two high profile prosecutors are joining the “Obama Truth Squads” and will be reminding voters that Barack Obama will cut taxes for 95% of the people, and that he’s a Christian.
Law enforcement and prosecutors are promising to respond immediately to any ‘misleading’ ads or statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of law enforcement ‘reminding’ people about the positions of a particular candidate. When you watch the news report about this it’s pretty creepy.
It looks like Obama is once again using fascist tactics to suppress free speech. If you speak out against Obama in Missouri you’ll find yourself in hot water with prosecutors and law enforcement.
I guess that’s the ‘Change We Can Believe In.’
UPDATE:
Michelle has more on this.
(photo via FREEwilliamsburg)
Canadian Law: Telling The Truth About Muslims is Hate Speech
Take a look at this excellent column by Kathy Shaidle over at Pajamas Media. She offers some excellent analysis of the outrageous prosecution of Mark Steyn for “hate speech” in Canada.
Columnist and author Mark Steyn was charged with “hate speech” by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for what it called “flagrant Islamaphobia” after excerpts of his best selling book on radical Islam were featured in a popular Canadian news magazine.
The Canadian government can stop anyone from publishing something it deems “likely” to expose Muslims to “hatred” or “contempt.” Which means that being critical of Muslims in Canada is against the law. Steyn doesn’t face jail time for his “hate crime” but if found guilty he’ll face hefty fines and likely be banned from publishing in Canada ever again.
This so-called “Muslim Human Rights Tribunal” has a 100% conviction rate, so it’s highly unlikely that Steyn will be found innocent. Oddly enough, the far-left here in America has been silent about this Stalinist assault on free speech in Canada, but I guess that’s because they too are terrorist sympathizers just like the Canadian government.
I’m willing to bet if Mark Steyn had written a book that said Jesus was an as*shole, and Christians are dangerous, there would be no trial.
Blogger Arrested In Saudi Arabia
Fouad al-Farhan is one of the few bloggers in Saudi Arabia to actually use his real name. Not coincidentally, he’s also apparently the first blogger to be arrested in the Saudi Kingdom.
The Saudi English daily, Arab News, said al-Farhan had “violated non-security regulations.” The paper said the 32-year-old Jeddah resident was arrested at his office Dec. 10 and taken to his home where police conducted a search. There were no other details.
Following the arrest, al-Farhan’s friends who are now running his Web site, posted a letter allegedly from the blogger claiming he was told by an official there was an Interior Ministry order “to investigate me and they will pick me up anytime in the next two weeks.”
In it, he also said he believed Saudi authorities were after him because he “wrote about political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.”
Al-Farhan added that officials asked him to sign an apology but that he wasn’t ready to do that.
“An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government is liar when it accused those people of supporting terrorism,” he said.
As for al-Farhan being certain as to who is or is not a terrorist I’m not so sure about, but obviously he should have the right to say it.
Blogging is actually a very popular activity in Saudi Arabia and the arrest of al-Farhan is widely perceived as a warning to other bloggers, which under the circumstances is probably a pretty accurate perception.
Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Monsour al-Turki said the blogger might be released on Wednesday but did not elaborate.
-Chris Jones
SFU Republicans Show How To Protest On A College Campus
[via LGF]
I don’t think your gonna find a better example of how differently Republicans and far-left loons stage a protest. Sean Penn was invited to speak at San Francisco State University, and as you might imagine this didn’t sit well with the small minority that don’t hate America on that campus.
So the college Republicans staged a protest. They didn’t shout Penn down or rush the stage. They didn’t burn him in effigy, or throw pies. Nope, the way they chose to protest was to put one single Republican in front of Penn with a sign for his entire speech.
Of course, one liberal tried to take his sign and prevent him from exercising his free speech rights that liberals profess to hold so dear, but the Police removed that person.
I recommend that everyone watch this video of how Penn was treated, and watch in next time a conservative speaker comes to ANY college campus. You’ll see a dramatically different type of display. How in the world did the liberals better known as the ACLU backed “free speech police” become so interested in preventing opposing view points from even being spoken?
-Chris Jones
Russian Police Crackdown On Anti-Putin Protests
Russian riot police beat opposition activists on Sunday and detained nearly 200 people at protest rallies against President Vladimir Putin a week before the country’s parliamentary election.
The unrest came a day after a similar event in Moscow ended with the arrest of Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion and opposition leader, whose coalition, Other Russia, has declared that Mr. Putin is turning Russia into a dictatorship. A judge sentenced Mr. Kasparov to five days in jail.
With the economy strong and the nation enjoying stability after the turmoil of the 1990s, Mr. Putin has become widely popular, and Mr. Kasparov’s movement has only a small following. Mr. Putin’s party, United Russia, is expected to win an overwhelming majority in the elections, aided by the Kremlin’s control over government agencies and the news media.
About 500 activists made it to the marches but were vastly outnumbered by riot police. Most of those detained were later released.
-Samantha Giles
Edwards Campaign Demands Student Journalist Pull Story
A UNC-Chapel Hill journalism professor said John Edwards’ presidential campaign tried to kill a student’s video story about his campaign headquarters.
Associate Professor C.A. Tuggle said two top staffers from the Edwards campaign demanded that the school drop the segment from the student-run television program “Carolina Week.” They also asked to have the video removed from the YouTube Web site.
Tuggle said they threatened to cut off access to Edwards for UNC student reporters and other student groups if the piece aired.
I guess “Mr. Poverty” only likes free speech if it’s not critical of him.
-Chris Jones
-
-
-
Subscribe
-
Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Posts
