Category — Free Speech

Lawmakers Rush To Rewrite
Campaign Finance Reform Bill

MONTPELIER, Vt. — With this fall’s election, campaign finance reform will be one of the Legislature’s first tasks in the session that opened Tuesday.

Last year, Republican Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed the campaign finance bill. Lawmakers tried but failed to override the veto in a special session.

Now legislative leaders are rushing to rewrite the bill early in the session so new limits on campaign contributions could be in effect for the election. [snip]

The original bill had all of the bouquet of McCain-Feingold. Holding their noses, the Supremes disinfected Vermont, burying that bill. Back came the same old socialist cant tatted into a new bill, praised by all comrades of Progressive ilk.

Now, one more skip about the May Pole ensues, to slash the financial throat of political speech with the bloody sickle of yore.

Vermont will fund Single Payer Health Care by imposing one party rule. Imagine the savings realized with no costs for elections, lost time from work to vote and except for the approved opposing party candidate no ballot printing costs.

Quite simple isn’t it.

First, from the people who just booted John Howard. The good side is that the meat looks great on the red Christmas Spode, and it really sets off the mint sauce. I’m told The Lop-Eared Dwarf is especially tender. Key chain ferules available for the feet at my blog address. The rabbit is probably grill-ready. I’m not sure.

Second, from the people whose Sceptr’d Isle will soon be the Scimitar’d Isle, and Hyde Park corner turned into a hangman’s scaffold. What’s that refrain I hear? “We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control, no dark sarcasm in the classroom, teachers leave them kids alone….allinallyerjustanutherbrickinthewall!”

Third, from a nation where The War on Poverty produced this grub; he will certainly end up tenured at some squalid Northeastern academic sinkhole. He seems to have attended night courses at the Eldridge Cleaver School of Hair Styling & Tablecloth Design as an H Rap Brown Scholar. America. What a country!

The Boston Globe endorsement of John McCain should scare most conservative voters off his candidacy. But even if you didn’t have the damning evidence in the form of this endorsement, McCain is on the wrong side of too many big issues. He’s an enemy of free speech with his unwavering support of campaign finance reform laws. He’s pro-amnesty and will revive those disastrous proposals the second he’s elected. And he wouldn’t harm a hair on bin Laden’s to get valuable intelligence information out of him.

You can make electability arguments for McCain all you like, but like the 2 Bush’s before him, he’ll harm the conservative agenda far more than he’ll advance it.

Have you wondered why this has been played down in the MSM and the Donks? Figures doesn’t it!

The Dirty Little Secret of the Left

Right now the oppressive regime in Myanmar, or Burma, is once more featuring prominently in the news. The hated regime represents everything that left wing political parties abhor: excessive brutal force used to suppress the poor population, widespread censorship, strict military rule. You name it, the Burmese government does it. But… the government isn’t a right wing dictatorship at all. It is a socialist dictatorship!

Who woulda thunk it!

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a legitimate gripe against Columbia University President Lee Bollinger.  Memo to Mr. Bollinger: Don’t invite guest speakers to your university under the guise of free speech and understanding if you’re going to cheap shot them before they’ve even said anything like you did last night:

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” 

Yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit, at your behest, put you under a lot of pressure, but the right answer to that problem is being more careful with your invites, not being discourteous to your guest.  It was a cowardly attempt to blunt criticism being leveled at the university.

Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to speak

[snip] Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in announcing Ahmadinejad’s upcoming appearance, described the event as part of “Columbia’s long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate.” [snip]

If this is as purported to be, why don’t we have vigorous, polite debates over PC garbage, the absolute failure of communism/socialism in the real world, and persons who disagree with pointy-head stupidity.

Columbia U. has a mugshot book to ID welcome guests and a perp book for those not.

Here’s the pantheon of acceptable speakers at Columbia.

Here are those found objectionable at Columbia. What is the difference.

Columbia University can certainly invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak if it likes, but they should stop using free speech as a fig leaf. Free speech does not excuse being used as a propaganda tool by a man whose country is anything but free. And free speech doesn’t obligate anyone, including a university, to provide a pulpit for a Holocaust denying, terrorist supporting, human rights violating dictator.

The university invited him, and it reflects poorly on it as an institution. Free speech doesn’t mitigate this poor decision.

The Illiberal College
Elite academia doesn’t like oversight.Sunday, September 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

One of the more momentous cases in Supreme Court history, Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), involved an attempt by the state of New Hampshire to wrest control of the privately chartered school from its board of trustees. But a corporate charter like Dartmouth’s, the Marshall Court ruled, is the same as a private contract; the state could not simply annex the school.
The sanctity of contract has preserved the independence of not a few colleges and universities. But institutions of higher learning now shy from the same oversight their faculties have demanded of the corporate world, and some of the lessons learned in that 1819 case are being unlearned. [snip]

The candidates for elected trusteeships have traditionally been vetted by a small committee, ensuring quiescence. Over the last four years, however, no fewer than four reform-minded candidates won seats on the board using a provision allowing nomination by petition. They include Silicon Valley CEO T.J. Rodgers and Virginia law professor Stephen Smith, who have raised the profile of such issues as academic standards, bureaucratic bloat and free speech.

Their presence has proven to be a tremendous offense to Dartmouth’s inner circles. Like administrators at most universities, these academic elites expect only money–not opinion and oversight–from their alumni donors. A year ago, the administration worked with a small committee of alumni to alter the petition process to make it less likely that outsiders could win. They lost in a rout in an alumni referendum. [snip]

Should the board decide to vitiate Dartmouth’s own experiment in democracy, it…will be one more sign of a widening crevice between the real world and life on the nation’s campuses.

The endowments of the 25 wealthiest institutions of higher learning total $178 billion, and a college education is one of the largest investments a person will ever make (in tuition and donations as an alumnus). It isn’t a surprise that alumni stakeholders have begun to show interest and exert influence. The only surprise is the lengths to which academic elites will go in order to keep out the light of day.

The pointy-heads feel they are exempt from any of the strictures controlling mortal individuals.

With the sniffing pomposity of a cart pushing baglady, they’re offended when the secular see them for what they are, not as they see themselves. Comeuppances discombobulate the nobility when the serfs divulge they’re sans culottes.

Having the faculty’s caskets open when the sunlight of outside governance streams into council chambers produces the ambiance of a Vermont outhouse seat in February.

If only they freeze it off!

Helen Thomas laments the recent rightward tilt at the Supreme Court. Swami Thomas foresees a parade of horribles that will result from this “mean” Court. It didn’t hold up equal protection under the law; it reinstituted segregation. It didn’t stop “partial birth abortion”; it struck at the heart of Roe vs. Wade. It didn’t restore discipline to schools; it put serious constraints on free speech. But has someone who refers to President Bush as a “conservative” considered the issues or really paid attention?

Just like she missed the bruising battles between President Bush and conservatives, her analysis misses the mark here. Thomas bemoans the dismantling of the “humane society” leftist jurists produced, but she offers very little in actual legal analysis. For example, is “diversity” so compelling that we should suspend equal protection? The 5-4 majority didn’t find that answer as self-explanatory as Helen does.

[Read more →]

The Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito look like they’ll be one of the few bright spots in President Bush’s legacy. The Court issued several very good 5-4 rulings today. (See excerpts here.) First up, it struck down McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform restrictions on advocacy group issue ads during the later stages of an election, which clearly violated our 1^st Amendment rights. 2^nd, it ruled that public schools could limit student’s free speech. This case is distinguishable from the 1^st instance because public schools are educational institutions where appropriate limitations on disruptive behavior are valid. The student in question even admitted he wasn’t exercising free speech as much as he was looking for attention.

Last, it upheld the Bush administration’s decision to give money to faith based charities. Although I don’t believe this is necessarily unconstitutional, I’ve changed my position this type of funding. One of the fundamental reasons these organizations were successful was because they weren’t government organizations. Long-term they may regret their government ties if they integrate into the bloated and ineffective government bureaucracy that’s incapable of performing even the most basic task. Next, is creating another special interest group with designs on our tax dollars a good idea? There are already enough people with their hands in our pockets without creating another group of them.

But all in all, these were pretty good decisions. I have a feeling this 5-4 voting block will decide a number of cases provided the composition of the court doesn’t shift in the immediate future. Conservatives made the correct call on forcing the president to back down on Harriet Miers because Alito looks like a keeper.

An interesting exchange here between Chris Wallace and Senator Diane Feinstein. It seems that Diane isn’t real pleased about talk radio’s take on the amnesty bill:

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This bill was negotiated in secret and ¾ of the US Senate didn’t know what was in it. Then they tried to pass it in less than a week. And Feinstein can say with a straight face that talk radio didn’t have a lot of information? Comical.

This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

“Complicated” is code for “not easily understood by the little people”. What about free speech, Diane? If some people want to call it amnesty, isn’t that their right? It’s way to dangerous to let people have their opinion though.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

It might be time to switch to satellite and Internet radio. I get enough liberal pabulum from the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, et al.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

I love how she completely skips the free market question by stating “there have been problems”. Yeah, like nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio. And we know how liberals fix “problems”—more government regulation. Apply a fairness doctrine if you like, but include the NY Times, CBS News, and the nightly news casts while you are at it.

You have a problem also.

A Finnish Blogger has a problem with free speech. Mikko Ellilä will be chatting with the badged, uniformed diviners of thought. See what happened to the Finn. (See posts one, two, three, and four on the topic)

Today, the chill wind coming out of the House Judiciary Committee makes his troubles inconsequential. The Progressive, socialist attack on the First Amendment ratchets up to a new level. The House Judiciary Committee passed a “hate crimes” bill last week. All twenty-three Democrats voted in favor or it, and all seventeen Republicans dissented.

You should be quite upset with the Democrat control of Congress.

[snip] CNS news reported last week that —

• Every Republican attempt to amend the bill was defeated. Critics call it a “thought crimes” bill.
• The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include violence against a person because of his or her “actual or perceived” sexual orientation or “gender identity.”
• Under the bill, people who attack others out of “hatred” for their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability would be committing a federal offense.

[snip] A summary of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007” (H.R. 1592) is here. The Committee tortured words to characterize hate crimes and list preventions:

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

[snip]

Is the crime motivated by prejudice. Who decides that? Is the prosecution a politically correct lynching of an incorrect individual or a real crime? Who judges the correctness of their assessment?

Minorities cosseted in this bill are the usual politically correct suspects. Doling out special treatment to the anointed is de rigueur. However, special treatment doesn’t extend to old people, the military, Christian religions and Caucasians. None are eligible under this bill, though they frequently are singled out.

A proposed law in Vermont mandates a fine and possibly jail for the household reaction to the news video from Montpelier last night. The display of gender confused and altered constituted a bizarre display of Riply’s Believe it or ELSE. The blue pantsuit attired supporter alone violated every law of fashion. The Democrats now wish to make laughter an incorrect felony.

Filling the GOP presidential contender ranks are individuals whose ideological home is very left of center. Pandering to the conservative side of the GOP is job #1; we get all sorts of ridiculous positions asserted. Giuliani fractured his spine, holding polar positions on the abortion and gun issues. Romney does the same. The rest are no better.

Jacob Sullum | April 11, 2007

Rudy Giuliani’s narrow reading of the Second Amendment

Despite his promise to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court if he is elected president, Rudy Giuliani recently said he has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered a previously unnoticed constitutional right to abortion. Offending social conservatives (and strict constructionists) even further, he told CNN this constitutional right may require government financing of abortions for women who otherwise cannot afford them.

Since Giuliani also claims to support “the right to bear arms” (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people. But the idea would never occur to him, because his sudden interest in the Second Amendment, like his sudden interest in strict constructionism, is merely an affectation intended to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. [snip]

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has joined the ranks of gun control advocates willing to employ the brute force of litigation as an end run around democracy. “[F]ollowing the lead of many of the nation’s other large cities, [Giuliani] announced yesterday that his administration would file its own lawsuit against handgun manufacturers, seeking tens of millions of dollars to compensate New York City for injuries and other damage caused by illegal gun use.” Maybe he wouldn’t have made such a good Senator after all (Eric Lipton, “Giuliani Joins the War on Handgun Manufacturers”, New York Times, June 20).

Since John Lindsay, no elected mayor in NYC sported a conservative label. One must be a democrat or if republican, be as liberal as them. Giuliani fits this mold. Bloomberg was a Donk who changed party but not doctrine. Giuliani supported him.

Like Giuliani, Romney has switched positions, even recently buying a life membership in the NRA to buttress his hyaloid change in dogma. Thank God, he’s a lifetime hunter.

Like Daschle, McCain says one thing at home, a very different set of positions in DC. Unlike Daschle, he’s avoided firing. With Feingold, he assaulted free speech, voted against conservatives on abortion and guns. He resisted cutting taxes and works with Kennedy on many fiscal pacts.

Match the purported leaders’ votes with any of the Democrat candidate; you won’t find too many degrees of separation.

Where are the true Republicans, those of the same credo of Reagan and Goldwater?

We need choices, not sound bites.

Here’s a gentleman who wished to practice his first amendment rights and the state censors him. Perhaps the only form of protected speech permitted is spontaneous combustion.

Man Sets Self on Fire after School Breaks Renamed

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — An unidentified man upset with a decision made by school board members in Kern County, Calif., used flammable liquid to set himself on fire Friday in protest.

Trustees of the Kern High School Board voted to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation Thursday.

He had a sign that read “(expletive) the religious establishment and KHSD,” said Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy John Leyendecker.

After he had burst into flames, a sheriff’s deputy ordered him to drop to the ground. The deputy and a parole agent then sprayed him with fire extinguishers.

The man suffered first-degree burns on his shoulders and arms. He had been wearing a sign that protested, what he called, the religious establishment and the school district.

A fire official said the man also set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica in a public area. He stood with an American flag around his shoulders and poured the liquid over himself. The flaming tree ignited the liquid.

Will we see the ACLU file suit to protect his rights to free speech? Given the way our courts work, you can take it to the bank that a suit for infringing on his constitutional rights is forthcoming. The deputy, parole officer, school board members and the county plus anyone who chortled at his idiocy get named.

Apparently Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer isn’t in the habit of examining the merits of his own statements:

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-to-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.
 

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying that the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to candidates not tied to special interests.

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that making the election process “fairer” and “more democratic” by weakening special interests groups justifies limitations on our freedom of speech.  Has McCain-Feingold weakened the special interest groups?  If anything, the McCain-Feingold version of campaign finance reform has strengthened special interest 527 organizations, like MoveOn.org, who raise millions of dollars to influence the political process.  But since liberals are never required to analyze the results of their actions, Justice Breyer continues to trade on good intentions while he blithely ignores reality.