Kagan: HELL NO!!!

I just read Can Kagan Be Trusted to Defend the Constitution? in which Ross Kaminsky assembles the critical pieces of the nominee's attitude toward the First Amendment's free speech clause. I want you to follow that link to Human Events

Kaminsky points out how Kagan's arguments in important cases before the Supreme Court indicate an unacceptable lack of respect for the right of free expression. Crucial quotes from a paper she wrote amplify that concern. I am glad that Kaminsky posted a link to the paper, because I clicked it and saw its title. "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" Since when do the ends justify the means? This quote was found on page 55 of the paper.

The realm of public expression may have too much of some kinds of speech, too little of others; some speakers may drown out or dominate their opposite numbers. Self-conscious redistribution of expressive opportunities seems the most direct way of correcting these defects and achieving the appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

President Obama spoke to the graduates at Hampton University, giving us some clues.

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

Perhaps outlining some crucial points will make things clear for you.

• bombards us
• all kinds of content
• exposes us
• all kinds of arguments
• don’t always rank that high on the truth meter
• information becomes a distraction
• putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy

That is dictator speak for "I need new laws to squelch my critics who are hampering my efforts to enslave you and cement my party in power." What is the relevance to Kagan's screed? Another outline is in order.

• too much of some kinds of speech
• drown out or dominate
• redistribution of expressive opportunities
• correcting these defects
• appropriate
• viewpoint.
• range
• balance

What do they have in common? Arrogance!! That single characteristic sticks out like a sore thumb. We are bombarded with all kinds of arguments, which may be untrue, and become a distraction, putting pressure on our democracy. There is too much of some speech, drowning out and dominating others. The remedy is redistribution of expressive opportunities assuring appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

The President and his latest nominee to the Supreme Court are two nuts in a Socialist shell who seek legislation to criminalize criticism of their policies. That is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

Those two nuts are not alone in that Socialist shell, they share it with Mark Lloyd, Obama's appointee to the FCC. Three years ago, he co-authored
"The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio". That screed asserts that there is too much Conservative speech on talk radio and suggests public policy changes to reduce Conservative speech, supplanting it with Socialist speech.

We are facing authoritarian demagogues who seek to overthrow our representative republic, replacing it with an autocracy. First, they must silence the guard dogs.

There are not enough Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination. Worse yet, they lack the resolve required, they are caving in. We have no recourse except to rise up and raise Hell. We must send a clear message to our Senators: Kagan is not fit to sit on the court: your vote for this nomination guarantees my vote against you in the next election cycle. Reverence for the rights enshrined in the Constitution is the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice; Kagan lacks it.

http://www.congress.org/ has a form you can use to send an email to your Senators. It is free and easy. I urge you to use it immediately.

Sphere: Related Content

First Amendment

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Wake up, America



View at YouTube

I find myself amazed at the poor quality of education that $41,500 a year buys at Harvard Law School. You would think that for that amount of money they would at least teach the US Constitution. But it seems not to be the case, especially with one of their most famous graduates, Barack Hussein Obama, our current President.

I wonder what part of the First Amendment they did teach him or was he absent that day? For no person who has been taught the US Constitution would ever forget the words of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet President Obama has chosen to ignore this and is pushing for full restrictions on our right to Free Speech:

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Not the sort of "outreach" the majority of Americans want. We like our Freedoms very much. Free speech is a protected right here in the US. Our own Supreme Court has affirmed the concept that "Even the most hateful and harmful speech is protected speech." (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 [1977])

Oh yes, we can say what we want about a religion without the fear of blasphemy laws. Oh happy day!

Mr. Condell need not worry about the United States losing our Freedoms soon. Not as long as Article VI of the Constitution is the law:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Or in layman speak:

"This Constitution will be the hightest law in the land. No law or treaty can be written or ratified that would violate this Constitution."

This whole idea of forcing Islamic blasphemy laws came about because of the riots over the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, it is only fitting that this post on Free Speech end with these cartoons.

To Muslims around the world:

Feel free to riot. For that shows to us the true face and spirit of Islam. A backward cult suitable only for children and those with the intelligence of an imbecile.

The rest of us will just laugh at your ignorance and keep on speaking our mind!

Sphere: Related Content

A First Amendment Hero!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Professor Indrek Wichman

He looks mild-mannered, not a man who would stand up to bullies and force them to back down. But Professor Indrek Wichman of Michagan State University, has become a Hero.

Now what would force this Professor of Mechanical Engineering to stand up for the First Amendment? Nothing less than a planned protest by the MSU chapter of the Muslim Students Union (MSU)

Members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Michigan State University (MSU) didn’t know what they were getting into when they tried to suppress the free speech rights of Professor Indrek Wichman. On February 28, 2006 he read in the MSU student newspaper a call to protest the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. The article struck a raw nerve. He responded with the following:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West--see the 1st Amendment--you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Some may say this reaction was a tad over-heated. But in a university environment, the more important question is: Were the statements accurate? It’s tough to argue with the validity of Professor Wichman’s factual assertions. And even tougher to demand that Wichman remain morally neutral regarding the examples of Muslim misconduct he cites.

For over three weeks Professor Wichman heard nothing about his email. But behind the scenes, the MSA had called in CAIR and had three separate meetings with the MSU provost. The MSA and CAIR both demanded that Wichman be censured, disciplined, enrolled in diversity and sensitivity training, and even “re-educated” on Islam.

To his credit, the MSU Provost did not cave in to the CAIR/MSA demands. On March 20, 2006 he wrote Wichman a letter saying that he strongly disagreed with the “intemperate tone” of his email. But he added that Wichman still had rights to free speech. From there, things got worse.

The MSU Provost told Wichman that if he continued to “harass” and “intimidate” the MSU MSA - while creating a “hostile intellectual climate” - then formal charges consistent with MSU anti-discrimination policy (ADP) would be filed by MSU against him. (emphasis mine)

On April 24, 2006 Wichman realized that the issue had not quietly gone away. He began receiving telephone calls and emails from local newspapers, AP, Reuters and other national and international outlets. CAIR and MSA, frustrated by the MSU Provost, had gone over his head and published a response, organized a press conference, and made a national/international press release.

CAIR and MSA’s public call upon MSU to take “disciplinary action" against Wichman’s “Islamophobic” email was a classic example of Muslim cowardice. Michigan’s CAIR Executive Director Mr. Dawud Walid said it was “unconscionable for a professor to use his university e-mail account to foster a hostile learning environment for Muslim students.” He added, “The University needs to take appropriate disciplinary action in this case to demonstrate through its actions that anti-Muslim bigotry will not be tolerated on campus.”

It should be noted that Mr. Walid has gone to court to argue for applying Sharia law in mid-Michigan. That serves to undercut significantly his stature as an opponent of bigotry towards minorities.

I sat down for a beer - I believe it was a Danish beer – with Indrek Wichman in April. When he said he meant to “protest the protest” of the MSA he really meant it. He helped form a conservative faculty group at MSU. The group serves to protest speech codes, invite conservative speakers to campus, and represent students and faculty whose rights are trampled by the MSU administration.

Indrek Wichman is not your typical college professor. He is a true First Amendment hero.

Meanwhile, Dawud Walid is still fighting to repeal the First Amendment and keep Muslims from being offended. He wants to replace it with Sharia law so Muslims can freely beat their wives and publicly execute homosexuals.

How is it that Muslims can say the most hurtful, racially insensitive, anti-Semitic rhetoric on US campuses without the administrations of those schools saying a word no, yet one lone professor on a campus writes an e-mail in protest of the barbaric practices of Islam, he is vilified and crucified? The behavior of the MSU in regards to Free Speech and other rights is well documented on the net. One just has to read Fousesquawk by blogger Gary Fouse to see what is happening at UC Irvine.

And it is happening at every college and university in the US.

What the MSU & CAIR are trying to do is first to stiffle free speech, then to impose Shar'ia Law on the US. Their counterparts have been very successful in doing this in Europe and Great Britain. But unlike those lost lands, the US has the Free exercise of Speech firmly written into the US Constitution. And there are plenty of court cases backing the right of Free Speech.

Slowly, on campuses, faculity are speaking out against the MSU. They are challenging their claims, and forcing the 1st Amendment down their throats.

I wonder what has taken them so long.

Sphere: Related Content

Dear Mr. President

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

I am not going to wait for someone to snitch on me. I will snitch on myself instead.

I am a middle aged white woman, a widow and mother of 2 grown daughters. I am a veteran of the US Air Force and the widow of a retired Air Force NCO.

I am the citizen who attends City Hall meetings, School Board meetings, who gets involved in working and demanding good government. I am a citizen. And I am your boss. Just like the other 300 million citizens of this great nation. And I don't like your proposed bill: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

While there are some good points in the bill, this proposed law does nothing to correct the problems with the Health Care Industry. It forces American citizens into a single-payer plan regardless of their rights and choices. It forces a raise on taxes to Middle Class Americans to pay for this new system. And in the end, it will lead to a system of rationed Health Care that is now in effect in Great Britain, Canada and most of Europe. A system in which the survival rates for Cancer (to use just one example) are lower than the US (the quality of medicine is the same).

This is not what the American people want or asked for.

What we want is for our existing Health Care Providers to provide the service that they are being paid for. That preexisting conditions be covered. That screening for Cancer on a yearly basis be provided. That necessary medical exams and tests be done.

No person should have to go into debt to pay for their health care if they are already paying for it through an Insurance company. And the premium costs should be regulated to insure that the average family can afford it.

For those who through their own stupidity or hubris refuse to insure themselves, then they will be forced to bear the full costs of their Health Care if they become ill. It is time that people take responsibility for their actions.

In the past Congress has been able to regulate the Health Care Industry. The passage of Newborns’ and Mothers’Health Protection Act of 1996 (NMHPA), signed by President Bill Clinton was a step in the right direction and was done with bi-partisan cooperation. Congress could do it again and such moves would improve the quality of Health Care in this country.

I suggest that during your summer vacation you sit down and actually read this bill. Then wonder why no Member of Congress will answer the question: "Would you put yourself and your family under this plan?" I ask that of you Mr. President. If not, why? And then why should I?

On a personal note.

I find your tactics in trying to pass this bill unworthy of the Leader of the Free World.

Having neighbor spy on neighbor, children spy on their parents, friends spy on friends is more the tactics of the Soviet Union (which locked up political dissenters in Psychiatric Hospitals for speaking out) or Nazi Germany (which sent political opponents to Concentration Camps).

In the United States, dissenting political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. You don't have to agree with what is said, but you cannot prevent the words from being spoken.

What your representative, and thus you said was:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

These are the words of a dictator, not an "elected official" with a temporary position subject to the will of the people.

Thank you for your time and patience. I know that you mean well with this idea, but this bill is not the right answer. Perhaps it is time to sit down, examine the issue fully, and do it right, not do it fast.

Findalis
Monkey in the Middle (http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)

Sphere: Related Content

Idiotic Petition Comments

I recently visited the Ban Islam Petition and discovered two interesting new comments. The petition asks the World Court to outlaw Islam because of its intrinsically evil doctrines & practices.

787. Morgan Brykein Care to read the First Amendment?

The petition's author is a citizen of Canada, not shaded by the First Amendment's umbrella of protection. The Canadian Human Rights Council has the power to persecute him. The amendment's establishment & free exercise clauses apply to the federal government of the U.S.A., they have no application to the World Court.

786. Frikka Wow Wow Freedom of religion, crackers, ever hear of it?

Casting aside the racial slur as irrelevant, I'll tackle the freedom of religion argument. Those persons fortunate enough to be under the First Amendment's umbrella of protection are shielded from establishment of a national church and protected from national interference with their faith & practice. Freedom of religion implies that we can't be compelled to believe or worship nor be obstructed from belief & practice.

Islam has no such provision. 3:85 declares that no religion will be accepted but Islam and those who seek other religions will be condemned to Hellfire. 8:39 & 9:29 declare unremitting warfare against pagans and Jews & Christians respectively until all resistance ceases, only Allah is worshiped and "people of the book" are humbled, subjugated & extorted. In Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, Moe informs us that our lives & property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims.

If Muslims are free to practice Islam, then the rest of us are deprived of the right to live in addition to our freedom of religion. Open your Qur'an to 2:216, which ordains Jihad for Muslims. Jihad is what a Muslim must do to avoid Hellfire and be assured of admission to Paradise. Open your Qur'an to 61:10 and read through the 13^th ayeh. Muslims are obligated to fight in Allah's cause. Allah's cause is making his word and system dominate the entire world. Doubters & dissenters should turn to 9:33 followed by Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65. Offensive Jihad is fard Kifaya, binding on every able bodied male Muslim of military age until a sufficient number have answered the call. Defensive Jihad is fard Ayn, binding on every Muslim who can get to the front.

Sphere: Related Content

Rush-Media Research Center Update

I'm a subscriber to Media Research Center and in my previous posts here , and here I published a few petitions to sign. These petitions ARE NOT simply a support of Rush, but are also a support of the First Amendment Rights of ALL people, not just the left. And the left is trying to shut down YOUR First Amendment Rights whenever someone on the right calls them on their nonsense and exposes the truth behind their lies.

It seems it's okay for the left to twist, spin and outright lie (in recent days about what Rush said, even with a full transcript AND video available AND about the actual need of the Frost family for government healthcare). For the right to expose the truth is unforgivable.

In other words, they can dish it out but they can't take it.

When they get their knickers in a twist the entire government comes to a screeching halt--thereby wasting MORE of yours and my tax dollars because their feelings are hurt. Then they try to dust off the "Fairness Doctrine".

Here is a rather chilling quote from the American Spectator regarding how the left intends to shut down your right--and Rush's and everyone else who doesn't goosestep to the left--to free speech:

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”

Now, if you want to stand up and fight for your right to speak as you choose, without censorship, stand with Rush on this one. Yes, Rush is one of--if not THE most--successful media personality out there today and he represents the conservatives on many issues. He is also a symbol of our free speech rights. If the left succeeds in taking him down, what do you think will happen to the free speech right of John Q. Public?

Rush didn't lie. The left did and does. Support Rush now to protect us later.

Here is the email I received from MRC, and the links to follow. One link has quotes from the MSM and the left, showing their quotes and how they have all twisted and spun. It's actually pretty funny, so I'd recommend heading over there.

Media Research Center
From the Desk of:
Douglas Mills, Executive Director

[Redacted]:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is continuing his campaign
against Rush!

Despite clear evidence to the contrary (including Rush's
staunch support of the troops and their mission), Reid and
other liberal elites are seeking to score political points
with their base by misrepresenting what Rush said.

Last week, Reid and 40 other Senators sent a letter of
complaint to Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays demanding Rush
apologize. Now they're urging DSCC supporters to follow suit.

Read the story as reported by our own CNSNews.com:

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=2265&rid=14570672

In addition to Reid's actions, American Spectator reports:
"Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to
begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio
hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts
from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications
Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called
'Fairness Doctrine.'"

Liberal mouthpieces like MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith
Olbermann continue to harp on Rush's  "phony soldier" quote
to their audiences as well.

Don't let the liberal elite force Rush off the radio!

++ Citizen Letter Condemning Reid’s Actions

To counter Reid's attack, the MRC launched a national Citizen
Letter condemning Reid’s actions that will be delivered to
both Reid and Clear Channel. Already, 26,047
citizens have added their name, with hundreds more
signing every hour.

[Redacted], help us reach our goal by doing the following:

         Forward this message to 20-30 friends and family,
         urging them to join with you by clicking here:

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=2265&rid=14570672

         Tell your friends now that in addition to adding their
         names to our Citizen Letter, they can also send personal
         messages of support to Rush--that MRC President Brent
         Bozell will deliver!

Click here to sign our Citizen Letter and send your personal
message to Rush:

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=2265&rid=14570672

We’re counting on the MRC Action Team to help us reach our goal of
50,000 signatures.  Help us effectively counter this baseless
attack by forwarding this message to your friends today.

We cannot afford to allow the liberals in America to silence
talk radio, and especially not Rush! But only if we take action
now can we stop the latest attack.

Thank you for taking action with us.

Douglas Mills, Executive Director
Media Research Center

P.S. Click here to visit MRC's "Notable Quotables" page to read
what the liberal media have to say about the attack on Rush!

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=2266&rid=14570672

********************
What?  You're still here?  GO--NOW--SIGN!

Others speaking on the subject:

Wake Up America
The Jawa Report
Hot Air
Instapundit

Catch the Wave!

Sphere: Related Content