Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 6     «   Prev   3   4   5   6
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #126 

Obama and the IRS plot to keep conservative nonprofits from forming

Sen. Mitch McConnell says the Father of the Bill of Rights, referring to infringements on our freedoms, once wrote that such encroachments were more often "gradual and silent" than "violent and sudden."

That's exactly what we're seeing with President Obama's proposed regulation on so-called 501(c)(4) groups: a stealth attempt to stifle the ability of ordinary Americans to participate in the political process.

The administration's proposal, quietly floated over Thanksgiving, is just the latest in a long line of attempts to skirt the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United, which basically said that businesses and independent groups have the same right to free speech under the First Amendment as anybody else.

Liberals hated Citizens United because it helped level the political playing field for conservatives. In their view, corporations that own liberal media outlets like The New York Times and MSNBC should have an absolute right to free speech, but independent groups and other grassroots organizations that seek to promote Madisonian ideals like limited government and greater liberty need to be kept in check.

They tried this a few years ago with the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have forced grassroots groups to disclose their donor lists. The goal was as obvious as it was anti-democratic: expose the names of those who support unfashionable causes or candidates in the hope of scaring them right off the political playing field.

And we all know what happened after Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE Act. The President and his top campaign aides made the names of conservative donors famous on their own, signaling to top officials at the IRS that they shouldn't think twice about giving extra scrutiny to anybody on the conservative team.

In the end, an independent Inspector General found that IRS officials abused their authority by singling out scores of conservative grassroots groups for audits and delayed approval for tax-exempt status.

But this latest effort is the most audacious yet. Rather than reforming the IRS and doing whatever it took to assure Americans that the agency would no longer target individuals or groups that oppose the President, the administration has decided to double down by attempting to block these groups from forming in the first place.

Under the new regulation, groups that already exist could have to shut down altogether.

For some, it may be hard to imagine that the Obama administration would even think of touching an issue this radioactive after last year's scandal stunned the nation. They underestimate the extent to which this administration and its allies are willing to go to shut down -- and shut up -- their ideological opponents.

They also underestimate the extent to which these folks are willing to go to hold onto power, and they forget how speech is usually stifled. As Madison knew, most encroachments on free speech and other constitutionally-protected freedoms are backdoor efforts like this one.

For us, the goal now should be to get as many Americans as we can engaged in this fight and beat back this latest assault on political speech. I'm convinced that once people realize what's happening, the administration will feel the heat and back off. It may not be easy, but preserving our constitutional rights never has been.

And it's a fight we have to win.

I know from personal experience that the Constitution and tenacity are the two greatest weapons we have in battles like this one. It's a lesson I learned from a long fight I've waged against campaign finance laws that struck a serious blow to the right of free speech. The low point for me was when I watched a Republican president sign into law a bill that I'd been fighting for years.

I never give up, though. Instead, I sued the government. And we've made real progress over the years, including the Citizens United decision. But the fight continues. As this latest proposal from the Obama administration makes clear, assaults on our constitutionally-protected liberties never stop.

That's why I've launched another campaign this week to make more Americans aware of this latest liberal assault. It's also why I've called on the new IRS commissioner to follow the example of Donald Alexander, the IRS commissioner who famously opposed President Nixon's attempts to use the IRS to go after his own political opponents.

The Obama administration's arrogance here is breathtaking. But if the American people get engaged and fight back, we will win this fight. I'm sure of it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #127 

The all-out war on First Amendment

•  Bestselling author and scholar Dinesh D'Souza, whose "2016: Obama's America," was one of the biggest documentary movie hits of its kind, was indicted last week on felony campaign finance violation charges that could see him imprisoned him for up to seven years. He was arraigned on $500,000 bail and Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department prosecutors made sure to collect his passport to prevent him from fleeing the country.
•  Friends of Abe, a group of conservative Hollywood figures that applied for nonprofit 501(c)(3) status, has seen its application held up for two years while Internal Revenue Service officials demand, among other things,  a list of the group's members, who would prefer their identities not be made public for fear of losing work. In fact, one of the key reasons for the group's existence is to provide peer support for political dissidents who have face a serious threat of blacklisting in Hollywood.
•  Last year, Holder's Justice Department shocked the media establishment by monitoring the phone records of reporters at the Associated Press and Fox News in a heavy-handed, jackbooted effort to identify leakers of classified documents within Barack Obama's own administration.
•  Last fall, in a pre-dawn raid conducted by agents of the Coast Guard, Homeland Security and Maryland State Police in full body armor, the Obama administration invaded the home of Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson in search of illegal firearms. During the raid, one office asked Hudson if she was the reporter had written a series of stories critical of the Federal Air Marshal program. Hudson acknowledged she was. "Those stories were embarrassing to the agency," the officer said ominously.
•  The IRS has admitted targeting TEA Party and other conservative groups based on their political ideology. But it makes no apologies for doing so. In fact, the IRS is pushing new regulatory procedures that would essentially make the practice of political targeting legal -- by establishing one standard for unions and liberal 501(c)4 groups and another tougher standard for tea party and conservative organizations.

Joseph Farah says this is only a partial list of shocking anti-First Amendment actions by the Obama administration over the last year. Yet, the press establishment that makes its living under the protection of the First Amendment sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

Perhaps that's the safest, if least courageous, course in times like these.

Some defenders of the Obama administration question whether this represents more than a circumstantial case of abuse of free speech, freedom of the press and the right to dissent.

That's really the wrong question. A better question is: Do these developments measure up to the anti-First Amendment rhetoric of the Obama administration and its hand-picked officials in key agencies? And the answer to that question is most definitely "yes."

Obama swept into office in 2009 with the intent of promoting policies designed to destroy the one media form dominated by conservatives -- talk radio.

The key appointment of Mark Lloyd as the chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission is telling. Since that one appointment, there should be no doubt about Obama's intentions with regard to limiting the free expression of his critics and political adversaries. All you need to do is consider Lloyd's own rhetoric:

•  "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
•  He hailed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez for his "incredible … democratic revolution." Lloyd expressed admiration for the way Chavez attempted to shut down opposition media in Venezuela.
•  "What we're really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine's not enough," Lloyd says. "And that having a sort of over-arching rule that says broadcasters ought to be 'fair' or ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply not enough -- unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard, structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness."
•  One of Lloyd's ideas for doing that is by getting rid of white people in positions of authority in FCC-regulated media: "This … there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Lloyd also has proposed that private broadcasters pay an annual licensing fee in an amount equivalent to their total yearly operating costs to a fund that would be redistributed to public broadcasting stations -- i.e. state-run media.

In a report he co-authored just two years before being named as the diversity czar in the Obama FCC, Lloyd made no bones about the fact that his goal is reducing the disparity in the audiences of conservative and liberal talkers.

His remedy? "Stations owned by racial or ethnic minorities are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows, and [are] more likely to air progressive hosts or shows." Also, he says, "Stations controlled by owners who run just a single station [are] statistically less likely to air conservative talk and more likely to air progressive hosts or shows."

Naturally, with the ideological content outcome in mind, Lloyd is working overtime in his position to see more minority radio-station owners and more owners of single stations.

Suffice it to say, Lloyd is not exactly a First Amendment absolutist. He's more like a First Amendment abolitionist.

That Obama would appoint a man with these ideas to such a post should reveal his intentions about his intolerance free expression and diversity of opinion. Obama and his appointees care about one thing -- retaining power at any cost. They have no use for critics. They have no use for dissent.

Therefore, Dinesh D'Souza is now officially an enemy of the state, and the IRS is demanding to see the names of all the cardholding conservatives in Hollywood.

I don't know any other way to say it: Obama has declared an all-out war on the First Amendment.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #128 

Team Obama retaliates against Catholic priest

Jim Hoft says when they’re not attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor, Team Obama is abusing Catholic priests.

[LittleChurch]

The church at Kings Bay Naval Base before the shutdown and before the doors were locked. (Happy Hour)

In October 2013, the Obama Administration shut down Catholic Services at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia. The church was also locked down.

Now the Obama administration is retaliating against Fr. Ray Leonard, the priest who broke the news that the Obama administration was abusing Catholic clergy and servicemen and women.
The Washington Free Beacon reported:

A Catholic Navy chaplain barred from practicing his religion during the recent government shutdown is now the target of retaliation by the federal government, according to an amended complaint filed by his attorneys.

Rev. Ray Leonard filed a lawsuit in October against the Department of Defense and the Navy after he was threatened with arrest if he performed mass, administered the sacraments, or entered the chapel at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia during the shutdown.

Three DOJ attorneys contacted Erin Mersino, his attorney at the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), which is handling the case, a day after the suit was filed and indicated Leonard could resume all religious duties and the chapel would be reopened for Catholic services.

A week later, on Oct. 21, he was told his DOD contract would no longer be considered valid.

The government has withheld the priest’s pay ever since and it is also asking Leonard to sign another contract with additional pages that include “onerous terms,” according to the TMLC.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #129 

Whistleblowers lose 1st Amendment rights

Thomas Drake was an NSA Senior Executive who revealed their data collection methods. He said that whistleblowers' first amendment rights are criminalized.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #130 
[Tweet20]

__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #131 

First Amendment?  What First Amendment?

Doug Ross says that the hard left Democrat Party despises free speech and every sunrise seems to bring new proof.

Team Obama, like the tinpot dictatorship it is, has created its own propaganda broadcasts, restricted press access to the president, seized phone records of 100 Associated Press reporters, wiretapped others, and publicly excoriated or banned media outlets that offered unfavorable coverage of the White House.

Now the next phase of Team Obama's totalitarian scheme has begun, as Tim Cavanaugh describes.

It is, among other things, a thinly disguised attack on conservative talk radio.

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.

A methodology (PDF) worked up by Silver Spring, Maryland-based Social Solutions International (SSI) says that in addition to its general evaluation of news content, the survey will include a “qualitative component” featuring interrogations of news organization owners, management and employees.

Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies... [f]or media owners:

“What is the news philosophy of the station?”

For editors, producers and managers:

...“Who decides which stories are covered?”

For reporters:

“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)

According to a May article in Communications Daily, Social Solutions International will be paid $917,823 for the study, which also questions news consumers about their habits and numerically codes news content according to how well, in the FCC’s view, it meets the “critical information needs” (CIN) of particular “communities.”

FCC Chairwoman "Mignon Clyburn" (yes, that's her name and she is related -- I'm sure -- to the far left, perma-politician James Clyburn) claims that "...the FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have..."

Wrong, Filet. The FCC is to abide, first and foremost, by the Constitution. You have no -- zero -- right to interfere with media companies.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

I urge all media outlets to refuse to cooperate with the FCC.

Our free speech rights aren't subject to the whims of these Marxist hacks.

Every single media outlet should reject the FCC's intrusive interrogatories on constitutional grounds.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #132 

New Rochelle (NY) cancels 1st Amendment

Michal Conger is reporting that A veterans organization in a New York town is fighting for its right to fly a patriotic flag after the city council refused to let the group display the flag, calling it a symbol of the TEA Party with right-wing connotations.

The United Veterans Memorial & Patriotic Association replaced a tattered American flag at the New Rochelle Armory, flying the Gadsden flag underneath it. The bright yellow "Don’t Tread On Me" flag has been used by the Navy and Marine Corps since 1775.

When a city council member complained to the city manager that he found the flag offensive, the city manager initially decided to let the flag fly anyway. But the city council overruled him, and the flag was taken down. On Wednesday, the council voted 5 to 2 to keep the veterans from putting the flag back up.

The council objected to the flag because they said Peter Parente, the president of the veterans group, is a member of the TEA Party and the group wants to use the flag to make a political point.
 
But Parente said at the council meeting no one in his organization is a TEA Party member.

"I’m a proud Republican," he told the council.

Once council member compared the flag to the rainbow flag used to symbolize gay pride, according to local news website Talk of the Sound. Another has compared it variously to the Nazi flag, a Mickey Mouse flag and graffiti.

The veterans group has retained the Thomas More Law Center to regain the right to fly the flag. They have not yet filed a lawsuit.

"Using the City Council’s reasoning, they would remove the Stars and Stripes from flagpoles because both Democrat and Republican Parties, as well as most political candidates, use the Stars and Stripes in their campaign messaging," said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.

Nobody bothered these New Yorkers:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #133 

Vern's video (see above)


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #134 

Michigan man fights for his 1st Amendment right of political free speech

Becket Adams is reporting that Michigan cattle farmer Vern Verduin is fighting for the right to display two trailer-sized anti-Obama signs on his property, according to WOOD-TV.

Authorities in Gaines Township, Mich., say the massive signs on Vern Verduin’s property violate local zoning codes, which state that all political signs must be contained to 20 square feet.

The two signs, which are clearly visible from the highway, read “Marxism/Socialism = Poverty & hunger” and “Obama’s ‘mission accomplished.’ 8% unemployment. 16 trillion debt,” respectively.

“I felt that things were going in the wrong direction,” Verduin told WOOD-TV, adding that he’s concerned about hunger and poverty.

But here’s the thing: According to the same zoning ordinances, Verduin is allowed to display a sign that covers more than 20 square feet if it for the purpose of “selling ideas.” So that’s how he plans on fighting the town.

“You can have a 32-foot advertising sign. I don’t get that,” said the cattle farmer.

“This is clearly a violation of his free speech and free exercise right,” attorney Howard Van Den Heuvel added.

“Verduin is also critical of another part of the ordinance that limits when political signs can be posted in Gaines Township -- only 45 days before and 10 days after an election. Verduin said he thinks the Township is promoting aesthetic beauty with the ordinance, but he says it doesn’t promote political conversation,” WOOD-TV notes.

“I think for the good of the country, political speech is important,” the farmer said.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #135 

French paper to publish comic book life of Prophet Mohammed

AFP is reporting that a French weekly known for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to the ire of conservative Muslims said Sunday it plans to release a comic book biography of Islam's founder that will be researched and educational.

Satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo has on several occasions depicted Islam's prophet in an effort to defend free speech and defy the anger of Muslims who believe depicting Mohammed is sacrilegious.

"It is a biography authorized by Islam since it was edited by Muslims," said Charlie Hebdo's publisher and the comic's illustrator, who goes by the name Charb.

"I don't think higher Muslim minds could find anything inappropriate," Charb said.

The biography will be published Wednesday and was put together by a Franco-Tunisian researcher known only as Zineb, Charb said.

The publisher said the idea for the comic book came to him in 2006 when a newspaper in Denmark published cartoons of Mohammed, later republished by Charlie Hebdo, drawing angry protests across the Muslim world.

"Before having a laugh about a character, it's better to know him. As much as we know about the life of Jesus, we know nothing about Mohammed," Charb said.

In September Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of a naked Mohammed as violent protests were taking place in several countries over a low-budget film made in the United States that insults the prophet.

In 2011 Charlie Hebdo's offices were hit by a firebomb and its website pirated after publishing an edition titled "Charia Hebdo" featuring several Mohammed cartoons.

Charb, who has received death threats, lives under police protection.

Let the fatwahs begin!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #136 

Obama administration bowing to "international Muslim mafia"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #137 

On not criticizing the Taliban

Scott Johnson says a reader has written in response to John’s post “Don’t criticize the Taliban!” What is to be said about that mind-boggling Army manual (aboce item) that John discusses in the post? The reader comments:

I am an active duty Army officer and a military history major with two deployments under my belt. I read this article in the Wall Street Journal when it was first published a day or two ago and have to tell you that this more than anything else is a huge sign that the war in Afghanistan is over and we have lost.

Th[e manual] was produced and sanctioned by mainstream elements in the institutional Army, otherwise it never would have even seen daylight. This is an indicator that the Army is looking for a politically acceptable way to explain why we have lost the war and why after a decade we have failed to turn the Afghan national security forces into anything approaching a reliable security partner. Call it a trial balloon.

Make no mistake, this is a turning point. This is the opening shot in a war of recrimination and it’s about to get ugly. To paraphrase T.S Eliot, the way the world ends is not with a bang but a whimper. From this point forward, it’s all over except the whimpering and recrimination that a strategic defeat in Afghanistan will entail.

I implore you and your readers to hold the current leadership in the DoD accountable across both administrations and to do an honest assessment of why our efforts in Afghanistan have fallen short. We owe that much to our dead….Obviously, this email is not representative of anyone’s view but my own.

Name withheld by request.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #138 

Obama forces the U. S. Army to submit

Judicial Watch says the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far.

A  new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.
 
It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture -- not Taliban infiltration -- is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
 
The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
 
More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame "American cultural ignorance." The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. "Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence."
 
The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women’s rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."
 
At least one high-ranking military official had the backbone to publicly criticize the new manual, albeit through a spokesperson. U.S. Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, doesn’t endorse it and rejected a proposed forward drafted by Army officials in his name. "He does not approve of its contents," according to a military spokesman quoted in the story.
 
Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.
 
Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.
 
Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S. and the administration sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission. The Obama Administration even ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #139 

ShariahAmerica: Obama's appeasment to radical Islam's "proud tradition of tolerance"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #140 

The New York Times scoffs at free speech

John Hinderaker says liberal-progressive support for free speech has been waning for a long time, and at present it seems to be just about extinct. The latest evidence is a story in today’s New York Times about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who made the video that was falsely blamed for the Benghazi attack, and has languished in jail for the last two months as a result. One might think that the Times would regard jailing a man for exercising his First Amendment rights as an outrage requiring daily denunciations, but no–the tone of the article, by Serge Kovaleski and Brooks Barnes, suggests that Nakoula deserved what he got.

Start with the article’s title: “From Man Who Insulted Muhammad, No Regret.” The Times finds it remarkable that Nakoula isn’t penitent:

Fuming for two months in a jail cell here, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has had plenty of time to reconsider the wisdom of making “Innocence of Muslims,” his crude YouTube movie trailer depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.

So is America now a country where we imprison people so they can rethink the wisdom of making a video with the wrong political point of view? Apparently the Times thinks so; there is strong evidence that Barack Obama does, too.

Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction.

Not at all. In his first public comments since his incarceration soon after the video gained international attention in September, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he would go to great lengths to convey what he called “the actual truth” about Muhammad.

Which raises an interesting point. I have never seen anyone comment on the historical accuracy of Nakoula’s film (assuming that anyone has actually seen it) or the YouTube trailer. Muhammad was, in fact, a “bloodthirsty, philandering thug.” You could say worse things about him than that without straying from the truth. But this question is not one that the Times, or any other media outlet I am aware of, has seen fit to explore.

The Times tries to keep alive the fiction that Nakoula’s video might have had something to do with the Benghazi attack:

There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans.

Actually, I don’t think there is any dispute at all. To my knowledge, there is zero evidence that the Ansar al-Sharia terrorists who carried out the attack knew or cared about Nakoula’s video.

The main point of the Times article–the only point, really–is to establish that Nakoula is disreputable and untrustworthy. But this is an odd perspective to take on what appears to be an extraordinary violation of the First Amendment–jailing a man for political speech regarded as inconvenient by the Obama administration. In the view of the New York Times, is the First Amendment reserved for the honest and the respectable? That certainly wasn’t the Left’s position when Communists were availing themselves of the bourgeois right of free speech.

A friend emailed the authors of the Times piece and got a response from Serge Kovaleski. This led to a dialogue in which Kovaleski described the Times as “champions of the first amendment.” Kovaleski defended Nakoula’s imprisonment, however, on the ground that “Nakoula had specific restrictions attached to his supervised release, which he violated.” But the Obama administration doesn’t even pretend that Nakoula was imprisoned for any reason other than as punishment for his impermissible speech. Recall Charles Woods recounting how Hillary Clinton approached him at his son’s memorial and said, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And it is blindingly obvious that tossing a probationer in the slammer for using an alias and accessing the internet, notwithstanding that those actions violated the terms of his probation, is not standard practice.

At the New York Times, however, there is nothing to see here; nothing other than a disreputable Christian who dislikes Islam and therefore deserves to rot in jail until he sees the light.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #141 
Can the Secret Service tell you to "Shut Up"?

Alrighty then, apparently now they can.  What's next?  Unbelievably, this was passed by both House and Senate and co-sponsored by both R's and Dems.  Just one freedom after another bites the dust!

From Judge A. P. Napolitano:  "The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of griwvances.  Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them."

The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity.  So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you?  And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present?  This is coming to a street corner near you.

This is another one that slipped in under the radar.  Normally, I ask the questions: What can I do about that?  Who do I contact?  How do I express my position and by when do I need to do it to be heard in time?  Oops, the buzzer has sounded and I lose.  Just another freedom swallowed up by the "Gollum" of socialism.
0
bushido

Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #142 
Gestapo tactics

****************************************************************************************************
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin, (attributed) at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #143 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved