Without venturing an opinion on the merits of Techdude’s claims, without knowing if they are well founded or merely the words of a crackpot, I still have to seriously question why some Obama supporters are so desperate to stop these revelations from seeing the light of day. If Techdude’s lying or even if he’s sincere but wrong, other computer forensic experts will definitely unmask him and that will be a boost to their candidate so terribly besmirched by a right wing nut. If he’s telling the truth, would it not behoove Obama’s supporters to examine it and drop their candidate as a fraud and thus follow the American Constitution while saving the US?!?!?

Anyone who has ever read my blog, knows I do not believe Senator Obama is the political Messiah we all have been waiting for. His record in Chicago and in Washington, show me nothing but ineptitude, uncaring elitism and calculated deceit. But, I’ll admit, he’s very photogenic and superb at delivering a well rehearsed speech. Yes, gentle reader, that is just my opinion even if it was formed after a careful analysis of the good Senator’s record and words as a community organizer and as a US Senator. I see no reason to do or preach violence against those who do not share my beliefs, and while I’d be very unhappy were Obama to win the elections… he’d still be my country’s President.

For the rest, please go to: Freedom’s Cost

Three years ago on this day, in London and within 50 seconds of each other, there were bombings at three subway stations and an hour later, at 9:47am, there was a fourth one on a bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty two innocent people died that day while 700 were injured. Has Britain learned any lessons?

Last year there was a failed terrorist plot by Muslim doctors, also in Britain, has their government learned any lessons? Rather than putting restrictions on the preachings of extremist Imams, rather than kick them out of the country, they are allowed to freely continue preaching their hatred… all in the spirit of free speech and… multiculturalism. Freedom of Speech is one of the cardinal principles of a free society, it is in fact what keeps that society free. However, another - and at least - as important a principle also says that the right to move one’s fist stops where the other’s cheek starts. What does that mean? It means that when freedom of speech is abused by preaching violence against any other segment of society it must proscribed!

Read the rest of this post at: Freedom’s Cost

You know, I’m all for free speech. It’s a value this country was founded on, and one all Americans cherish the most. Yet, some of this free speech has a time and place. This kind, for example.

In the linked video, hecklers and protesters at a citizenship ceremony yesterday shout at the stage phrases such as “war criminal,” “he has brought fascism,” and others that really don’t have a reason for being at an event that should be happy and joyful.

I would hate to have one of the best days of my life, becoming a citizen of this country, marred by people who are so self-centered that they can’t go protest somewhere else.

Disgusting.

Although Europe ignores it, the Turkey’s PM Erdogan is turning into the Turkish version of Vlad. Putin, writes Kemal. (more…)

The latest in people who aren’t creative enough to make real art, so they get press by being as disgusting as they can:

Yes, those are Barack Obama’s daughters. No, it’s not a photoshop spoof, but an “art” show that tried (unsuccesfully) to open in New York under the name of “The assasination of Hillary Clinton, The assasination of Barack Obama”.

(more…)

In the words of Canada’s Human Rights Commission’s senior counsel Ian Fine, the commission is necessary because "there can’t be enough laws against hate."  This during a panel on human right’s commissions in which Fine was caught twice in lies - or glaring ignorance - about the commission’s activities.  Actually, a single law against hate is too many.  But what can Canadians expect from a government agency that believes that "Freedom of speech is an American concept" and has no value as a principle in Canada?  Read it all.

(more…)

Gov. David Paterson has until the end of today to decide whether or not he will sign a bill the New York state legislature passed - unanimously - that would give American citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration that their works are protected under American law.  Let’s hope he does the right thing.
(more…)

Kathy Shaidle reports that she and other bloggers are being sued by Richard Warman, a former member of Canada’s Human Rights Commission and frivolous lawsuit filer extraordinaire:

Canada’s busiest litigant, serial “human rights” complainant and — the guy Mark Steyn has called “Canada’s most sensitive man” — Richard Warman is now suing his most vocal critics — including me.

(more…)

The Jawa Report is linking to a petition aiming to organize a boycott of Dutch goods and services if Wilders is punished or prosecuted over the Fitna affair.

Like Wilders’ film or not, it’s a no-brainer that making the video and distributing it are well within the realm of free, protected speech.  For that much Wilders deserves to be supported in his struggle against the Dutch government that would muzzle him if it could.

As for some of his other statements, I’d remind you that the right to speak is more important than liking what you hear.

Due to the hosting of the anti-Islamic movie “Fitna” on this blog there’s quite a discussion on the subject of freedom of speech going on. You can follow it here. I think that something must be noted, especially for people who are not regular readers.

Every single member of this blog holds freedom of speech to be an essential element of a working and free society. It is in that spirit in which this movie has been hosted. It is NOT neccesarily because we agree with the views expressed in the film (I haven’t yet seen it). It could well be that the film is inaccurate or even bigoted. It could be garbage. (more…)

It appears that this picture is still worth a thousand words…

…and then some.  In the pre-dawn hours of Tuesday, February 12th, Danish police arrested three men on the outskirts of Aarghus, Denmark.  The three- one “Dane of Morroccan origin” and two Tunisians- were accused of plotting to murder Kurt Westergaard, the artist who created the above cartoon.

Westergaard, who is 73, is currently living under police protection.

On Wednesday, February 13th, several leading Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon as part of their coverage of the alleged murder plot.

Thereafter events moved swiftly.

(more…)

First the Danes foiled a conspiracy to murder journalists and artists linked to the Mohammed cartoons. Then, to prove the power of free speech, Danish (and other) newspapers reprinted the images.

Now Danish legislators have refused Iran’s demand that they condemn the re-publication.

(more…)

Thanks, Michelle.

Update

Per CNN, newspapers in Denmark, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands have reprinted this and other Mohammed cartoons today.

(more…)

Authorities in Denmark have made several arrests in connection to a plot to kill one of the cartoonists that depicted the prophet of Islam. They were planning to murder 73-year-old Kurt Westergaard, the author of one of the most controversial cartoons (Mohammed with a bomb in his türban).

Secular societies also have sacred values. One of the most important ones  is free speech. Just another reminder of how eternally vigilant we have to be to keep this all-important right safe.

Why do advocates think that people who speak out against illegal immigration are guilty of using hate speech? “It’s personal, it’s intolerable, and it has to end.” Does it?

(more…)

Red alert! Battle stations! All civilians must evacuate to the bunkers! Scramble the fighter jets! Move, move, MOVE!! Here it comes…incomiiiiiing….here comes……….!!!!!

A movie.

No, seriously, a movie.

In case you haven’t been reading much here or elsewhere, a far-right member of parliament in the Netherlands is about to release a movie highly critical of Islam. Instantly warnings (also known as threats) came in from different corners of the Islamic world.

(more…)

There is a direct connection between the legal machinations some call “lawfare” that have ensnared high-profile Canadian writers Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn and the violence perpetrated around the world on a daily basis. That connection is, of course, the religion of Islam, which either has been co-opted into a vehicle for terrorism or has simply rejuvenated its plans to inflict itself on the rest of the world, depending to whom one listens. (more…)

Scott Johnson quotes Alexis De Tocqueville with regards to what Ezra Levent is up against in Canada. Scott is right to point out that what we see happening in Canada was, indeed, predicted by De Tocqueville and I think it’s important to publish the quote here as well.

Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. (more…)

Can I say it any more plainly than that?

Roger Gardner can. Today he penned this incredible post that makes the issue crystal clear.

Today, posted by Deb Hamilton of Right Truth in Real Clear Politics is an article about the British blogger Lionheart. Lionheart is facing arrest if he returns to Britain. He is facing arrest for doing something and for doing it well. He has written about the invasion of his native land by Muslims. And he has called a spade a spade. And today WE DO NOT CALL A SPADE A SPADE. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. Or to call the ISLAMIC MENACE an ISLAMIC MENACE.

God help us!

(more…)

Don Surber says that Fox is in the right for not allowing Ron Paul’s participation in the final pre-primary debate in New Hampshire. His justification? The fact that Paul’s fans “stuff every online poll on the Internet”.

Whoop-ti-doo. First, polls are a joke anyway, particularly in a close election cycle like this one. Nothing is more irritating than the constant navel-gazing that dominates memeorandum and other aggregation sites on slow news days. Who cares? Poll reporting is merely an opportunity for writers to attempt to influence the debate.

The relevant facts are that Ron Paul is on the primary ballot in New Hampshire, he significant support in the state, and he has something that the American people deserve the opportunity to hear. (more…)

At the National Review, Stanley Kurtz has a great post about the Muslim law students who are suing Maclean’s over Mark Steyn’s article “The future belongs to Islam”.  An excerpt:

They claim to be believers in the marketplace of ideas, merely seeking a chance to respond to Mark Steyn. What they don’t say is that they have demanded the right to a cover story in Maclean’s, with full editorial control over content and art.

Imagine NR, after publishing, say, a cover story critical of Al Gore’s movie, being forced by a government body to allow Gore to write a cover story in rebuttal, with full editorial control.

Patently ridiculous, of course.  According to Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar, "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."  Um, if this is your preferred line of thinking, Mullah, I would have to disagree.  The way of the bludgeon can be dominant for a time, but not for long.

Anyway, read the NRO article - it concludes with a lengthy and cleverly cutting response to the issue written by Ali Eteraz that has to be read in its entirety to be properly savored.

h/t memeorandum

The concerted effort to terminate Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s relationship with her adopted motherland came to a conclusion in Dutch parliament yesterday. My latest column summarizes the affair and looks at the latest revelations:

Hirsi Ali must have sensed that the mechanics of the debate were not working in her favor and her lawyer released a series of confidential documents right before the debate, much to the annoyance of the government. They make for good reading.

[…]

Yet, the most astounding piece to come out of these documents is the fact that during one of these security-evaluation meetings Hirsi Ali was advised to seek psychiatric counseling. Hirsi Ali declined this offer – something which the government apparently was willing to fund – by replying that in case her mental condition would require ‘counseling’ she would just as well contact a good friend.

Read the whole thing here.

Kathleen Parker says that Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard President, is the prototypical example of this generation’s McCarthyism - political correctness in academia.

Summers, you’ll recall, was driven out of his university post in 2005 after he suggested at a conference that gender differences might account for an under representation by women in science, math and engineering.

Never mind that scientific evidence suggests as much. One simply doesn’t say — ever — that men and women aren’t equal in every way. (more…)

In Texas this week, Governor Perry celebrated the June passage of the state’s Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act in a ceremonial signing with schoolchildren at Clements High School in Sugar Land.

According to Perry:

“In a society where lawsuits long-ago replaced honest discussion, a culture of fear has led to limitations on our freedoms,” said Gov. Perry. “This trend has been especially troubling in our public schools; places created for the exchange of ideas, the expression of values and the shaping of lives.”

…

In one case, a school prohibited students from wishing a “Merry Christmas” to troops serving overseas. Another school reprimanded a first grader for invoking the name and image of Jesus when she was asked what she thinks of when she thinks of Easter.

“It is my hope that this bill and its guidelines for preserving freedom of faith-related speech will lower the tension level in our schools. Under its clear guidelines, teachers can teach and administrators can lead, knowing they are following a sensible, time-honored, and legal approach to self-expression,” said Gov. Perry.

Kudos to Texas legislators and to Governor Perry for creating and passing this measure - it was long overdue. The act’s text is brief and to the point and is perhaps best represented by Article V:

Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, and other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups. Religious groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other noncurricular groups, without discrimination based on the religious content of the group’s expression. If student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce the groups’ meetings, for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, putting up posters, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets, school authorities may not discriminate against groups that meet for prayer or other religious speech. School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of noncurricular groups and events, provided they administer the disclaimer in a manner that does not favor or disfavor groups that meet to engage in prayer or other religious speech.

Not everyone will agree, I am sure. But that’s to be expected. The churches of atheism and liberalism have long held sway in America’s public schools and will not appreciate having to accomodate Christian student groups.

Indeed, it wasn’t long after the bill’s passage that Steven Schafersman, among others, began to work the drums of fear in a strident rhythm:

The following is a letter sent to all members of the Senate Education Committee before their debate and vote, explaining why HB 3678 is illegal (unconstitutional), disingenuous, anti-scientific, and mean-spirited. Despite the entreaty, the Howard-Chisum stealth bill was passed and ultimately signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 15, 2007. Once the effects of this poorly-thought out statute are in force in Texas, an enormous amount of First Amendment litigation will occur. The bill–now a law–is an example of the powerful Texas radical religious right’s aggressive program to promote and force their sectarian religious beliefs into the public school environment using the power of the state. They do this to counter the Constitutional secular and neutral nature of the public school system, and to reinforce the almost pervasive religious proselytization of children in Texas society. The religion promoted and forced into the public schools by this new statute will be, of course, Protestant Christianity. The new law will obligate captive audiences of tens of thousands of school children to listen to Protestant Christian prayers and mini-sermons under the guidance and direction of state authorities (school administrators).

Dear Senator, I urge you to reject HB 3678, the so-called “Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act,” that is being considered by the Senate Education Committee. The bill is a stealth bill whose true purpose is to promote religious discrimination and proselytizing in public schools, with the additional purpose of damaging science education in biology courses.

…

The bill is written to appear to be neutral and lawful, but First Amendment Constitutional law already protects legitimate student expressions of religion. The purpose of this bill is to allow students to aggressively state their beliefs about creationism in science and Protestant Christianity in history, health, and other classrooms without fear of contradiction by teachers.

…

The bill creates an officious and burdensome framework that every school district must create and adopt to carry out the stipulations of the bill. This is an authoritarian and even draconian solution to a non-existent problem. The bill’s analysis by Rep. Howard is flatly wrong. He writes, “School children are being censored and reprimanded at school, leaving them in fear of punishment for their religious beliefs. Due to hostility toward religious expression, children are being forced to defend their First Amendment rights in courtrooms all across Texas, and throughout the nation. School districts’ practices and policies continue to violate the free speech rights of students, regardless of court decisions to the contrary.” This is all untrue.

…

Howard and Chisum’s religious expression bill is a sham; it is a stealth bill designed not to permit legitimate and proper religious expression (which is already protected), but to promote creationism and encourage sectarian proselytization by extreme right-wing Protestant Christians. If enacted, the new law will create an adversarial environment in which intimidation of religious minorities will become commonplace. The bill will certainly lead to massive amounts of litigation as religious minorities are increasingly affected.

Typical anti-Christian dogma, in other words. Evidently Schafersman envisions a veritable army of teenage preachers holding sway during biology class and the nation falling apart as a result.

What nonsense. The harm done to American college students by a single semester’s political science class - 50 hours of state-mandated indocrination in the alleged virtues of leftist liberalism - is much greater than the sum of all high school kids bold enough to stand up in front of their peers and profess their faith.

Who’s going to get beat up after school? The pack of ne’er-do-wells sniggering in the back of the classroom or the boy who stands up at the front alone and lays out his beliefs for all to see and accept or ridicule?

Schafersman also makes a point about the expense to Texas taxpayers when the inevitable First Amendment lawsuits are filed. This is a valid concern as there is no shortage of litigation-happy fools in this country, Texas being no exception.

Speaking about the law, Perry says this:

“For years, our children have not been able to share their faith and beliefs for fear that they’ll end up in the principal’s office. That’s sure not the American way and that’s sure not the Texas way.”

That’s exactly right. Read the Constitution if you think I’m wrong. Liberals hinge their argument against school prayer, nativity scenes, plays, WWJD bracelets, etc. on the First Amendment. This reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, …

Where is the silver bullet that’s been used to exclude religion from public life? Not in that phrase, surely. Russell Miller, a left-leaning liberal blogger I’ve had discussions with in the past, invokes the 14th Amendment to bolster the 1st. Yet the 14th merely states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, …

As an argument against public religion this is anemic at best. Worse still, it’s only marginally relevant, particularly when contrasted against the powerful clarity of the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 14th Amendment is only relevant if the 1st is assumed to apply - it provides no support whatever to the validity of the 1st. Therefore, the issue is strictly a question of the 1st Amendment versus the 10th. Perry, a politician I don’t care much for, gets this issue exactly right.

Cracking down on kids for speaking about their faith is NOT the Texas way. Furthermore, contorting the 1st and 14th Amendments does not justify the federal government in restricting our citizens from expressing their faith, young or old, in school or out.

I hope that when related cases inevitably reach the Supreme Court that the justices will recognize the state’s right to determine its own standards, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. But I doubt that they will.

Regardless, in all respects but that of taxpayer expense - a cost Texas legislators undoubtedly considered and found acceptable - the anti-Christian lobby gets it completely backward. In fact, they seem to have utterly missed what should be the biggest controversy about the new law: minority religious expression and the friction it will create.

What will happen when Muslim students decide to organize a Religion of Peace club at the local high school?

As to that we can only wait and see.

Cross-posted at Black Shards.

Daniel Finkelstein is not impressed by the words of Pakistan’s Minister of Religion Affairs, who said that he would understand it completely if Muslims would decide to blow themselves up in an attempt to kill as many Brits as possible, because of Blair’s decision to recommend Salman Rushdie for knighthood.

Instead of backing off, Daniel has “submitted a petition for the Number 10 Downing Street website that reads:”

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to accept our congratulations for recommending to the Queen that Salman Rushdie receive a knighthood.

Sadly, only UK residents can sign the petition, but that does not mean that non-Brits like yours truly cannot express support for it. We can do so by writing blogposts in support about it, but we can also do so by leaving a comment at Comment Central. So, your homework for today: head on over to Comment Central and leave a comment!

Also read Joe’s post.

The following OP-ed column by Seton Hall Law School Dean Ron Riccio appeared in the the Sunday, April 15 edition of The Bergen Record. Ronald J. Riccio is the former dean of Seton Hall Law School, where he is currently a professor of constitutional law. He is also counsel to the law firm of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

H/t to Donald Tremblay

A Turning Point?
Free speech, caustic words, and a public pushed too far
What took an inert public such a long time to publicly denounce the false views of speakers who clutter our public airwaves with worthless hate rhetoric?

By RONALD J. RICCIO

THE FIRING of radio personality Don Imus was not the result of government censorship or the force of law, but the voice of the people. In the marketplace of ideas, Imus lost and decency won.

How does this coincide with the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

In the hierarchy of individual rights protected by our Constitution against government abridgement, none ranks higher than freedom of speech. The free speech clause protects all kinds of speakers against government sanction, even when the speaker’s speech is unpopular, creates dissatisfaction, stirs people to anger, offends the listener, arouses animosity, or advocates dangerous ideas.

Protection against government regulation is also given to a speaker’s lewd speech, profane words, or vulgarity best suited for the gutter. Sometimes the free speech clause will even protect racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious, or ethnic slurs against government efforts to prohibit or punish the speaker.

Worthless speech
One may naturally wonder why our Constitution protects any speech that has little or no value.? Why shouldn’t government be allowed to ban all worthless speech?

There are two basic answers to this question.
(more…)