Advance Australia Free

6 12 2013



Free speech returns to Oz.

One down, nine to go.

And in spite of my initial doubts because of his history, Tony Abbott is so far proving to be decent.

Why Some People Are Anti-Semitic

1 05 2013



Breaking: Pentagon Confirms May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith


…Mikey Weinstein…

You can probably fill in the rest without even having to read it.

BRA vs First Amendment

18 03 2013


Half of Lamestream Conservatism Inc wanted to make Michael Nutbar their new hero not so long ago.

Don’t let this article fool you:  He’s not concerned about addressing anti-white hatred in his own city.  What he really wants to do is persecute the magazine and the author of the article and the article’s white interview subjects for daring to speak the truth.

Another Truth Squader

1 01 2013


Joplin Globe:

Marta Mossburg, columnist: Free speech must be defended, even amid tragedy

In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, it seems crude to speak of rights and facts. With the unfulfilled lives of 20 children and six adults mercilessly gunned down foremost in our collective consciousness, it is much more soothing to talk about safety and stopping the violence and to let those in authority do their job.

But this is when those who care about civil liberties have most to fear, because those who would strip us of rights know it is easier to regulate and legislate after tragedies. Psychology tells us why: Humans crave coherence and neat solutions, even when none are available.

Think of the Patriot Act, passed six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It gave the government broad new powers to surveil individuals and search their property — with no means to test whether the new regulations would thwart terrorists. Or think of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010 in response to the financial crisis. Its regulations ensured bailouts for the biggest banks, which are larger now than they were before the Great Recession.

And as President Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

It is in that light that we should view Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance’s comments about “misinformation.”

In a news conference Dec. 16, he said that anyone who posts misleading information online on social media sites about the Newtown case would be “investigated, statewide and federally, and prosecution will take place when people perpetrating this information are identified.”

He added: “All information relative to this case is coming from these microphones.”

It’s horrible that anyone would consider posing as [*****], try to disrupt the investigation of the murders or cause further heartbreak for the victims’ families.

But what kind of precedent does it set if the government gets to determine what is “misinformation”?

For starters, government is frequently the source of lies and obfuscation at every level — and not just in places like Russia, China and North Korea. Think of the official response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others in September. According to the Obama administration, an anti-Muslim video incited the violence, which officials knew immediately was not the case.

At the state level, what if governors were able to arbitrate the truth? Before answering, remember that four Illinois governors have spent time in federal prison in the past 50 years.

We already know what happened after Lt. Vance spoke. Social media website Facebook suspended accounts of those whose versions of the Newtown massacre did not match the government one, officially because users violated company policies but more likely to avert criminal prosecution. Facebook is a public company and can set its own user rules, but its actions are a reminder of how little it takes to diminish free speech, which is constantly under threat. College speech codes that outlaw offending others and the dominant culture of political correctness that pushes people to self-censor for fear of being labeled a sexist, racist or homophobe are just two other examples.

Lt. Vance, no doubt, through his remarks wanted to protect the families of the victims from emotional harm and prevent new violence from spinning off of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But for him to claim that the government alone is in charge of information on Newtown and for a major corporation like Facebook to capitulate show how easy it is for government to control speech. Those targeted could sue, but how many people have the money or time to defend themselves appropriately? Our system depends on those in power respecting the rights of the governed. When that breaks down, it is not only the people targeted who suffer, but all of us in the form of more self-censorship by private individuals and businesses.

We are not Russia or China, but only because we have people who vigorously defend our rights. Now should be one of those times, even as we mourn.

No, but it is Connecticut, and J. Paul Vance must be related to either Jennifer Joyce, Bob McCulloch or Glenn Boyer.  And J. Paul Vance should realize that almost all of the initial misinformation (and much of the current misinformation or baseless hysteria) originates from the mainstream media, not dorks on Facebook.

J. Paul Vance should find better things to do, like telling his New Jersey counterpart to learn his own state’s firearms and ammunition laws.

So It Begins

19 09 2012

Los Angeles

Saw an article in the LAT, but lost the URL.  The upshot is something I predicted privately a few days ago — Left-wing legal “scholars” of the Laurence Tribe mold are going to try to use a “national security” pretext to knock mocking Islam speech down to limited protected instead of fully protected.

And also…Russell Simmons is opposed to anti-Islamic “hate” movies.  Yeah, I know,  you already brought your own laugh tracks.

In With the In Crowd

13 09 2012

Pasadena, California

A certain racial lobby and their dubiously white sycophants are upset that the United States has a First Amendment and that it even protects white people.

There seems to be a lot of that this week.

Abridging the Freedom of Speech

3 07 2012

Washington, D.C.

Or rather, using a “book bag” as an excuse to shut it down.

The Federal judiciary has plenty of faults, cough cough, John Roberts, cough cough.  But one thing we know for sure is that Federal court houses are full of judges who will say that the SS shouldn’t have done this, and also give a few of the Yankee Government’s shekels to the protesters.

Islam vs Freedom of Conscience

21 12 2011

Guess whose side Obama is on.

They keep telling us he’s not a Muslim, and he’s probably not.  But every time you turn around, he’s sticking up for Islam.

On the other side of the ledger, who is the only Republican Presidential candidate who wants us out of the UN post haste?  Oh yeah.

One World Under Shari’ah

13 12 2011


State Dept. Aims to Denounce ‘Offensive Speech’ While Upholding Free Expression

The State Department on Monday launched three days of closed-door talks with representatives of international organizations and several dozen countries with the stated aim of promoting religious freedom and tolerance while ensuring that freedom of expression is not harmed in the process.

U.S. Ambassador at Large for international religious freedom Suzan Johnson Cook, said on Monday, “We must denounce offensive speech whenever we encounter it – but our commitment to universal principles makes clear that faith must never be a crime and religion must never be used as an excuse to stifle freedom of expression.”

The Obama administration’s initiative, building on a resolution adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) last March, has drawn some criticism, in part because of the key role being played by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has sought for years to stifle speech deemed to denigrate Islam.

The OIC, a bloc of 56 Muslim states, has campaigned for more than a decade against “defamation of religion,” galvanized by actions such as the publications of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, anti-shari’a activism, and threats to damage copies of the Qur’an.

The OIC nuts, well, they’re behaving as expected.  The real sad sacks in this process are people in our own State Department.

Hey, State Department.  Take a hint.  The reason we have a First Amendment is that some political expression is offensive.  If nothing anyone ever said or wrote was offensive, you wouldn’t need a First Amendment.

It’s Gotta Be Something Personal

14 01 2010


Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’

Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”


Some “conspiracy theories” recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

* “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”

* “The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

* “The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.”

* “The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.”

* “That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”

* “The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.”

Sunstein allowed that “some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.”

How white of him.  That would three of these six that are true, and the jury is still out in two.  As for Martin Luther King, I think you need to look no further than his own fellow travellers.  They wanted a martyr instead of discredited miscreant.  A martyr would have hepled, while a discredit miscreant would have hurt, the future of the civil rights movement.

This is the third of Cass Sunstein’s idiotic pronouncements.  First, he wanted a “fairness doctrine” on the internet.  Then, the wanted to shut down websites that spread “false rumors.”  (There goes the SPLC and ADL.)  So this seems to be a common theme/obsession with him.

Question:  What’s it to him?  What does he care that someone spreads or talks about “conspiracy theories,” even if they’re false or highly distorted?

I have found that a person who his that obsessed about something like Sunstein is about “rumor mongers” or “conspiracy theorists,” it’s gotta be something personal.  For example, back in the days when I frequented IRC political chat rooms, before I realized the futility of it all, I had a running debate with a guy in Maryland who was fanatically opposed to symbols of Southern heritage, including Confederate Battle Flags.  I couldn’t figure out his motivation.  He was white, and lived in a semi-rural semi-suburban area (for the sake of his privacy, I won’t say exactly where), so pandering to blacks wasn’t the issue.  And it wasn’t a matter of his living in a state that didn’t secede, because he was a Georgia native.  But one day, he told me that an uncle of his who hung the Confederate Battle Flag in a room in his house also molested him numerous times when he was little, and in that very room.  There was the motivation, and thanks to the tragedy of it all, I didn’t argue with him anymore on the issue.

It must might be something similar with Sunstein vis-a-vis “conspiracy theorists” or “rumor mongers.”  Perhaps one of those took one of his loved ones for a lot of money, or ruined one of their reputations.  Maybe he had a relative who’s sitting in prison because he believed some “conspiracy theory” and mouthed off about overthrowing the government.

Still, I would oppose his policy proposals.

UPDATE 1/18: Steve Sailer thinks it’s all code words for more Federal government agents provocateurs, a la Hal Turner.

The Torrent At Tarrant

9 11 2009


Texas: Judge allows students to hold Right-to-Carry protest at Tarrant County College

A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order Friday allowing two Tarrant County College students to stage their “empty holster” protest at the community college campuses. U.S. District Judge [*****] said in his ruling that Clayton Smith and John Schwertz Jr., who attend TCC Northeast Campus in Hurst, can wear empty gun holsters and hand out fliers in “public forum areas including, but not limited to, public streets, sidewalks, and common or park areas.” TCC wanted to restrict the protest to a small designated area.

For all of the hassle of going into one, that’s the one good thing about Federal court houses — They’re buildings full of judges who say that you can’t restrict free speech.

The Other SPLC

5 10 2009

Boonville (Mo.) High School mucks stop the presses on student-run dead tree and ink.  Boonville’s mainstream paper mentions the Student Press Law Center and its reaction.  Which reminds me, the Student Press Law Center registered the URL before that other SPLC could get to it, meaning that the other, less freedom-oriented SPLC had to spell out the “C” in its own URL.  This might create some confusion, because someone I know tried to call up the SPLC (the other one), typed in into Netscape’s (that shows you how long ago this happened) address bar, and got the freedom-oriented SPLC.  As of this time, the freedom-oriented SPLC doesn’t give you a courtesy “oops sorry” link to the other SPLC, which I think isn’t an accident.  In 1996, the owners of the URL, which was a family photo page unrelated to Pat Buchanan, gave you a courtesy link to, PJB’s 1996 Presidential campaign website (and now his writings and blog URL).  They got too many visitors who wanted to see PJB and not cute playtime photos of children named Buchanan.

In related news, a Pittsburgh area junior college has discovered that prior restraint on the 1st Amendment is a no-no, even when the 1st is used to defend the 2nd.  Now, we can continue with the prior restraint doctrine to nullify firearm purchase waiting periods longer than necessary to run background checks.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,588 other followers