Archive for the ‘1st Amendment’ Category

Monday Book Pick

March 30, 2009

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds by Tammy Bruce and Laura C. Schlessinger

Tammy Bruce is a classic Liberal, not a leftist. A very important distinction these days. Unlike the far left extremists that have hijacked the democrat party, Classic Liberals are defenders of Free Speech.

The Monday Book Pick Archive

First published at the Urbin Report.

Morning Link Round Up

March 4, 2009

A collection of links, mostly gathered from No Moss Here.

Obama buyer’s remorse.

Remember when Michelle Obama sneered at the $600 rebate checks?

As Dow keeps dropping, Obama running out of people to blame.

While Americans are forced to cut back, “Obama kicks up White House entertaining”

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Morning Quote

September 15, 2008

If you want to talk about censorship, if you want to talk about using poltics in order to suppress a certain thought, The Path to 9/11 – blocking The Path to 9/11 is that story. The mainstream media since 9/11 has exposed to a greater extent than any time in our history the degree to which the Democratic Party is the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart, PJTV Daily Sept. 11 – 9/11 and the Media

HT to The Smallest Minority

A glimpse at what you can expect if Obama becomes President

August 28, 2008

Confederate Yankee points out that candidate Barak H. Obama has no respect for the First Amendment.

Obama’s campaign has previously threatened broadcasters who would carry an ad linking Obama to Ayers, and has also asked the Department of Justice to shut down the group that made the ad.

The intense campaign to silence dissenting voice has also included a recent campaign email asking Obama supporters to deluge Chicago-based broadcaster WGN with complaints to pressure the radio station to cancel an appearance by Stanley Kurtz, a writer with National Review who is researching the documents of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.

The Challenge, co-founded by Ayers and chaired by Obama, took tens of millions dollars in grant funds and public and private matching funds with the stated goal of increasing the quality of education in Chicago. The program was utterly ineffective, and some critics are suggesting that the challenge was little more than a slush fund for left-wing radicals. At least $175,000 was funneled to Ayers’ friend, SDS radical, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (CPML) chairman and Barack Obama supporter Mike Klonsky’s Small School Workshop.

That disregard for the Constitution with the power of the Executive Branch is frighting.

It’s not about "Fairness"

October 5, 2007

Liberal democrats against free speech

September 25, 2007

By way of Mr. Reynolds, here is yet another example:

So it’s not too surprising that the liberal advocacy group would be a mite touchy from all the blowback online, even though it should be used to the abuse by now. So touchy, in fact, that it’s been sending out cease-and-desist letters to CafePress, a website that lets people offer custom-designed t-shirts, coffee mugs and the like for sale. Last week it demanded that the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated MoveOn’s merchandising trademarks.

Trademark law doesn’t confer monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it wasn’t created simply to protect the trademark owner’s interests. Instead, it’s designed to protect consumers against being misled or confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and critiques; that’s why doesn’t violate famousbrandname’s trademark. And most, if not all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking they were the group’s products.

Beyond that, it’s amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch political speech. That’s another clear purpose of the targeted items. Take, for example, this message on a t-shirt designed by a lifelong Democrat from Southern California:

General Petraeus has done more for this country than, the worst friend a Democrat could have! Move Away from Move On!

The target of the “moveon” attack on the First Amendment got the message loud and clear.

This shop is retooling after trademark infringement complaints by a left-leaning political fundraising organization who objected to the use of their name on t-shirts. Despite a brilliant rebuttal from the legal counsel at Cafe Press regarding First Amendment Rights and the history of political parody in our country, we have decided to temporarily close as we sharpen our claws. Why? Because I’m one person. They’re a large group with the money to run ads in the NY Times demeaning a four star general. Henceforth, the six-letter group that complained shall be referred to as “The group that shall not be named.”

One individual’s voice is as important as their collective roar. This is a heavy handed treatment by a very powerful organization. More to the point, it is a slap at the freedom that this nation was built on.

And lest “the group that shall not be named” think this is a right-wing conspiracy, it isn’t. I’m a Democrat. Or, I will be until tomorrow.

The PoliStew Cafe will reopen shortly. We would like to design a shirt that support the troops ,with all proceeds going to a military NPO after I check Charity Navigator. Thank you for your patience.

Err America vs. the First Amendment

August 13, 2007

I was driving a rental car the other day with Satellite Radio. So I took the opportunity to listen to Err America. I haven’t been able to listen to that far left extremist train wreck since they were pulled from the Boston area AM station that carried them so they could broadcast a profitable format.

There were two topics the host hit on. One, goods made in China are not made to US Health Standards. This has been obvious to anyone paying attention for years, but the loopy left is just catching on.

The second topic was Err America’s support for that attack on the First Amendment known as the so called “Fairness Doctrine.” In case you haven’t heard of it, it is federal regulation of what can and can not be said, about politics, on privately owned AM radio stations. It would have the federal government creating a law that regulates what kind political speech can be made on public airwaves, by privately owned radio stations. A bit of history here, AM radio was nearly put out of business by FM. The medium was saved by Talk Radio, in particular conservative Talk Radio. The liberal MSM had a strong lock on print and television, there was no FM talk to speak of, but AM airtime was available at a low cost compared to FM, print or TV. Conservative Talk Radio has been successful because it is popular. A lot of people want to listen to it. That results in advertisers spending money. There have been attempts at left wing talk radio on the AM bandwidth, but it has failed almost every time. Err America couldn’t even make a profit in the oh so Blue Commonwealth of Massachusetts!

Err America supports to attack on the First Amendment for several reasons. First off, they do not own any actual radio stations. They just try to sell content to the people who invested in the capital of broadcast stations and federal licenses. This attack on the First Amendment wouldn’t force Err America to broadcast any opposing views, it only effects the people who actually own the stations. It would force the owners to drop profitable Conservative Talk Radio air time in order to broadcast unprofitable far left extremist programming, which is what Err America produces. They view this as a double win for them. It would force profitable programming that they don’t agree with off the air and give them “free” access to markets they couldn’t compete in under the open (and Fair) market. If the loss of profitable programming drove the station bankrupt, this would still be a win for Err America, since they would have silenced their political foes.

Such behavior from liberals is appalling. It is entirely expected from so called “progressives”, who are actually Communists who don’t want to be admit they are Communists.

Republicans picking up the mantle of JFK

July 13, 2007

Senator Norm Coleman quoting President John Kennedy on the Senate floor:

“we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

want to restrict the First Amendment and thus spit on the legacy of JFK and the American Constitution. The Captain has the story.

Do we need a "Fairness Doctorine" at PBS?

June 25, 2007

Surf over to the Gateway Pundit and hear how PBS wants to hire and fire based on leftist political ideology.

This clip was captured during the special presentation on FOX News of Muslims Against Jihad , a program that was banned by PBS.

According to Frank Gaffney, a producer, PBS didn’t even deign to screen tonight’s program before rejecting it. Worse yet… is the blatant bias of PBS that was caught on tape. Producer Martyn Burke said this during the airing of the special on the liberal agenda at PBS:

The first thing they (PBS) told me- “Fire your partners… Because they are conservatives.”

Color me not surprised…

June 24, 2007

One of the far left extremist liberals against Free Speech who is calling for the return of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” has financial ties to far left liberal talk radio.

What the Center For American Progress won’t tell you is that one of the authors of the liberally-biased “report,” Paul Woodhull, is a founding partner of not one, but two liberal talk radio show companies, Big Eddie Radio Productions, LLC (BERP), which produces The Ed Shultz Show, and Bill Press Partners, LLC, producers of The Bill Press Show.

It was perhaps fitting that this self-serving conflict of interest was discovered by Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio show host in his blog at National Review Online.

If Congress reintroduces the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” as CAP suggests, broadcasters will be forced to balance their airtime between conservative talk radio shows and liberal talk radio shows. There are only a handful of successful, established liberal talk radio shows from which broadcasters who have to choose from, and Woodhull has a financial stock in two of those.

This liberal organization is not only attempting to regulate free speech for political gain, but also, in the case of at least Woodhull, they intend to profit from the loss of your First Amendment rights as well.