First They Came for the Coptic Christians

If this photograph from the LA Times doesn't send chills down your spine as a freedom loving American, I don't know what will. Nakoula Bassely Nakoula is going "downtown to answer a few questions," for the crime of criticizing Islam. The authorities claim its to talk about possible parole violations, but everyone knows the real truth. Fortunately, this is being well publicized and dissected by far sharper minds than mine. A few tidbits follow. From Glenn Reynolds.

And sorry, claims that this was just a routine probation matter don’t pass the laugh test. They’re just pure hackery.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

Eugene Volokh on why this will lead to more American deaths.

Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.

What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.

Fellow SLOB Temple of Mut's headline is also spot on: Supermassive Blackhole of Obama Incompetence Sucks in First Amendment Today, the last vestige of dignity, reason and sanity left the Obama administration, as authorities swarmed down on independent film-maker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, whose cinematic achievement is falsely being accused of spawning the horrendous outbreak of terror activities targeting Western embassies and interests. Say goodbye to the First Amendment, as it has just been sucked into the Supermassive Blackhole of Obama Incompetence!

Martin Niemoller famously said:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."

I thought the making of the film Innocence of the Muslims was badly done, in poor taste, mildly offensive and something I would never do. It was not and never should be considered a crime. Nakoula's rights as an American are being abridged by a President adored by the left; the same left that is always making a big stink about free speech. Where are the defenders of free speech on the left now? The DailyKos is in full throated defense of the actions of the administration; they have totally sold out to Obama's would be totalitarianism. The claim is that this was a probation violation because Nakoula can't use a computer or the internet without permission from his probation officer. Do we have any doubt that such provisions are routine and routinely ignored, except when convenient not to? Regardless, it is only the act of mocking the story of Mohammed that has this guy in trouble; how is that not a step towards repression. From moveon.org, crickets on this subject.

If we can't defeat Obama it may take decades to undo the damage.

Weekend Round Up

I'm closing out the weekend with a round up on a few issues that have captured my interest but were more than adequately covered elsewhere. First, Dan Cathy had this to say in an interview in Baptist Press.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Of course, he was pilloried for this and was slandered for making "anti-gay" comments. KT notes that there is not a single sentiment about gays in that statement. Rahm Emmanuel famously stated that Chick-Fil-A does not represent Chicago values (see picture below.) The leftist diatribe and invective from elected officials reminds me of totalitarian regimes where punishment of businesses for incorrect thought is the norm. Mark Steyn, of course, hits it out of the park.

Meanwhile, fellow mayor Tom Menino announced that Chick-fil-A would not be opening in his burg anytime soon. “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult,” said His Honor. If you’ve just wandered in in the middle of the column, this guy Menino isn’t the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, he shares the commissars’ view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail,” Mayor Menino thundered in his letter to Mr. Cathy, “and no place for your company alongside it.” No, sir. On Boston’s Freedom Trail, you’re free to march in ideological lockstep with the city authorities — or else. Hard as it is to believe, there was a time when Massachusetts was a beacon of liberty: the shot heard round the world, and all that. Now it fires Bureau of Compliance permit-rejection letters round the world.

Sad but true.

Meanwhile, the flagging economy is both good and bad news. Bad news, because people are suffering. GDP growth fell to 1.5% last quarter and job creation is not keeping up with population growth as evidenced by the employment-population ratio. This means that those seeking first time jobs, like my son, and those long term unemployed, like friends of mine, are going to have a harder time finding work. The good news is that people have mostly given up on blaming Bush for the economic conditions and this may be what it takes to get Obama out of the White House and the Democrats out of the Senate so that sensible economic policy can be pursued. But its not a guarantee, the Republicans under Bush pursued some ridiculous policies that rightly got them broomed out of office. From The Hill:

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down.

The overall Presidential poll numbers don't seem to be trending yet, but history shows that economic conditions have a significant, but not overwhelming effect on the election.

Meanhwile, Mayor Bloomberg, has carried the definition of the Nanny State to its logical and absurd extreme. Here is the actual headline:

Mayor Bloomberg pushing NYC hospitals to hide baby formula so more new moms will breast-feed.

Regulating breast milk production? Hizhoner has become self-parody. His obsession with everything relating to bodily health belies an underlying mental disorder.

Have a great week. I will be vacationing in San Luis Obispo later this week, so the blogging will be light after Tuesday.

If you don't toe the party line, Rahm will have to enforce some Chicago values on your business.

Good Order and Discipline and Tea

Sgt. Gary Stein (pictured) created the Facebook page "Armed Forces Tea Party" in 2010. As you might expect, he eventually made comments critical of the President on Facebook. He is now facing discharge from the Marine Corps (pronounced "core" for the pronunciation challenged) for Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. He argues that he has merely been exercising his free speech rights. However, those rights are not absolute. A member of the Armed Forces may not participate in partisan political activity nor appear in uniform while endorsing a political candidate for office. These are sensible rules that keep the Armed Forces from unduly influencing or being drawn into partisan politics. The subordination of the Armed Forces to the civilian control of the President and the Congress have served our nation well.

At issue is whether Gary Stein's comments critical of the President and his statements that he wouldn't follow Obama's orders, later amended to not following unlawful orders, cross that line. At first blush, the Facebook page doesn't appear to violate the rules as I understand them. However, it may have changed after Stein came under investigation. The Marine Corps seems to have taken a different view.

The Marine Corps issued a statement saying that Stein’s commanding officer ordered a preliminary inquiry on March 8 after receiving allegations that the sergeant “posted political statements about the president of the United States on his Facebook web page titled ‘Armed Forces Tea Party.’ After reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry, the Commander decided to address the allegations through administrative action.”
. . .
Stein attracted national media attention when he started his Armed Forces Tea Party page, which has nearly 18,000 followers. Then a complaint was lodged against him with the Marine Corps this month after Stein made a comment online using his personal Facebook account. Stein said he can’t remember exactly what he posted — the comment has been deleted — but he paraphrased it as “I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me.”

I think the key issue that will sink Gary Stein is that he has identified himself as a member of the armed forces and publicly criticized the President. More subtly, his comments seem to indicate that the President is contemplating issuing unlawful orders. I think that would cause me concern if I were the Commanding General.

A more cautious approach by members of the Armed Forces would be to comment primarily on law and policy rather than criticize individuals. For example, in the above mentioned case, Sgt. Stein could have said that in keeping with his oath of office, he intended to not arrest civilians or perform some other act that was unlawful.

I wish Sgt. Stein well, but I think he is going to be discharged and that he won't be reinstated on any sort of appeal.

Stolen Valor and Free Speech on Obamacare and Abortion

The Supremes have agreed to hear the case of Xavier Alvarez, (right) who introduced himself after election to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, CA with the lie that he had served in the Marine Corps for 25 years and received the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was convicted under the "Stolen Valor Act" and if you think I am going to defend his despicable behavior, you would have guessed wrong. However, the law itself is a vast usurpation of government power, and we should be mindful of the consequences. Do we really want a government so powerful that it can prevent lying?

More importantly, doesn't the first amendment protect lying? That may sound absurd, but let's consider the road we are traveling. If we grant to Congress the power to criminalize lying, who decides? Will there be an Orwellian Ministry of Truth? Ultimately, there are remedies for false speech other than government regulation. In the case of Alvarez, voters could use the recall process to remove him from office. If we allow the government to decide what is truth, it will effectively end free speech as we know it.

Right now there is a case working its way through the courts in Ohio, in which lying in a political campaign has become the subject of government regulation. Steve Driehaus, (left) now a one-term former Congressman from Ohio claimed to be both pro-life and a supporter of Obamacare. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, ran ads portraying the vote as support for federal funding of abortion. Whether that it is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion but consider that it is at least a matter of opinion.

Until the eve of the House vote on the health-care legislation, Driehaus and about a dozen other antiabortion Democrats vowed to oppose the health care bill unless abortion language was changed. It was not, so the president, trying to provide cover for those Democrats, agreed to issue an executive order purportedly limiting the funding of abortions under the legislation.

But the president of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, contentedly dismissed the order as merely “a symbolic gesture.” The National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other pro-life forces grimly agreed.

In Ohio, SB-9 makes it illegal to knowingly "Make a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official." Driehaus used the law to complain to the Ohio Elections Commission, after which the the Susan B. Anthony List was unable to put up its billboard ads. Of course the members of the election commission are appointed by sitting politicians, but no conflict of interest there.

After the election, where Driehaus went down to much deserved defeat, he dropped the complaint, but then sued the List for defamation in Federal court. Here is where we are at:

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Black, who ruled on August 1 on procedural grounds (standing, ripeness, 11th amendment, among others) that the List’s lawsuit against the law should be dismissed. Given that the law was therefore still intact, he said the Driehaus defamation lawsuit against the List could proceed, and permitted discovery on whether the List had an animus against Driehaus.

The List has now asked the 11th circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court’s decision that said the List’s lawsuit against the Ohio law should be dismissed. The lawsuit is getting a great deal of publicity, especially on television public affairs programs with hosts who are angry with Driehaus. Driehaus is now working overseas in the Peace Corps. Judge Black has been criticized for not recusing himself, since between 1986 and 1989 he was President and Director of Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. Thanks to Eric Garris for this news.

(Bold added by the editor.) So the List's officers will now be subject to the inconvenience and misery that accrues to discovery, for merely making political speech. Even the ACLU is appalled.

. . .the ACLU of Ohio, in an amicus brief filed last October, came to the group’s defense. The pro-abortion legal group wrote, “The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech, and the best answer for bad speech is more speech.”

Exactly. It has been the habit of established and powerful politicians to use every speech regulating law to suppress citizen activist groups. Consider the case in Parker North, CO:

A federal appellate court today [Nov 9, 2010] held that six neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

Regardless of the argument that unfettered free speech allows corporations undue influence, the real effect is to suppress the less powerful citizen movements. Corporations and the wealthy will always hire the lawyers necessary to get around restrictions, the average citizen ends up in front of truth tribunals.

H/T to George Will.

Blog Post of the Week

Shane Atwell blogs about the truly scary Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. If his job title doesn't scare you, you should listen to his views on the First Amendment and Free Speech. Shane's article is worth a read as he points out that Sunstein is advocating that free speech be regulated for the "common good," that bloggers should have to link to "opposing views" whatever they are, and that government agents should be lurkers and trolls on internet sites. Amazing.

BTW, I've added Shane's blog to my favorites at the right.

Quick Hitters

As you probably know I am doing a little extra blogging over at BwD as Dean makes a Road Trip to Colorado. The confluence of three bloggers on one conservative blog who are also all employees of the feds got me thinking.

What is up with Democrats unwillingness to debate? Humana, an insurance company, sent its customers a TRUE MAILING, that Max Baucus' Senate Health Care bill will cut payments to seniors on the Medicare Advantage program. Then:

ABC's World News Tonight covers the controversy over Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) asking Medicare to investigate Humana for sending letters to its customers about potential Medicare Advantage cuts...

Mitch McConnell is a personal hero of mine. Anyone whose name is attached to a Supreme Court case challenging the Federal Elections Commission has got to be doing something right, see McConnell vs FEC.

Over at the WSJ, liberal columnist Thomas Frank asks essentially the same question, this time about the Health Care debate. Here is what that liberal has to say after opining that much of our recent economic troubles accrue to Bush era laissez-faire dogma. (I disagree, but who cares.)

I have concerns about the rhetoric being used as well, and about the louts and the bullies who use it. But it seems clear that Mrs. Pelosi's aim is to avoid debate when she ought to be wading into the thick of it. Her team has the arguments; it has the facts; it has gale-force historical winds at its back: Why not give back as good as you get? Why not simply beat the other side instead of complaining tearfully that they play too rough?

Frank never answers his own rhetorical questions, maybe because he can't, so he ends with this:

Conservatives, on the other hand, have been crusading nonstop since the days of Barry Goldwater. Every economic issue is a grand moral issue for them—this particular one, even in its lukewarm Senate Finance Committee version, is "a stunning assault on liberty," according to Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.)—and until liberals are prepared to contest those terms, they will have to live with a little incivility.

Darn tootin' every economic issue is a grand moral issue. Somebody needs to read the Road to Serfdom. I say this to Thomas Frank and all the other lefties, I am part of the Freedom Coalition and I'm not giving up on the idea of freedom.

Speaking of freedom, that's a word Sarah Palin is using frequently. I like her apt description of the Tea Party movement in her recent Hong Kong speech.

The “Tea Party Movement” is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms.

Well said. Sarah Palin may turn out to be more effective out of office than in. Kind of a counterweight to the Goracle. I would love to see that debate.