May 11, 2006

President Bush asserts that his domestic spy orders are constitutional and only target the enemy and those who support their efforts.

"We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," he said. Instead, the NSA's efforts "strictly target al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."
[Bush defends NSA data collection program - USAToday - 05-11-06]

The Bush Administration has already lumped political opponents with "the enemy" that President Bush today stated was the target of domestic spying.

Political opponents who dissent are committing treason by providing aid and comfort to the terrorists:

President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq -- a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.
[Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits - Washington Post - 09-24-04]

more

"Those who make such allegations about the revised version of USA Patriot are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and weakening American resolve."
[John Ashcroft - 09-18-03]

more

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
[Ashcroft: Critics of new terror measures undermine effort - CNN - 12-07-01]

more

"Daschle's three years as Complainer-In-Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies."
[Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick - fundraising letter - 09-04]

more

"The Democrats are quitting, calling the war unwinnable while we have our men and women and their families sacrificing every day" charged Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Democrats are "basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy," echoed Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.
['Unwinnable' comment draws GOP fire - CNN - 05-10-04]

The record shows Republicans have no problems associating American dissenters with terrorists. The concern of advocates for the Constitutional rule of law in America is that the Bush Administration has now created the means by which they can act against political opponents without anyone knowing and without any regard to the question of whether the American government has the right to spy on American citizens.

April 23, 2006

Last week's actions by Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield point to a disheartening arrogance among a handful of elected officials in Tennessee. By banning city employees from communicating with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter, who aggressively sought records on a $90,000 lobbying fee the Mayor paid to his former campaign manager out of tax-payer money, Mayor Littlefield flagrantly thumbed his nose at the media, the citizens he was elected to serve and Tennessee's open records law.

Mayor Littlefield's disgraceful justifications for this action, spelled out in his own press release, represent why the Tennessee legislature must pass the "Sunshine In Government Improvement Act of 2006" (SB2471 / HB2495) next week. The needed improvements impose fines for government officials who violate the law and allow the court to force offending government agencies to pay court costs in lawsuits filed to obtain public records.

If it were not for reporter Michael Weber and Tennessee's open records law, there is no telling what lengths Mayor Littlefield and other elected officials will continue to go to operate behind a veil of secrecy away from the average citizen whose business they are supposed to represent.

ACT NOW: On Monday, April 24, 2006, the "Sunshine In Government Improvement Act of 2006" comes up on the Tennessee Senate's calendar, and it is up to the Senate Republican Majority Leader Ron Ramsey to choose which side of open and accountable government he and his party will stand. Despite Ramsey having called the bill "way too stringent," several of his Republican colleagues disagree with their leadership and have signed on as sponsors.

Call your state Senator and urge them to vote FOR this bill (SB2471). Also call your state Representative in the House and ask them to recommend passage of the House companion bill (HB2495) currently on the calendar for Tuesday April 25 on the House State & Local Government Committee.

Also Read:

• Tennessee Government Gets 'F' For Accountability - April 22, 2006
  
• The Cost of Secrecy in Tennessee Government Increases - April 20, 2006
  
• TCOG Responds to Chattanooga Mayor's Actions - April 19, 2006

April 23, 2006

Don't say I didn't warn you. Here is more from TennesseeTicket.com on the Chattanooga Times Free Press editorial that slaps the Mayor with a dose of reality.

So why would Mayor Littlefield issue such a public edict, particularly one that used such defamatory and inflammatory rhetoric and that depicted such deplorable bias against the person and background of Michael Weber?

Well, it could be because Mr. Weber was seeking records to document the lobbying contract by which Mayor Littlefield has managed to steer a $90,000 sweetheart fee to an old friend, Duane Smith, under a $180,000 contract to the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm of Akerman Senterfitt, which the city hired last September.
[The mayor’s wrongful ban - TFP - 04-21-06]

UPDATE 10:30AM: 10,000 Monkeys links to today's Chattanooga Times Free Press piece from Publisher and Editor Tom Griscom.

The Times Free Press retains lawyers to gain access to public documents, but most citizens do not have the resources to sue their elected officials to receive the information that is supposed to be readily available during normal working hours.

Tennessee’s Open Records Law was established to provide citizens with unencumbered access to public information. When a newspaper like the Times Free Press challenges bureaucrats who throw new hurdles in the way, the result is not something that favors the media, but that opens the way for Chattanoogans to review and obtain public information.
[City Hall's chilly wind - Chattanooga Times Free Press - 04-23-06]

Also read:

• Chattanooga Mayor Bans Reporter - April 14, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Times Free Press Reporter Strikes Back - April 18, 2006
  
• TCOG Responds to Chattanooga Mayor's Actions - April 19, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Mayor 'held hostage' by Reporter? - April 19, 2006
  
• The Cause of a Banned Reporter - April 20, 2006

April 22, 2006

I'm all for the pro-life movement having the right to promote their message, but the ACLU is right about this. There are two choices, two political messages, and the state has no right to suppress either of those messages no matter what side we take.

If the state of Tennessee provides space on state property for the expression of a political view point while denying access to that space for an opposing political view point, this is a classic case of violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A federal appeals court has delayed Tennessee's production of a specialty license plate reading "Choose Life" while the American Civil Liberties Union pursues a legal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are quite grateful that the court has decided to stop production of the plate while the case is under review," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "It confirms that state laws cannot promote one viewpoint while silencing another."

The legislature approved the program in 2003 on a request from New Life Resources, an anti-abortion nonprofit organization.

At the same time, it rejected an effort to create a pro-choice specialty plate
['Choose Life' plates put on hold - Tennessean - 04-22-06]

April 21, 2006

I'll place labels on my website after Attorney General Gonzales is done putting stickers on library books.

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
[Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law - ZDnet - 04-20-06]

April 20, 2006

(from TNPoliticsblog) Count me as one of the many "citizen journalists" who "barraged the [Chattanooga City] offices with questions" and focused attention on this story. Tennesseans deserve an open government accountable to the people and the reporters that shine the spotlight on the people's business.

What’s the atmosphere at City Hall now that the one trouble-making reporter has been given the boot? Are “key staff” breathing sighs of relief? Here’s the thing: they had better think twice before exhaling. What will most certainly happen now – that is, if this little column has anything to do with it – is that dozens of additional professional journalists, citizen journalists, and curious townsfolk will barrage the offices with questions: about the ban, about the stories that were being investigated, and about the relationship between the people’s right to know and the government’s duty to tell them. If Michael Weber is not allowed to ask about lobbyists and contracts, then it is upon the rest of us to make sure the line of questioning continues.
[Banned-Aid - Patching up the Michael Weber story - The Pulse - 04-19-06]

Also read:

• Chattanooga Mayor Bans Reporter - April 14, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Times Free Press Reporter Strikes Back - April 18, 2006
  
• TCOG Responds to Chattanooga Mayor's Actions - April 19, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Mayor 'held hostage' by Reporter? - April 19, 2006
  
• The Cause of a Banned Reporter - April 20, 2006

April 19, 2006

One day after a Chattanooga Free Times Press reporter exposed the city's hiring of a lobbyist for $90,000 a year, Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield has pledged he will end the contract if it's not productive.

Last week, the Mayor had banned all city employees from communicating with the reporter, Michael Weber, as he was investigating the lobbyist for a story. It just so happened the newly hired lobbyist was a former campaign manager for Mayor Littlefield.

Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield said Tuesday the city will cancel its contract with a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm after one year if it is not successful in influencing legislation that benefits the city.

"We will not carry on into the second year if it’s not productive," the mayor said during the City Council’s Legal and Legislative Committee meeting.

Mr. Littlefield presented the committee with a report authored by him concerning the city’s one-year contract with Ackerman Senterfitt that began Oct. 1. The city is spending $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, for the firm’s services, and at least one member of the council had questioned the expenditure.
[Mayor defends city’s lobby firm contract - Chattanooga Times Free Press - 04-19-06]

Also read:

• Chattanooga Mayor Bans Reporter - April 14, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Times Free Press Reporter Strikes Back - April 18, 2006
  
• TCOG Responds to Chattanooga Mayor's Actions - April 19, 2006
  
• Chattanooga Mayor 'held hostage' by Reporter? - April 19, 2006

April 19, 2006

In an email to me from Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield's communications director, Michelle Michaud defended the Mayor's actions last week stating their administration "will not be held hostage by one journalist."

The press is making an ill informed response when they say this is about denying public access. It is not about denying access, it is about professionalism. Every journalist and citizen has a right to public information. This administration is and has been more than willing to produce information in a timely manner and will continue to do so. However, it will not be held hostage by one journalist.

As a former member of the press for more than a decade, and now as the spokesperson for Mayor Ron Littlefield, I have enjoyed working with the media. On any given day I chase information for two Times Free Press reporters, and three television reporters. So you can imagine when one reporter calls and expects you to drop everything for his story, then accusing the administration of hiding information or breaking the law, life gets a little interesting. Reporters that show up unannounced, demanding to talk with the Mayor and threatening to go to press with information because of deadlines are unprofessional and give journalists the bad wrap they battle to dispel everyday.
[EMAIL: Michelle Michaud, Communications Director for Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield - 04-19-06]

*** Read more about what the Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter, Michael Weber, was investigating prior to the Mayor's decision to ban all city employees from communicating with him.

*** Learn more about the "Sunshine In Government Improvement Act of 2006" (HB2495) and how it would provide penalties for government officials in Tennessee found violating this much needed re-tooling of the law.

April 19, 2006

In an email to me earlier, Frank Gibson, Executive Director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government responded to Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield banning city employees from communicating with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter.

The "Sunshine In Government Improvement Act of 2006" (HB2495) would provide penalties for government officials in Tennessee found violating this much needed law.

It's my understanding the mayor has ordered city employees not to talk to the TFP reporter. Would be an interesting question about whether the city could deny a public records request filed in writing by that reporter unless mayor would call that "communicating."

The mayor is emboldened by a recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the rights of a Baltimore Sun reporter and a columnist were not violated when the Republic Governor of Maryland ordered all executive branch employees to not talk to those two journalists.
[Frank Gibson - 04-18-06]

April 18, 2006

Last week, Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield banned city officials from contacting Michael Weber. Today, the reporter struck back with a story that appears to explain the Mayor's disgraceful assault on Tennessee's Sunshine Law.

Mayor Littlefield hired his former campaign manager, Duane Smith, as a $90,000 lobbyist for the city. On top of that, Smith had apparently been working without registering with the state until the newspaper began investigating.

Mr. Smith is working under a subcontract with Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Akerman Senterfitt, which the city hired last September under a $15,000-per-month, or $180,000 a year, contract.

According to Mr. Littlefield and Mr. Smith, the Akerman Senterf itt f irm then hired Mr. Smith to lobby in Nashville and to work as a liaison with Akerman Senterf itt’s Washington lobbyist Richard Spees.

Mr. Spees referred questions to city officials about how much Mr. Smith is being paid. The mayor said he did not know.

Mr. Smith declined to say, noting "that’s really a private matter between me and the firm." But he said some of the information would be available under new lobbying disclosure laws.

Mayoral spokeswoman Michelle Michaud later said Mr. Smith effectively is being paid $90,000 a year. It was unclear whether that would include expenses.
[Lobbyist for city not registered - Chattanooga Times Free Press - 04-18-06]

April 18, 2006

Bill Hobbs is starting to point fingers, according to Kleinheider, while Half-Bakered bakes up more blame-the-media muffins with a Democratic-conspiracy filling.

April 17, 2006

(from VolunteerVoters) Wow, according to a blog for Tennessee Republican Ed Bryant's U.S. Senatorial bid, a Democratic conspiracy is behind the largest Christian university in Tennessee and Bill Hobbs mutually agreeing to part ways after Bill Hobbs self-published an invitation for the public to join him in denigrating Islam. Who knew?

It's been noted elsewhere that Spragens is soon going to be leaving the Nashville Scene to take a job as Congressman Jim Cooper's press secretary. Kopp managed Cooper's failed U.S. Senate campaign against Fred Thompson in 1994 and continues to maintain close ties to the Nashville Congressman. He's blogged about his close relationship with Cooper many times. All of this leads me to believe that Kopp engineered the Spragens article in an effort to hurt Hobbs and link him to Jim Bryson because he viewed the pro-Bryson effort in the blogosphere as a threat. My only question is whether or not the smear Kopp orchestrated against Bill Hobbs was part of his work as a paid consultant for Gov. Bredesen?
[Blogging for Bryant - He Did It For The Children... - 04-17-05]

For some people, the fact that Bill Hobbs himself published a hand-drawn cartoon denigrating religion in the most widely available medium for global public consumption on the planet, along with a broad invitation for the world to join him, isn't a reality worth factoring into their conspiracy theories.

Mind you, the cartoon would never have been seen had Kopp and Spragens not taken it upon themselves to get it published.
[COMMENT on VolunteerVoters - JB - 04-17-06]

more...

Kopp found an offensive cartoon that had never been publicized or viewed, took it out of context and ensured that it was published in the Nashville Scene for anyone to see and has the audacity to claim he "did it for the children!"
[Blogging for Bryant - He Did It For The Children... - 04-17-05]

UPDATE 2:11pm: Incase you haven't seen Bill Hobbs making the rounds in comments on various blogs, here is a excerpt of a comment on Tennessee Political Pulse.

The bottom line is I stupidly put an offensive cartoon online and left it there where Kopp found it. It was Kopp, not me, who shared it with the world, allegedly on behalf of the smiling Muslim kids in his neighborhood. (*cough*).

And then his political ally at the Scene wrote a slanted and partially inaccurate story and the rest is history.

If I had been a PR advisor telling Belmont what to do in this situation, rather than the employee involved, I would have told them to part ways with the employee - even though I think Mike Kopp is a sleazeball for what he did.
[COMMENTS on Tennessee Political Pulse - "Bill Hobbs" - 04-17-06]

April 15, 2006

Here are some interesting perspectives on the resignation of Bill Hobbs from the largest private Christian university in Tennessee following revelations of his self-published invitation to the public to join him in denigrating Islam.

Under the United States Constitution, we are all free to say whatever we like in America without the fear of reprisal from our government. The First Amendment protection of free speech doesn't protect us from the consequences of our speech in the private sector. Personal accountability for speech isn't something of which the United States Constitution absolves us in protecting the right to say what we want. In America, you have the right to be a fool.

Bill Hobbs exercised his right to free speech without weighing the consequences of being employed at Tennessee's largest Christian University. Both Belmont and Bill Hobbs mutually agreed that Bill's opinion about Islam and his desire to exercise his right to publicly express his views on Islam no longer served Belmont's best interests. As a private religious university, that's their right, and not many Americans who get that would want it any other way.

Mike Kopp

I called the Tennessean reporter to tell her that had I not pointed out the insensitivity of the blog, I would have had trouble facing my neighbors; the children and their parents who walk our sidewalks each day and call out in friendship at every opportunity. "Shame on me," I told the reporter, "if I hadn't taken a stand on this matter."
[A footnote on Mohammed Cartoons - Tennessee Political Pulse - 04-15-06]

Half-Bakered

Whew! So, a blogger caught another blogger in a "gotcha" by digging up an obscure, forgotten and unnoticed page. He then smeared by association a political candidate with no substantive links to the blogger and feigned outrage. It's a typical post from the less-upright part of the blogosphere The story seems to have spread some in the blogosphere, but not really gone anywhere.
[A Detailed Case Study of Press Abuse - Half-Bakered - 04-14-06]

Captain's Quarters

Why, though, did Belmont feel the need to do so? Hobbs hadn't posted or linked this cartoon to the university, nor did he post it there. He wrote that on his own blog as a private citizen and political activist. Does supporting free speech in Denmark automatically make one ineligible for it at Belmont?
[Free Speech And Employment - Captain's Quarters - 04-15-06]

Instapundit

I call it a defining moment for Belmont University, in which that institution squandered all the goodwill and interest among bloggers that it spent the past couple of years building up.
[Instapundit - 04-15-06]

My Quiet Life

The root “problem” as it pertains to free speech here is not that Bill shouldn’t have posted a stupid cartoon, and neither is it that Spragens shouldn’t have publicly pilloried him for it. The problem is that we’re so bound and subordinated by our employers that we feel compelled to check our speech, lest we bite the hand that deigns to feed us for the time being.
[My Quiet Life - free speech - 04-14-06]

RexBlog

I'm really hurting for the person Bill Hobbs (I'll say more about that in a moment), but I don't think this is a "free expression" issue. Rather, it's a poor judgement issue. Unlike some very articulate folks jumping to Bill's defense, I do not believe Belmont University is out of line for inviting Bill to leave (if that is, indeed, what happened). I especially do not believe they are cowardly, as Liz had suggested, if they fired him. In fact, I believe the PTB (powers that be) at Belmont have been very flexible in allowing Bill to (on "company" time and with "company" equipment) maintain an extremely partisan and political and advertising-supported weblog over the course of several years.
[Where's my "Bill Hobbs post"? - RexBlog - 04-14-06]

April 14, 2006

Today, conservative Tennessee blogger and Belmont University Marketting and Communications staffer, Bill Hobbs, has resigned his position with the private university.

I am resigning from Belmont University in an amicable and mutual parting of the ways, effective Monday. I wish Belmont University, a truly fine university and a Nashville treasure, only the best in all things. Well, except basketball as I, a Lipscomb alum, will now resume rooting for my alma mater when the two schools meet on the basketball courts.
[Bill Hobbs - NashvilleFiles.com - 04-14-06]

Hobbs' resignation from Belmont University, described as "the largest Christian university in Tennessee," comes after scathing criticism of his feelings toward Islam.

Hobbs’ online street cred and apparent respect for religion make it even more surprising that he would post a cartoon lampooning the Islamic faith on one of his websites. In late February, at the height of Muslim furor over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, Hobbs created a contest in which he invited readers to submit drawings of Mohammed. “Exercise your right to free expression by drawing pictures of Islam’s ‘Prophet Mohammed,’ ” Hobbs wrote, “before the West gives in to Islamist intimidation and fear of Islamist violence and makes it illegal to do so.” To kick things off, he posted a stick-figure drawing of Mohammed holding a bomb. Underneath the cartoon, in crude lettering, he wrote, “Mohammed Blows.”
[A political Web - NashvilleScene - 04-13-06]

None of this would matter much if Hobbs wasn't so closely associated with the Republican gubernatorial challenger to Tennessee's popular Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen.

This week State Senator Jim Bryson announced that he's running for the republican nomination to face incumbent Governor Phil Bredesen. Bryson's announcement statement and subsequent comments to the media were sprinkled with use of the words "faith" and "prayer."

At the same time Bryson's announcement was occuring, a different launch was underway on the web - the launch of a new blog called Bryson For Governor Blog. This blog is founded and edited by Bill Hobbs, an editor and news writer on the marketing and communications staff at Belmont University and a local blogger whose been promoting various GOP political propaganda for several years.
[Jim Bryson, Jesus and a Mohammed cartoon - Tennessee Political Pulse - 04-05-06]

The sad fact is the consequences of this story are those of Bill Hobbs alone. The reasons for his resignation have nothing to do with the media focus on his own published actions and everything to do with Bill Hobbs choosing to exercise his right to free speech to express his disdain for Islam. God Bless America for the right to be a fool.

UPDATE 4:21pm: Michelle Malkin thinks it's just horrible Bill Hobbs was "fired" over a cartoon. As a private institution, the largest Christian University in Tennessee is not obligated to employ anyone who chooses to publicly exercise their First Amendment right for the purposes of denigrating religion. I suspect if Bill Hobbs was a Muslim sketching Jesus in precarious situations and inviting the public to join him, Michelle Malkin would all of a sudden get it.

Recourse under the First Amendment is afforded citizens denied this right by the government, not a private organization or employer. Otherwise McDonalds might have a problem being forced to employ cashiers honestly telling customers how much the food truly sucks. You have the right to say it just as McDonalds has the right to fire you for exercising that right in whatever public manner you choose.

April 14, 2006

After proclaiming a commitment to "transparency in government," Chattanooga, TN Mayor Ron Littlefield "banned" city officials from communicating with Times Free Press reporter Michael Webber. Whether the Mayor realizes it or not, the city is legally obligated to comply with Tennessee's Sunshine Law making the workings of government "open to the public at all times," including "annoying, distracting" Mr. Webber.

“I’ve instructed City Personnel they are to have no further contact with Times Free Press Reporter Michael Weber. Mr. Weber has approached key staff in an abrasive and accusatory manner. He is obviously on some personal mission and is chasing ghosts and goblins that don’t exist except in his own mind. His usual mode of operation is to call and leave some gloriously inaccurate message then claim he is on deadline and filing for publication unless he hears otherwise. Perhaps this is a tactic that worked for Mr. Weber in Brooklyn, but it won’t work here, it won’t work for me. My guess is that it really didn’t work for Mr. Weber in Brooklyn and that is why he is here in Chattanooga.

“This is annoying, distracting, and counter to our efforts to deal honestly and openly with all media. If Mr. Weber wishes to publish irresponsible and inaccurate information he will do so without my participation. When Mr. Weber learns to behave in a more professional fashion as a journalist in the future I’ll reconsider this ban.
[Mayor Ron Littlefield Bans Times Free Press Reporter from Interaction with City Officials or Employees - 04-13-06 - City of Chatanooga]

April 05, 2006

Examples of what's wrong with America's public school system are endless. No example is worse than ignorant school administrators who defy our nation's Constitutional protection of free speech in favor of their brainless, petty belief that the cure for speech is less speech.

Students in the Oceanside Unified School District ought to defy this unconstitutional thuggery and demand the administrators responsible for the ban be fired.

In the wake of last week's immigration-reform protests, one school district is taking drastic measures, banning all symbols of patriotism, both U.S. and Mexican.

Beginning Monday, the Oceanside Unified School District is banning all flags and patriotic clothing. According to school officials, some students are using the garments and flags to taunt classmates.
[Schools Ban Patriotic Clothes, Flags - NBC - 04-03-06]

December 06, 2005

There are two ways to appear moderate to the American people. 1) pick up the flag of a few issues of your opponent's base and run it up the nearest flag pole with zeal, or 2) have some good old American common sense in everything you do and hope people pay attention. It looks like Hillary Clinton has chosen the first option.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
[Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law - Newsday - 12-05-05]

I don't have any desire to burn an American flag, but I don't want pandering politicians placing asterisks in our nation's constitutional protection of civil liberties, especially free speech.

This is a democracy, not a totalitarian regime where the government can haul individuals before a court claiming the government is the victim and has been violated by an individual's speech.

Sen. Clinton opposed a previous attempt to amend the constitution to ban flag burning.

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," said Clinton. Her aides said there was no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.
[Flag amendment may lack votes to pass Senate - First Amendment Center - 06-13-05]

Here is what the "Flag Protection Act of 2005" says.

`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) DAMAGING A FLAG BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(d) DAMAGING A FLAG OF ANOTHER ON FEDERAL LAND- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
[S 1370 IS "Flag Protection Act of 2005"]

Sen. Clinton doesn't want you to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence. She's totally against people burning someone else's flag. And she doesn't want you to burn that stolen flag on federal property. The last I checked, inciting violence, theft and disposing stolen goods is already criminal. Is this attempt to remain constitutional a joke?

Take a look at the "Flag Protection Act of 1989" which the Supreme Court of the United States said was unconstitutional.

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
[Flag Protection Act of 1989]

December 05, 2005

Doesn't the Boston Globe mean "holiday candle stick?"

In August, the Chabad Jewish Center in Westborough asked Shrewsbury for permission to erect a menorah on the lawn of Town Hall or on the town common for eight days starting Dec. 25, the first night of Hanukkah.

Officials at the time said they did not know how to handle the request; until then, the only requests had been for a holiday tree in the gazebo and Christmas caroling on the common.
[Menorah to light up common - Boston Globe - 12-01-05]

December 04, 2005

Watch Foamy The Squirrel defend the baby Jesus from the liberal secularist attack on Christmas (via Instapundit). "T'is the season to shut the fuck up and stop being a little whiney bitch."

November 29, 2005

We must make certain that no one tells the emperor that he has no clothes.

The White House advance team has long been sensitive to the potency of imagery in presidential events, going to great lengths to stage dramatic backdrops for Bush's appearances. In particular, they have used uniformed, on-duty military audiences many times before to underscore his case for war.

During last year's campaign, White House advance teams began screening audiences at Bush events to insure that only supporters were allowed in. After the election, that policy gave way to a new, "invitation only" approach, in which tickets to so-called public events were distributed largely by Republican and business groups. Now Bush is in phase three, where almost everyone he appears before is either on the federal payroll or a Republican donor.
[Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone - Washington Post - 11-29-05]

But he doesn't have anything on!

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
[The Emperor's New Clothes - Hans Christian Andersen - 1837]