Kagan: HELL NO!!!

I just read Can Kagan Be Trusted to Defend the Constitution? in which Ross Kaminsky assembles the critical pieces of the nominee's attitude toward the First Amendment's free speech clause. I want you to follow that link to Human Events

Kaminsky points out how Kagan's arguments in important cases before the Supreme Court indicate an unacceptable lack of respect for the right of free expression. Crucial quotes from a paper she wrote amplify that concern. I am glad that Kaminsky posted a link to the paper, because I clicked it and saw its title. "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" Since when do the ends justify the means? This quote was found on page 55 of the paper.

The realm of public expression may have too much of some kinds of speech, too little of others; some speakers may drown out or dominate their opposite numbers. Self-conscious redistribution of expressive opportunities seems the most direct way of correcting these defects and achieving the appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

President Obama spoke to the graduates at Hampton University, giving us some clues.

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

Perhaps outlining some crucial points will make things clear for you.

• bombards us
• all kinds of content
• exposes us
• all kinds of arguments
• don’t always rank that high on the truth meter
• information becomes a distraction
• putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy

That is dictator speak for "I need new laws to squelch my critics who are hampering my efforts to enslave you and cement my party in power." What is the relevance to Kagan's screed? Another outline is in order.

• too much of some kinds of speech
• drown out or dominate
• redistribution of expressive opportunities
• correcting these defects
• appropriate
• viewpoint.
• range
• balance

What do they have in common? Arrogance!! That single characteristic sticks out like a sore thumb. We are bombarded with all kinds of arguments, which may be untrue, and become a distraction, putting pressure on our democracy. There is too much of some speech, drowning out and dominating others. The remedy is redistribution of expressive opportunities assuring appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

The President and his latest nominee to the Supreme Court are two nuts in a Socialist shell who seek legislation to criminalize criticism of their policies. That is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

Those two nuts are not alone in that Socialist shell, they share it with Mark Lloyd, Obama's appointee to the FCC. Three years ago, he co-authored
"The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio". That screed asserts that there is too much Conservative speech on talk radio and suggests public policy changes to reduce Conservative speech, supplanting it with Socialist speech.

We are facing authoritarian demagogues who seek to overthrow our representative republic, replacing it with an autocracy. First, they must silence the guard dogs.

There are not enough Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination. Worse yet, they lack the resolve required, they are caving in. We have no recourse except to rise up and raise Hell. We must send a clear message to our Senators: Kagan is not fit to sit on the court: your vote for this nomination guarantees my vote against you in the next election cycle. Reverence for the rights enshrined in the Constitution is the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice; Kagan lacks it.

http://www.congress.org/ has a form you can use to send an email to your Senators. It is free and easy. I urge you to use it immediately.

Idiotic Petition Comments

I recently visited the Ban Islam Petition and discovered two interesting new comments. The petition asks the World Court to outlaw Islam because of its intrinsically evil doctrines & practices.

787. Morgan Brykein Care to read the First Amendment?

The petition's author is a citizen of Canada, not shaded by the First Amendment's umbrella of protection. The Canadian Human Rights Council has the power to persecute him. The amendment's establishment & free exercise clauses apply to the federal government of the U.S.A., they have no application to the World Court.

786. Frikka Wow Wow Freedom of religion, crackers, ever hear of it?

Casting aside the racial slur as irrelevant, I'll tackle the freedom of religion argument. Those persons fortunate enough to be under the First Amendment's umbrella of protection are shielded from establishment of a national church and protected from national interference with their faith & practice. Freedom of religion implies that we can't be compelled to believe or worship nor be obstructed from belief & practice.

Islam has no such provision. 3:85 declares that no religion will be accepted but Islam and those who seek other religions will be condemned to Hellfire. 8:39 & 9:29 declare unremitting warfare against pagans and Jews & Christians respectively until all resistance ceases, only Allah is worshiped and "people of the book" are humbled, subjugated & extorted. In Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, Moe informs us that our lives & property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims.

If Muslims are free to practice Islam, then the rest of us are deprived of the right to live in addition to our freedom of religion. Open your Qur'an to 2:216, which ordains Jihad for Muslims. Jihad is what a Muslim must do to avoid Hellfire and be assured of admission to Paradise. Open your Qur'an to 61:10 and read through the 13^th ayeh. Muslims are obligated to fight in Allah's cause. Allah's cause is making his word and system dominate the entire world. Doubters & dissenters should turn to 9:33 followed by Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65. Offensive Jihad is fard Kifaya, binding on every able bodied male Muslim of military age until a sufficient number have answered the call. Defensive Jihad is fard Ayn, binding on every Muslim who can get to the front.

Take a Stand against the Unfairness Doctrine

Media Research Center
Free Speech Alliance

Text of the Fairness Doctrine Petition:

I am signing this petition to urge members of Congress and government officials to reject any and all efforts to censor, limit, or restrain the right of conservatives to participate freely in the marketplace of ideas through the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or other similar efforts.

Additionally, I am joining with other American citizens who want their individual Free Speech Rights defended and protected from government intrusion! Our great nation was built upon free and open discourse, and to remain a great nation this ideal must be protected and preserved at all costs.

Please note that I will be watching closely and taking action when necessary to directly combat the liberal bias of the media.

    The goal is to accumulate half a million signatures to apply pressure to the politicians.  Our role is to sign the petition and urge everyone in our circle of influence to sign and share the petition with others.  With a few more Senate wins, the Democrats will be able to stop a filibuster.  We need to apply maximum pressure now, and maintain it.

    After signing the petition, please go to Congress.org and enter your zip code. Under the heading Write Your Elected Officials,  click the Federal link. Compose and send an email to your Representative & Senators urging them to reject all attempts at censorship. Let them know that your next vote will depend on their votes. Be sure to click the Letters To Leaders check box so that the public can read your letter to Congress.

    Collectively, we have the power to prevent this unconstitutional atrocity. If any of us abandons that power, all of us may lose it forever. If they can censor talk radio, they can censor the Internet too.  Then we will be like the Eastern Europeans, typing multiple carbon copies on manual typewriters to communicate our facts and ideas.

    The unfairness doctrine is a blatant attempt to squelch political speech. Don't let them do it! Act now to preserve our precious, hard won liberty.

Consider the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The text includes the technology available to the newly liberated colonists. Is there any reason to doubt that radio and the Internet would have been included if they had existed at that time?   Radio is nothing more than amplified speech, except that it has no nuisance value. Unlike the sound truck and amplified Adhan, radio is not intrusive, it is under the control of the listener. Make sure it stays that way.

Previous posts on the Unfairness Doctrine:

• The Fairness Doctrine

• Shibboleth: ‘Public Air Waves’