Tag Archives: free-speech

US Government Threatens Iceland and US Supporters of Wikileaks

The Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to consider criminal charges against Julian Assange for his Afghan war leaks. Philip Shenon reports. The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say. Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause. American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others as a result of the massive leaking of classified U.S. military reports from the war in Afghanistan, including potential violations of the Espionage Act by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst in Iraq accused of providing the documents to WikiLeaks. Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges. “It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking,” said an American diplomatic official who is involved in responding to the aftermath of the release of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war logs—and WikiLeaks’ threat to reveal 15,000 more of the classified reports. “It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,” he said. Their governments, he said, should follow the lead of the Justice Department and “review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.” Last month, a prominent pro-military group in Australia suggested that Assange may have violated Australian law through the release of the Afghan war logs, given the threat the leak may have posed to the lives of Australian troops serving in the NATO-led force. The Obama administration was heartened by the call this week by Amnesty International and four other human-rights groups for WikiLeaks to be far more careful in editing classified material from the war in Afghanistan to be sure that its public release does not endanger innocent Afghans who may be identified in the documents. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The joint letter by the five groups, first revealed by The Wall Street Journal, was met by a tart response from Assange, who communicates with the outside world largely through the social-networking Internet tool Twitter. He appeared to suggest that news organizations and human-rights groups, notably Amnesty International, should help him underwrite his cost of the editing and release of more of the Afghan war documents—but that they were instead refusing to provide assistance. “Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review,” he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. “Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?” In a separate posting on Twitter, Assange estimated the cost of the “harm minimization review”—a reference, apparently, to the effort to edit the 15,000 documents to remove informants’ names—at $700,000. It was not clear how he arrived at that figure. The Australian-born Assange travels constantly and is said to have no real home, living instead in the homes of friends and supporters around the world. He was reported as recently as last week to be in the U.K., although he has spent significant time this year in Australia, Iceland, and the U.S. He has said he is postponing future travel to the U.S. because of fear that he faces legal sanctions here. Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments that Assange should not be welcome on their shores, either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk. A prominent American volunteer for WikiLeaks reported last month that he was subjected to hours of questioning and had his laptop and cellphones seized by American border agents on returning to the U.S. from Europe late last month. An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs. Assange and his followers have been successful in pressing the government of Iceland, in the wake of the collapse of the country’s banking system, to reinvent itself as a haven for free speech, creating a potential home for WikiLeaks and other organizations that may violate the laws of the U.S. and other nations through the release of classified documents. added by: toyotabedzrock

Gay Bar Proposed Next to Ground Zero Mosque

In what could be a serious proposal or a thought exercise, libertarian commentator Greg Gutfeld wants to see if the tolerance expressed by proponents of the Ground Zero mosque extends to welcoming a bar that caters to Islamic gay men next door. Gutfeld, who supports the controversial project that would include a mosque and cultural center at the site of the 9/11 attacks, said Monday that he had pitched investors his idea for the gay bar, which would serve non-alcoholic drinks to accommodate the Muslim faith. He said he wants to reduce homophobia in the Muslim world while making sure that the mosque builders are not hypocritical. “Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque,” writes Gutfeld at The Daily Gut. “After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.” Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld on Fox News, was rated as an antigay voice in 2008 by GLAAD for his comments about the pregnancy of trans man Thomas Beattie. added by: TimALoftis

Google and Verizon Propose Two-Tiered Internet System

In technology news, Google and Verizon have issued a proposal that could radically restructure the internet by essentially creating a two-tiered internet system. At first glance, the Google and Verizon proposal appears to promote the idea of net neutrality, that users should have equal access to all types of information online. But the Google and Verizon proposal includes a massive loophole that would exempt from net neutrality protections all internet access over cellphone and wireless networks and any future new subscription services that broadband providers could offer. Jason Rosenbaum is with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Jason Rosenbaum: “The Google and Verizon deal announced today is the first step towards corporate control over the internet. They propose creating two tiers of internet service: a public version of the internet that everybody will be able to use without fear of discrimination and then a private version that the big corporations will control absolutely. And that’s the version that they are likely going to put all of their investment in. So when it comes down to it, people in America will have a choice: they’ll be able to use the corporate-controlled internet, where they’ll get their information from corporate sources very quickly, or they’ll be able to use the, quote-unquote, 'public internet,' and that’s going to be relegated to the slow lane.” Craig Aaron of the group Free Press says the Google plan could permanently shift who controls the internet. Craig Aaron: “The beauty of the internet is that you’re able to get online, go wherever you want, do whatever you want, download whatever you want. And if you’re a content creator, then you have the opportunity to have the reach of a television station or a radio station or a cable channel. All you have to have is that good idea or something interesting to say. But if you change the way the internet works, if you reserve that fast lane just for a few select companies, that opportunity goes away.” Jason Rosenbaum of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee says he also has concerns about the impact of the Google-Verizon proposal on free speech online. Jason Rosenbaum: “We’ve already seen how corporate control over networks can lead to political discrimination. So, there was a text message sent out by NARAL Pro-Choice that was blocked by wireless carriers, because the wireless carriers disagreed with the message. When you have internet activities or various online activities running on a corporate-controlled network, you’re opening the door to these kinds of censorship. It’s very much a free speech issue, very much a civil rights issue. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/10/headlines#2 added by: treewolf39

Appeasement Doesn’t Work: Fatwa Issued Against ‘Draw Mohammed Day’ Cartoonist

The Islamists mean to censor us one way or another: if not from fear of retaliation, then by retaliation. Shut your mouth, still your pens, stop thinking, or we will do it for you. Permanently. Molly Norris, mild-mannered cartoonist, started a fire she cannot put out. As Rick Santelli’s “rant” on TV from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade fueled the Tea Party, Norris inspired thousands revolt against Islam. In a desiderative whim, she drew innocuous, refrigerator-door magnet caliber pictures which she claimed were images of Mohammad: a spool of thread, a teacup, a spoon, and other mundane things. Overall, they looked more like idle doodles than passionate expressions of the freedom of speech. She posted them in protest of Viacom’s Comedy Central forbidding its cartoon show, “South Park,“ to depict Mohammad in a bear suit. That spawned the immensely popular “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” on Facebook. And thousands did draw. It is interesting to note that one can invite people to “draw Lincoln,” and we would see images of Lincoln ranging from good to unrecognizable. But how does one draw an image of a person whose face has never been seen, except in imagination? Imagination took hold. Numerous responses have appeared on Facebook where artists comment, “We have reached 50,000 members. As the news of the rebellion against the attacks to our liberties are heard, brave people join the campaign to stave of those who would annihilate that which we believe in, freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s quote is also on the Facebook page. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Americans and their friends across the globe responded en masse. The defiance was overwhelming, producing more cartoons than the Danish could draw, many of them ingenious. For a while, everyone was a Guy Fawkes , or a Paul Revere, or a Joan of Arc. But — Molly Norris was criticized. Islam answered . Muslims demonstrated . Shut up. Molly Norris recanted . She didn’t mean to offend Muslims. She was only expressing her right to freedom of speech. But — Molly Norris was criticized. Islam answered. Muslims demonstrated. Shut up. Too late. Contrition doesn’t carry much weight in Islam. No one has a right to offend Islam, or blaspheme against it. Whether Mohammad is depicted as a pedophilic ogre, as a knock-off of Charlton Heston’s Moses , or as a teacup, it matters not. It is forbidden. “Sorry” doesn’t cut it. Facebook also caved to Muslim demands and took down the page. A fatwa has been issued against her and anyone who participated in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. It appeared in an Al Qada online “magazine” and was issued by a former American turned Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who now lives in hiding in Yemen. Molly Norris is now a “prime target” to be murdered. “A cartoonist out of Seattle, Washington, named Molly Norris started the ‘Everyone Draw Mohammed Day,’” the article attributed to the radical Yemeni cleric says. “She should be taken as a prime target of assassination, along with others who participated in her campaign. “The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from,” reads the article in the magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. The killings should not, however, be limited to “Draw Mohammed” participants, the article says. “Because (participants) are practicing a ‘right’ that is defended by the law, they have the backing of the entire Western political system. This would make… attacking any Western target legal from an Islamic viewpoint.” Molly Norris should know that Islamic “legality” is consistently, irratinal and brutal. It is not a matter of a slap on the wrist and a fine. Submission to Islam must be total — or not at all. The “justice” metted out to those who only partially submit is perilous. Even Muslims are not exempt from it. So, Molly Norris’s life, and that of anyone who drew Mohammad on Facebook, is in danger. So is the right to freedom of speech. The law that defends it is also fair game. The First Amendment is targeted for assassination, as well, not only by President Barack Obama’s wannabe censors, but by Islamists who want to replace the Constitution with Sharia law . Anwar All-Whacky is just as determined to see censorship imposed as is Cass Sunstein (by government force) or Stanley Fish (censorship by proxy). Excuse the mocking nickname; my powers of illustration fail me. Stanley Fish , self-appointed academic ombudsman of free speech, quibbles about the use of the term censorship , not understanding, or not wishing to understand, that if fear results in the silencing of speech — a fear sired by the threat of direct force, or of a costly, ruinous lawsuit — that is as much censorship as the employment of force itself. So what Random House did was not censorship. (Some other press is perfectly free to publish Jones’s book, and one probably will.) It may have been cowardly or alarmist, or it may have been good business, or it may have been an attempt to avoid trouble that ended up buying trouble. But whatever it was, it doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional or philosophical concern. And it is certainly not an episode in some “showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” Formulations like that at once inflate a minor business decision and trivialize something too important and complex to be reduced to a high-school civics lesson about the glories of the First Amendment. Fish manages to denigrate not only Salman Rushdie in his New York Times piece, but also business itself. He has no grasp of what is fundamentally of “constitutional or philosophical concern.” It’s all so trivial, nothing to get worked up about. Save your concern for something important. And that would be…? “The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from,” boasted All-Whacky. True. How are he and his American proxies going to find and slay 50,000 offenders? No problem. He has designated any Western target for destruction. Perhaps someone who “drew Mohammad” will be one of the bomb victims. How better to vitiate the First Amendment than to frighten men from upholding it? Those who refrain from drawing Mohammad, or from satirizing him and his Moonie-like flocks in word or deed out of “respect” or “tolerance,” or from sheer funk, or who counsel others to refrain, are just as culpable in the loss of that liberty as any Washington censor or duty-bound Muslim. Of course, one needn’t have drawn Mohammad to become a prime target for assassination. Watching a soccer match in Uganda is also a punishable offense. Or publishing an Islam-friendly novel about the adventures of Mohammad’s child bride – without illustrations. Or an imageless history of the images of Mohammad. Or employing terms that identify the enemy in national security reports (that would be “profiling” a “religion of peace”). Those who drew Mohammad last spring cannot all go into hiding, as doubtless Molly Norris must now do. The FBI has advised her to take the threat seriously. There are countless Muslims — itinerate loners or residents of Muslim enclaves in this country or the patrons of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque — willing to do All-Whacky’s bidding. We are at war with Islam, and the enemy is amongst us. Is America fated to become a nation-in-hiding? You, the reader, decide. Our government will not acknowledge the war declared against us. It is up to Americans acknowledge it, and to never surrender this country to Islam or to its secular, Obama-esque form — to never let it go.

See the original post:
Appeasement Doesn’t Work: Fatwa Issued Against ‘Draw Mohammed Day’ Cartoonist

Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

It goes without saying that Monday’s media coverage of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.V.) death was predictably sycophantic on a disturbing number of levels. However, the award for most disgraceful use of a politician’s passing to further one’s agenda has to go to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews who ended last night’s “Hardball” memorializing a senator he had great esteem for by attacking former President George W. Bush. “Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War,” he began. Readers are cautioned that where Matthews went from here was offensive in the extreme (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War. I love this country and believe in its historic greatness. I don`t know how those Founding Fathers found themselves in Philadelphia in the late 18th century but they did. And we are incredibly fortunate for that. And I love the symbol of the Gadsden flag that, coiled rattlesnake against a field of yellow. “Don`t Tread on Me` — it warned our enemies, and that included especially the British government and London. This morning, a man died who treasure this country and that flag. For those reasons, Senator Robert Byrd opposed both wars — both wars with Iraq. Here`s what he said in the fall of 2002: “For the first time in the history of the republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. And I will not be silent.” And on the eve of that second Iraq War, he said, quote, “We proclaim a doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We saw that the United States — or we say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. There is no credible evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.” I was personally stunned and remain in awe that a president of George W. Bush`s abilities was able to take the attack on us of 9/11 and upturn two-plus centuries of American doctrine “Don`t Tread on Me.” We don`t attack but if you attack, we attack back. We oppose aggression. We are not the aggressors. Stop the tape! A president of George W. Bush`s abilities? What kind of nonsense is that? A man you admire dies, and that’s the occasion to mock a former President? How utterly disgraceful. But it got worse:  President Bush and his cohorts in and out of the government were able to construct a new doctrine: If we don`t like you or your policies we attack. If you cause trouble in your region, we attack. If we think you have WMD, we attack. Well, couldn’t that therefore apply to Woodrow Wilson and World War I? America was never attacked. And maybe Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be similarly excoriated for getting involved in Europe during World War II, for Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.  As such, using the Matthews Doctrine, we should only have attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor. And we never should have gone into Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq in 1991 for none of those countries attacked us either. Taking this further, Clinton never should have sent troops to Somalia in 1993, or Bosnia in 1995, or Kosovo in 1999. And he certainly shouldn’t have bombed Iraq in 1998. Add it all up, and in the past almost 100 years, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton have all gone against the Matthews Doctrine. Yet, on the occasion of Sen. Byrd’s death, this so-called journalist chose to once again attack George W. Bush. And he wasn’t finished:  And millions went for it, hook, line and sinker. Senator Byrd did not. That he was so alone out there makes the swooning of America generally Bush`s war so frightening. If someone of Bush`s ability can make America forget its most basic, most time-honored standards, then imagine what a gifted demagogue could do. It`s one thing to send us off to Afghanistan, the base of those who hit us. Bush was able to then drive the entire country off to an altogether different direction. That`s what Bush did. Bush’s war?  Didn’t the Founding Fathers give Congress the sole responsibility to declare war? Why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that in October 2002, both chambers of Congress debated giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn’t accede to various United Nations demands? And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 10, 2002, the House approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133? 81 Democrats voted “Yea” including Dick Gephardt, Jane Harmon, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.   And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 77 to 23? 29 Democrats voted “Yea” including Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Breaux, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer.  As such, quite frankly, Americans like me are SICK AND TIRED of people like Matthews calling this Bush’s war!!!  And to use the occasion of a Senator’s death to do so is disgusting to say the least. The folks at General Electric must be so proud to not only have an employee like this, but a television network that encourages and celebrates such un-American behavior. Yes, I said un-American, because the Iraq War Resolution was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, and 75 percent of this nation approved of the invasion five months later. As such, WE THE PEOPLE went into this fight TOGETHER no matter how liberal media members like Matthews continue to shamefully depict it now. Will it ever stop? 

See the original post:
Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

Loose-Cannon Leftist Randi Rhodes Resorts to Hate Speech to Malign Mark Levin

Libtalker Randi Rhodes can’t hold a candle to conservative radio host Mark Levin when it comes to constitutional law.  But Rhodes remains unrivaled in doling out gratuitous insults to divert attention from the issue at hand. Here’s Rhodes on her radio show Friday, describing the reaction of Levin and Washington lawyer Cleta Mitchell to the so-called Disclose Act narrowly passed by the House ( click here for audio) — RHODES: But anyway, they’re freaking out because the NRA is exempt and so now, they’re attacking the NRA. The conservatives have lost their minds, over disclosure. Losing their minds. In fact, Mark Levin, this, oh he’s such an angry little mushroom man. Oh his penis must be just so inadequate . He is on the air literally, I mean, losing his mind, talking to a lawyer from a very large K Street law firm here in DC who’s advising, she says she’s thinking about advising her clients to disobey the law. How can you be a member of the bar and an officer of the court and say on a radio show that you’re thinking of advising your clients to disobey the law? It’s gone crazy, they’ve gone nuts. And I’m wondering, when was the last time they ever did a show for an audience, not for a corporate interest? I mean, when was the last time they did a show that actually helped you do anything, instead of being corporate shills? Even disclosure makes them scream so that their spleen comes out of their nose. This is one of the ways that liberals differ from conservatives — a liberal sees a conservative criticizing the NRA and attributes this to insanity. A conservative sees a liberal criticize teachers’ unions and attributes this to sanity. Perhaps Rhodes might eventually learn to take yes for an answer. Here is one of the clips Rhodes played of Levin talking about the Disclose Act with Mitchell on June 24, interspersed with insipid ad libbing from Rhodes  (here for audio) — RHODES: Let me give you a little glimpse into the world of them. This is Mark Levin and Cleta Mitchell, who works at a giant K Street law firm, OK, a giant K Street law firm. And she and Mark are discussing that if you have to say who you are when you advertise to the American people, if you have to actually put your name on an advocacy ad or an ad slamming somebody, that would be taking away your freedom to apparently to, you know, be anonymous.  LEVIN: I mean, this is so thuggish, it is so crude. I mean, do you realize in some respects people are freer in Russia today than they are in this country? I mean, they’re criminalizing speech right now by some of us, by some entities that they don’t like … RHODES: NRA? LEVIN: …and on the other hand, groups that they do like, that support them are much freer to speak. You know, I never thought I’d see this in our country … MITCHELL: You know, it’s pretty outrageous.  LEVIN: And then Obama puts out a statement praising this? MITCHELL: Well this is, this is the kind of thing that he and Rahm Emanuel and, you know, David Axelrod, this is the kind of thing they love. They love to try to basically turn everybody who opposes them into some form of criminal. That’s their, that’s the way they operate. LEVIN: Now, are there criminal provisions in this statute? MITCHELL:  Of course there are. Of course there are. LEVIN: So if you violate it you can go to jail. MITCHELL:  Of course there are. I mean, I’ve literally been thinking about of the fact that this is so contrary to law, to the law and the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decisions that, you know, I, my job, as I advise people of how they can participate in the political process without running afoul of the law and I’ve just been thinking in the past week, if this becomes law how can I tell people, gee, you have to abide by this even though I know it’s completely unconstitutional? I’m almost not certain we shouldn’t plan for civil disobedience and tell people, you know … LEVIN: Defy it. Defy it and ignore it. MITCHELL: Defy the law. RHODES: How can an officer of the court, she works for a giant K Street law firm, a giant one, Foley & Lardner, OK? Giant K Street law firm, I mean, global, and she’s sitting there saying, you know, I advise my clients on lobbying and ethics law and I advise the, she was the legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, she’s co-counsel for the National Rifle Association, who by the way is exempt from this, they don’t have to disclose, but they’re just so upset  about disclosure, having to put your name on the ad, like who spent the money for it, that they say that that’s like commie stuff, you know, and she, this is what got me. She’s an officer of the court, she’s admitted to practice in front of the Supreme Court, she’s admitted to practice in Oklahoma. How can an officer of the court say, I’m thinking about advising my clients to defy the law? You know, this is kind of what Jack Abramoff did. You make problems for your client and then you make your client spend more money to solve the problem that you created. Rhodes’s scattershot indignation aside, here is a far more coherent description of the Disclose Act from Levin and Mitchell on Levin’s radio show June 24 ( audio here) — LEVIN: First of all, I want you to remind people what this Disclose Act is all about and what it really is intended to do. MITCHELL:  Well, people may remember that in January the Supreme Court after much effort on the part of a number of people who believe in free speech and the First Amendment handed down a decision that said that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment for Congress to prohibit corporations from making candidate-related expenditures that are independent of a candidate. So that a corporation, and you know, the Democrats went crazy, they went crazy, because they all of a sudden are afraid that small business around the country will hand things out to their customers and vendors and that conservative issue organizations will be able to criticize them in the fall elections. And so they have, they have been hyperventilating since January over this decision which really just unshackles small business and the citizens’ groups who happen to be incorporated. I mean, let’s be honest, we’re not going to see the Coca Cola ads supporting or opposing candidates, because I’ve always said any corporation big enough to have a vice president for government relations isn’t really conservative. LEVIN (laughs):  That’s a good point. MITCHELL: And so, you know, that’s what they say they’re fearful of  but what they’re really afraid of is the citizens’ organizations, the grass roots organizations. And if you can believe this, they put in this bill, they say oh it’s just disclosure. Well, no it’s not. If you want to run an ad that, say you’re a 501C4 citizens’ organization, you know, that’s what grassroots organizations are, you want to run an ad or hand out materials about a candidate that’s just independent of the candidate, just as we don’t like this person,  we want to tell him they voted for Obamacare and we need to get rid of him, and you get a contribution from a corporate entity, the head of that corporation has to be listed, you have to list everybody who’s given money to your organization over a certain amount going back for two years. And then they put together these carve outs. They’ve carved out the unions, they’ve carved out the NRA and other organizations … LEVIN: Let’s take a step back, let’s take a step back. MITCHELL: This is terrible, terrible. LEVIN:  Basically what we have here are liberals parsing out speech, who gets to speak and who doesn’t, before an election. Isn’t that basically what’s going on here? MITCHELL: That’s exactly what’s going on. And in fact, it’s like Congress is handing out speech licenses. You can have one, you can … LEVIN: What’s a great way to put it. And I’m going to tell you something. This really is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment and it’s going to receive minimal coverage and notice, Cleta, how they twist this, that this is disclosure when in fact what it’s intended to do is smother speech. MITCHELL: Right. LEVIN:  You run these ads right before an election … MITCHELL: Well, it’s very Orwellian to call it disclose. LEVIN: Well, you run an ad right before an election, the CEO, it’s my understanding, you have to have his face on the ad, the CEO has to speak … MITCHELL: Oh yes. The top five donors, if you receive corporate contributions, you have to put them in the ad and they have to say they approved this ad. Well, then there’s no, there’s no time left to say your message. The government is telling you what to say in the time period that you’ve paid for. None of which apparently matters to Rhodes, with her firm situational belief in the First Amendment. Rhodes, not incidentally, who would have her listeners believe she knows more about law that Levin , a constitutional lawyer and best-selling author, and Mitchell , a partner at Foley & Lardner with three decades’ experience in politics and public policy. (Mitchell elaborated on her objections to the Disclose Act in a June 17 op-ed in the Washington Post). Based on what can be found on Rhodes’s radio Web site and her Wikipedia page — or more specifically, what can’t be found, namely anything on her education — her alleged expertise in law is laughable.

See the original post:
Loose-Cannon Leftist Randi Rhodes Resorts to Hate Speech to Malign Mark Levin

A Muslim Response to ‘Draw Muhammad Day’

I will be the first to defend anyone's right to express their opinion, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered because Americans value and respect diversity. But freedom of expression does not create an obligation to offend or to show disrespect to the religious beliefs or revered figures of others. In reaction to the recent controversy over a depiction of Islam's Prophet Muhammad in an episode of Comedy Central's “South Park,” a Seattle cartoonist apparently declared May 20th to be “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” I say “apparently,” because cartoonist Molly Norris — the creator of the cartoon showing many objects claiming to be a likeness of the prophet — now says she never intended to launch “Draw Muhammad Day.” On her web site, she has since posted a statement that reads in part: “I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'…The cartoon-poster, with a fake 'group' behind it, went viral and was taken seriously…The vitriol this 'day' has brought out, of people who only want to draw obscene images, is offensive to the Muslims who did nothing to endanger our right to expression in the first place…I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off.” Norris even visited a mosque at the invitation of the local Muslim community. The creator of a Facebook page dedicated to the day also repudiated the “inflammatory posts” it inspired. He said, “I am aghast that so many people are posting deeply offensive pictures of the Prophet…Y'all go ahead if that's your bag, but count me out.” Despite the cartoonist's and the Facebook page creator's seemingly sincere attempts to distance themselves from the fake event, Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes made sure the call to “draw Muhammad” went viral on the Internet. They are hoping to offend Muslims, who are generally sensitive to created images of the Prophet Muhammad or any prophet. [The majority of Muslims believe visual representations of all prophets are inappropriate in that they distract from God's message and could lead to a kind of idol worship, something forbidden in Islam.] So how should Muslims and other Americans react to this latest attempt by hate-mongers to exploit the precious right of free speech and turn May 20 into a celebration of degradation and xenophobia? Before I answer that question, it must first be made clear that American Muslims value freedom of speech and have no desire to inhibit the creative instincts of cartoonists, comedians or anyone else. The mainstream American Muslim community, including my own organization, has also strongly repudiated the few members of an extremist fringe group who appeared to threaten the creators of “South Park.” That group, the origins and makeup of which has been questioned by many Muslims, has absolutely no credibility within the American Muslim community. more….. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-response-to-draw-muhammad-… added by: CarlosBobthe3rd

Pakistan Bans Facebook and YouTube in Response to South Park-Related Campaign

It’s “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” everyone! Which means that if you, South Park enthusiasts, believe that the politically incorrect cartoon was unfairly censored by Comedy Central last month, there is a place for you to unite with nearly 100,000 others who share the same sentiment on Facebook. You can submit your own illustrations of the very Muslim prophet that incited death threats from radical Islamic groups and wall post about the merits of free speech — that is, unless you live in Pakistan.

View original post here:
Pakistan Bans Facebook and YouTube in Response to South Park-Related Campaign

South Park Fans Mock Islamic Website [Hacked]

South Park made jokes about the Prophet Muhammad. An Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, retorted with thinly veiled threats, and the show was censored. Fans were outraged — and they fought back by hacking mocking the group’s website with this image. More

South Park Fans Hack Islamic Website [Hacked]

South Park made jokes about the Prophet Muhammad. An Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, retorted with thinly veiled threats, and the show was censored. Fans were outraged — and they fought back by hacking the group’s website with this image. More