Wisconsin: The Gulag Across The Border

I lived in Wisconsin for 12 years; this is nothing less than abominable:

In the dark of night, behind closed doors, WI enacted the new Government Accountability Board – G.A.B. 128 Rule which silences political free speech 60 days prior to the election. Conveniently, this law goes into effect on August 15, 2010 with little to no time for successful legal challenges prior to the November 2010 election.

The entire text of the G.A.B. 1 Rule can be found here (Sections 1.10, 1.28, and 1.42 are most revealing).

Under this new law, individuals and groups must pay a $100 registration fee to the state of WI if they want permission to use political speech that totals at least $25 “cumulatively in a calendar year.” But it doesn’t stop there…

Individuals and groups must set up a separate depository account and file a report with the Accountability Board and Secretary of State. They then need to provide periodic reports of every communication – explaining the type of communication/action for each and every episode of political free speech.

The prime reason, among others, for the First Amendment, is to protect free political speech. This rule now in Wisconsin law renders political speech anything BUT free, either in the ability to express political opinions freely, nor in the sense of being able to express political opinions without paying a tribute to government.

I don't care if you're the most far-out-whacked liberal, or conservative. This should make anyone who values the freedom to speak out to bleed from their eyes.

BOYCOTT WISCONSIN.

Feinstein & Durbin to Bloggers: No Shield For YOU!

A bill pending in the U.S. Senate to provide shield protection to journalists who choose to protect their sources leaves out one very important part of journalism. I don't usually go to Daily Kos for my information, but a tweet pointed me here:

But those two troublemaking Dems, now identified as Sens. Feinstein (CA) and Durbin (IL), are back again, introducing an amendment to be debated tomorrow that would essentially strike the language above:

AMENDMENT NO.__ Calendar No.__

Purpose: To appropriately limit the protection from compelled disclosure.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. 448

To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclo-sure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

Referred to the Committee on ___ and ordered to be printed Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. F EINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. D URBIN )

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that—

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.

In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.

In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

Basically, Feinstein and Durbin want to restrict shield law protections for those who are either salaried employees or contractors of big media. If not, it's basically fuck you.

Mind you, this is KOS, going after two huge liberals in the Senate.

The First Amendment, of course, reads as follows (emphases added):

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.

So.. just who is the press?

When James Madison penned the First Amendment, did he intend to extend and relegate freedom of the press to only the few newspapers that were around at the time? Or did also he mean to include the independent pamphleteers, which were by far more ubiquitous than the established newspapers of the day? Since freedom of the press and freedom of speech are inextricably intertwined, it would be my contention that the original intent of the First Amendment as penned by Madison and approved by the Constitutional Congress meant the inclusion of both under its protections. Bloggers, by extension, are certainly the modern-day counterparts of the pamphleteers who thrived at the time of the Revolution.

There is no doubt in my mind that this amounts to a protectionist measure by the established dead-tree and dinosaur media, along with their willing accomplices in Congress, against its competition in the new media.

As Markos stated,

This isn't a partisan issue, it's one between those who are so stuck in the past, that they can't fathom a more diverse and expansive media environment -- one that is no longer dominated by the NY Times and the TV networks.

If you are represented by one of the senators on the committee, please give them a call and ask them to oppose this measure. Again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue, so calling your Republican senator (for once) might actually make a difference. Committee members are:

Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Chuck Schumer (New York -- he's kosher on this)
Dick Durbin (Illinois)
Ben Cardin (Maryland)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Ted Kaufman (Delaware)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania -- also kosher)
Al Franken (Minnesota)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)

Note -- this isn't about me. I'm a salaried writer. This amendment wouldn't exclude me. This is about most of you, and countless bloggers and writers who do their own brand of journalism because they believe in their cause, not just because it's a gig.

I'm glad that Markos has seen the light; hopefully this will serve as a wakeup call to Markos and others on the left to the fact that statist-inspired intrusion is a bane to everyone's freedoms, and touches every aspect of everyone's lives.

Hopenchange, baby!

Barack Hussein Obama, supposedly the first post-partisan, post-racial president, whose lofty rhetoric and god-like demeanor was supposed to for the first time, bring people together in a joyous orgy just dripping with gobs and heaps of hopenchange and butterfly farts.

That's the bill of goods we were sold last November when, in what was undoubtedly a collective drunken stupor, a majority of Americans voted for this bozo for the most powerful office in the world.

Well, Obamatons--how do you like the hopenchange now?(click on pic for full size)

The above screenshot was on BarackObama.com and was pulled off earlier today. It contains so much Orwellian socialist/communist gobbledygook that it would have made the copywriters at Pravda during the heyday of the Soviet Union green with envy. At any rate, they would be extremely proud of Komrade Obama's efforts.

You see, in Barack Obama's/Jeremiah Wright's/Bill Ayer's (insert your favorite Obama associate here) world, Democrats/liberals loudly protesting, breaking windows, tipping cars over, intimidating voters at polling places with paramilitary uniforms and clubs, and committing acts of arson are merely good citizens exercising their patriotic duty toward freedom of speech and dissent. But in the same world, there also exist deniers whose mere verbal protestations of The One's plan for heaven on earth amounts to acts of domestic terrorism.

For in Barack Obama's world, as in the world of many leftists, it's the thought that counts, not the action. In Barack Obama's world, freedom of verbal dissenting speech is far more threatening than an angry mob lobbing Molitov cocktails. In Barack Obama's world, freedom of dissenting speech is even more of a threat than Islamofascists flying airliners into crowded buildings, or even of perpetrating a bloody massacre of women and children. For in the twisted liberal mind, true acts of terrorism do not exist on a physical plane, but rather on a mental plane.

So threatening is the freedom of political speech to Barack Hussein Obama, that it must be squelched utilizing any means at their disposal, including marginalizing and demonizing those that practice it, as well as gaining the ability to shut down any means of spreading their verbal terrorism.

First Amendment be damned. They have an agenda to push.

Little did Obama's voters know that 'The One's" promise of hope and change would more resemble a gulag in Siberia than any form of earthly utopia.

THIS IS NO LONGER AMERICA!!

(h/t Random Thoughts)

France: We're being taken over by Islam: And we like it!

That's the message that they're giving to Bridget Bardot:

PARIS - Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.

Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.

A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.

In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.

Rather than arguing Bardot's assertions on their merits, the dhimmi's in France would rather debate by silencing opposition with a muzzle and a hammer.

Of course, Bardot, outside of being stunningly beautiful, is also stunningly right on the mark with this one.

In this country, we of course, have the First Amendment that would have protected Bardot. But believe me, there are a helluva lot of liberals who would like to have the muzzle control on speech that France does.

Only two hours left..

Unfortunately, I found out about this only moments ago:

To defend Freedom of Speech on the airwaves:

File Comments with the FCC

Click here to read FCC's Proposed Rule Making.

Click here to see the comments the FCC has received on this issue.

Proceeding: 04-233 Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The FCC is considering a return to 1970s-style media regulation that could significantly impact how broadcasters air local programming. They have determined that local broadcasters are out of touch with their local communities, and that Washington mandates are needed to fix the problem. The FCC needs to hear from you. Tell the FCC how broadcasters serve their local communities – with relevant local news, public service announcements, weather and emergency information, public affairs programming, political programming, community outreach and more. Washington-based media critics have had their say. Now it’s time for broadcasters and their supporters to have theirs.

The following is what I wrote:...

With the advent of talk radio, as well as with the proliferation of Christian radio, our local radio stations are more in touch with their community than has been the case in any of the nearly 50 years that I have been alive in this great nation.

More than ever before, talk radio allows community voices to be heard. The proliferation of and free market of voices has led to an informed electorate unlike we have ever seen in this nation, not only on national issues, but on local issues as well.

Prior to the advent of talk radio, "public service" programming was in such a dry format that it was nearly unlistenable, with an hour or so on Sunday morning and another hour or so on Sunday evening. And the rest of the week was music, and spates of news at the top of the hour. There was no engaging of the public, and the public was not informed to nearly the degree that it is today.

Talk radio is what the Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy to be: A free market of ideas, with ideas being able to stand up to the market (or fall) based on their own merits, not what a central governing authority thinks that it should be.

To mess with what we have is to certainly mess with the First Amendment; and to do a disservice to Americans now and forever forward.

Do not rob Americans nor their progeny of the intellectual freedom that continues to make America even more so the beacon of freedom and citizen rule that it was meant to be.

Again, this is being posted at 10:12pm, and there is less than two hours left of the day until public comment is closed. Please visit now and make your voices heard!

h/t ChicagoRay.

XRAN XPLAINS: The Maclean's/Mark Steyn Controversy

Read it. I mean it.

The Clock Is Ticking Away...

And with it, the prospect of a permanently tax-free internet.

The Bill of Rights...

...was codified to protect the citizens against the government.

Specifically, against folks like Henry Waxman (emphases added):

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'

'Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,' says a House leadership source. 'We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this [is] all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.'"

So what does this mean? It means that Henry Waxman, who runs the government oversight committee, has officially, or is going to, begin investigations of me and Hannity and Levin.

Does anyone else besides me smell a bit of abuse of government power here? Is anyone else (democrat or republican) just a bit bothered that someone in government would overreach its authority to squelch free political speech?

Does anyone else besides me think it a bit Orwellian, and nothing less than frightfully audacious that such a thought would even be entertained, much less openly, by an official who is otherwise sworn to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States?

Thomas Jefferson once stated,

"A government afraid of it's citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!"

Folks-- be very afraid of Henry Waxman.

And be very, very afraid of the democrat party.

The Censorship Cabal?

Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring did some extensive research in connecting the dots with regard to the movement to boycott Fox News advertisers, and found that the movement was far from a grassroots led and organized movement.

The involvement of heavy hitters of what used to be far-left (now mainstream) democrat party in trying to silence opposing viewpoints appears to be a revival of the modern day version of La Cosa Nostra in political form.

Read the whole post for this intriguing and at once highly disturbing account.

1st Amendment Resuscitated (but still in critical condition)

The Supreme Court today re-instated some political speech stifled by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.

Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision. (Yep... SCOTUS appointments do make a difference, do they not?--ed)

Although today's decision breathes a little bit more life into a dying Amendment, that, after all, was only first on a list of priorities granted our citizenry by our Founding Fathers (and incidentally by our Creator), Diane Feinstein and other democrats (and possibly RINOs) are still trying their damnedest to murder that pesky Amendment once and for all:

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

Feinstein, speaking on "Fox News Sunday" with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.

U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.

"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

Feinstein said the measure before the Senate "fixes those flaws" but that doesn't get presented on talk radio, which she said "pushes people to ... extreme views without a lot of information."

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."

"I remember when there was a fairness doctrine," she said, "and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

You mean much more unquestioned reporting to people, Ms. Feinstein.

Yes, I know you pine for the glory days of Uncle Walter spoon feeding events so that they are palatable to the left-leaning palate, and you'd do anything to get those days back.

Right now, left-leaning folks have had (and continue to have) every bit of opportunity to have their voices heard in talk radio. They can, and have accessed deep pockets. They, like the dinosaurs, have had their moment in the talk radio sphere, and have been found wanting:

(click for full size)

Not to mention the liberal monopoly found here, here, here or here, or of course here.


The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with fairness at all. The current market is a more than fair arbiter of what the people want to listen to or for that matter will listen to. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a government coup on one of our most basic rights as United States Citizens--that is our right to freedom of political speech. However, equally important as the right to freedom of political speech is the concomitant right for citizens to listen to what they want, and to not have the type of information that they are privy to dictated by government mandate. Such an intrusion into the marketplace of ideas by default stifles the very freedom of political speech that the First Amendment demands, and renders a new, even more nefarious meaning to the term "excessive entaglement."


Yes, the Supreme Court today gave half a breath back to our First Amendment, but there continue to be (and probably always will be) those who would see our most important Freedom we can have as citizens become null and void.


When our very government stifles our freedom of political debate (which, incidentally, serves as its citizens' primary check and balance against tyranny), look for the remainder of our Constitutionally- "guaranteed" Freedoms to become nothing more than a meaningless quaint sidebar in what will certainly be the downward march of what was the Great American Experiment.

And in a night full of victories....

From an email I received from Grassroots Freedom:

WE WON!!

The grassroots legislation, H.R. 2093, was not included in the lobbying reform legislation passed by the United States House of Representatives.

Thank you for your emails, phone calls, petitions and letters to your representatives. They worked, and that is why the grassroots legislation was so dangerous – it would have hampered the ability of ordinary citizens to know about and fight bad legislation.

The people spoke, and Washington heard despite insider lobbyists and others with vested interests against the grassroots trying to harm and take away our fundamental First Amendment rights.

Make no mistake about it, this grassroots bill was defeated by the grassroots. That was real democracy in action. Wealthy, Washington-based special interests tried many tricks to pass the legislation because regulating the grassroots would give them more control over what goes on in our Capital, and people like us a great deal less.

We’re likely to see similar legislation down the road.

But for now, you and the tens of thousands of citizens who contacted Congress in opposition to this legislation deserve great thanks. And we at GrassrootsFreedom.com appreciate the bloggers and others who helped spread the word, and told the truth.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Fitzgibbons
GrassrootsFreedom.com

First Amendment Assaults still an issue...

In the past two years (actually, ever since McCain-Feingold), there have been a number of congressional movements to stifle the free political speech of ordinary United States citizens in stark violation of the First Amendment, which was penned primarily as a means of protecting political speech.

Now comes another nefarious attempt to stifle speech among the grass-roots citizenry (from Grassrootsfreedom.com)

...Meehan Grassroots Bill, HR 2093, Relies on Deceit, Concealment to Violate Constitution, Says GrassrootsFreedom.com

Manassas, VA. The following is a statement by GrassrootsFreedom.com and Mark Fitzgibbons regarding grassroots legislation, H.R. 2093 introduced May 1 by Congressman Marty Meehan, and expected to be debated in the House May 15:

“Now that we’ve finally seen Congressman Meehan’s grassroots bill, H.R. 2093, we know that its proponents were selling the public and Congress a bill of goods.

They said: The bill would close a ‘Jack Abramoff loophole.’

Fact: Neither Jack Abramoff nor the kick-backs to him under the ‘Gimme-Five’ scandal would have been disclosed under H.R. 2093.

They said: The bill is targeted at so-called ‘Astroturf’ lobbying.

Fact: The legislation doesn’t target, and never even attempts to define, ‘Astroturf.’ Instead, it regulates genuine citizen-supported policy communications.

They said: The bill would disclose those who finance grassroots lobbying.

Fact: Corporations, labor unions, billionaires such as George Soros, even foreign governments will be able to finance grassroots communications through front groups and ‘straw-man’ entities, yet the real financiers would not be disclosed.

“Under the Meehan bill, private, citizen supported communications and efforts by non-lobbyists that somehow ‘influence’ the public, however remote from Washington citizens may be, to contact even just one government official would constitute ‘lobbying activity’ subject to quarterly lobbying registration with Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has already said that is not ‘lobbying activity,’ and is fully protected by the First Amendment.

“H.R. 2093 is mischievously vague about key terms such as ‘influence the public,’ which will act to censor political criticism. Washington bureaucrats will decide which speech is still ‘free.’ Lawyers and lobbyists will make more money than ever as a result.

“Roll Call reported on May 2 in response to complaints that the legislative language was being withheld from outspoken opponents that Congressman Meehan’s office denied language of the bill existed before the week of April 23.

“Now that H.R. 2093 is public, facts prove otherwise. Six insider lobbying groups signed and published a March 7 letter to Congress with a detailed description of H.R. 2093, including actual text and terms that are in H.R. 2093. The insider lobbyists include Meehan’s own lawyers. GrassrootsFreedom.com has more details.

“Now we know for sure they weren’t telling the truth and why.”

Playing fast and loose with our First Amendment Rights to free political speech, IMO, is by definition in direct violation of our elected officials' oath of office, in which they swore to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;" and should be grounds for removal from office!

I don't care what your political stripe is; attempts such as this to undermine the very essence of our system of government is an abomination, and all should be up in arms!

Contact your congresscritters and tell them that HR 2093 and similar bills will not be tolerated!