The Department of Homeland Security Strikes Again

A customer service representative at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemary in Ball, Louisiana alerting him that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker from The Patriot Depot and displayed it on his car. The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden.  The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it.  Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights.  By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake   was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights.  The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty.  Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law. 

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.”   Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration.  But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election. 

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion.  Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough.  Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.  They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

HENTOFF: A free speech killer

UN warns: Don't defame religions, especially Islam

On Inauguration Day, after it got the United Nations to pass a gag rule on insulting religions, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) told our new president in a New York Times ad that Muslims "have compelling strategic and moral reasons to cooperate and peacefully coexist with the United States in particular, and with the West in general."

Many Muslims here and elsewhere want that partnership; but some, jihadists in the name of Islam, disagree violently. In its address to our new president, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (which has permanent status at the United Nations) made no mention of its own strategic skills that resulted, on Dec. 18, in the passage by the U.N. General Assembly of a nonbinding resolution (with strong advice to its members) that condemns "defamation of religion," especially Islam.

In an 83 to 53 vote, with 42 abstentions, the U.N. General Assembly urged nations to provide "adequate protections" in their laws or constitutions against "acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation, sponsored by Uganda on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, and cosponsored by Belarus and Venezuela. Opponents included the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan and India.

Those in favor said they do not want to limit free speech but do intend to stop such expressions as the 2005 Danish cartoons disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad that ignited violent protests by Muslims around the world.

Among the opponents, including myself, of this U.N. move to have its members legislate, with penalties, against such very broadly designated "religious defamation" is Floyd Abrams, the nation's leading protector of the First Amendment in the Supreme Court and in his writings. In his Dec. 9 lecture on global communications, issues at the United Nations itself in New York, he cited a recent study by the European Center for Law and Justice finding "that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion' actually help to create a climate of violence."

"Violators of these laws, as applied in most Muslim countries, are subject to the death penalty," Abrams continued. He cited from the study a 22-year-old Hindu in Pakistan who "was beaten to death by co-workers at a factory for allegedly committing the crime of blasphemy, which is a crime punishable by death in the country." The three workers were "charged not with murder but with 'failure to inform the police that blasphemy was under way.' "

As Abrams has noted, the effect of the U.N. resolution "would be just as dangerous if this did not (originally) come from the Islamic states, but came from any other group of states representing or purporting to speak for any other religion."

Another of America's leading First Amendment lawyers, Marc Stern, co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, makes a crucial point: If this approach to "defamation of religion" were to become a crime under international law (under the impetus of the U.N. resolution), "nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world."

Already, for example, as Reuters reported last June, Jordan prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed "11 Danes for drawing and reprinting" cartoons that offend Islam. The Danes were charged - in Jordan - with "threatening the national peace." Under Jordanian law, Reuters reported, "reproducing images of the Prophet Muhammad inside - or even outside - the country is illegal under the Jordanian Justice Act."

One of the Danes summoned to Jordan was Kurt Westergaard, who, for years, has been subject to death threats for his cartoon, among others, of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb.

When the riots and deaths following those Danish cartoons were reported in American newspapers, none of the offending cartoons was published accompanying the stories in major dailies, except the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. But I ran the story at the Village Voice, where I then had a column, with the cartoon of Prophet Muhammad wearing the bomb-shaped turban.

I was damned if I'd be intimidated for doing my job as a reporter. For a couple of weeks, I was more vigilant than usual walking the streets, but I'm still here. What most stays in my mind is that long before the Dec. 18, 2008, resolution on defamation of religions, so much of the American free press refused to run even one of the cartoons at the core of the story, and hardly anything about the U.N.'s Dec. 18 resolution.

Did they not want to offend certain readers? Were they afraid? If the U.N. resolution became international law, the First Amendment would still protect opponents here, but think of the bloody impact on "defamers" around the world.

To be continued. ...

Nat Hentoff's column for The Washington Times runs on Mondays.

2/23/09

Sharpton Attacks 1st Amendment

&

Leads Protest

Over NY Post Editorial Cartoon:

About 200 people gathered outside the NY Post's offices in midtown Manhattan to protest the Sean Delonas-drawn editorial cartoon showing a dead chimp, shot by police who say, "They'll have to find someone else to write next stimulus bill." The protesters shouted, "Shut down the Post! Shut down the Post!"

WCBS 2 reports that Reverend Al Sharpton said, "Here, you have someone using race-tinged cartoons to racially offend the president...This inference is something that is divisive, something that is offensive and something that should not be quietly accepted," calling it worse than Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. And NAACP president Hazel Dukes said, "I'm outraged that they'd have the audacity to use this cartoon and not think that it would have an impact for people…how in the world do you have the audacity?"

Post editor in chief Col Allan defended the cartoon yesterday, saying, "It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist." And Delonas spoke to CNN, saying the controversy was "absolutely friggin' ridiculous...Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon." Daily News columnist Michael Daly thinks his rival paper should apologize: "The cartoon's conscious intent may have been to say the stimulus bill as written by Congress is such a mess it could have been penned by a monkey. But say 'stimulus' to readers and they rightly think 'Obama.' He is as much a personification of the package as FDR was of the New Deal."

Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network, says that Sharpton and director Spike Lee will "lead members of the National Action Network in showing their disgust and outrage by dumping papers outside the New York Post' Doorsteps on Friday at 5:00 p.m." Tonight, there's a strategy session at the NAN headquarters (106 West 145th Street at Lenox Avenue).

Al outside protesting at NY Post!

Looks like he is using his

FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!!

Join MRC Action

sign the petition

  The “Fairness Doctrine”

is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.



Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC’s Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance goal is to mobilize 500,000 citizens to forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine and other attacks on Free Speech.



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.

GO HERE TO SIGN PETITION:

http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182

LIBTALK IN DISARRAY

How The 'Fairness Doctrine' Provides An Instant Bailout



*** NEW: Another Boston Talk Host Arrested ***

There's a second, more pressing reason, however: the distressed state of liberal talk radio in 2009. These guys need a bailout, quickly, with the Fairness Doctrine providing an easy way to accomplish that through forced carriage on successful conservative stations.

For anyone in the media business these days, times are tough. With advertising revenues off by as much as 40% or more at some outlets, survival is the name of the game. Newspapers are dying, networks are forced into mass cost-cutting, and FM music formats face a desertion by younger, iPod-happy listeners.

But the news-talk format is in an entirely different position: while certainly not immune to radio's corporate financial difficulties, its fortunes are split between resurgent conservative talk (thanks to Obama) and its still-fledgling, deeply-troubled liberal offshoot.

Even before the economy melted down, libtalk struggled to attract a significant amount of advertising. Just imagine trying to convince sponsors to come aboard now!

Rumors of its financial shortcomings are certainly not new and Air America Radio previously declared bankruptcy, later emerging under new ownership and management. But the latest rumblings, all developing over the past few weeks, involve several players in the field and seem especially troubling for the format's future.

Some of libtalk's key concerns:

  The sudden absence of syndicated talker Randi Rhodes, blamed on "technical difficulties", but more likely the result of a contract dispute. Her program continues for now with fill-in hosts in her place. Her own fans don't believe the network's official excuse.


  Rumors that Rhodes may lose her national deal and be relegated to a local show covering only her home turf in West Palm Beach. She's been one of libtalk's highest-profile hosts for several years, so this would be significant.


  Her current employer, NovaM Radio, an offshoot of Air America Radio, is caught up in a lawsuit filed by one of its former executives, John Manzo, who has longtime ties to Rhodes. Industry whisperers claim the company is having financial difficulties, which might shed light on these issues if proven to be the case.

Other NovaM hosts have resorted to extreme statements, including calling for the death of political opponents, in a desperate bid for publicity.


  Rachel Maddow, the closest thing Air America Radio has to a "star" these days, has given up her radio show. The network now runs an audio-only rerun of her MSNBC cable show at 5am weekdays.


  Thom Hartmann, the Oregon-based host who replaced Al Franken upon the latter's departure to run for a Minnesota Senate seat, is leaving Air America for another syndicator at the end of the month. This is a risky move that suggests he anticipates a need to depart his current employer for more stable surroundings elsewhere.


  The expected bankruptcy of XM Sirius could have a tremendous impact on Air America if it affects the satellite radio provider's programming offerings. XM Sirius has provided a lifeline for the network as land-based affiliates drop its ratings-challenged shows.


So if you're wondering why a steady parade of elected Democrats, led by libtalker Bill Press and others, are suddenly pushing so hard for talk radio censorship, look no further than their own sorry state of affairs.

DeMint to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine

Sen Jim Demint

By: Jim Meyers

Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:49 PM

Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is co-sponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

President Barack Obama is opposed to any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday.

But as Sen. DeMint notes in a statement, some Democrats in Congress have indicated that they would support a reinstatement.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, asked in a recent interview if she favored reinstatement, said: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”

Back in June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by John Gizzi of Human Events if she personally supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, and she declared: “Yes.”

As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in an interview: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Sen. DeMint stated: "I'm glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.

“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?"

Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.

Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.

The Broadcaster Freedom Act has also been introduced in the House and currently has 177 co-sponsors.

By: Jim Meyers

Fairness Doctrine

Paul Nowak in 2007 satirized liberal paranoia of talk radio

The fairness doctrine was a policy of the U. S. Federal Communications Commission from 1949 until 1987. Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal,

"Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987... and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination.”

The doctrine required broadcasters who aired material on controversial issues to provide "equal time" for the expression of opposing views. The net result was censorship, since broadcasters simply refrained from airing public affairs programing.

Opposition to mandated fairness

One recurring criticism of this requirement was that it had the effect of limiting broadcast-media treatment of certain controversial subjects. 

Under FCC regulations, however, the media could avoid the problem of furnishing additional air-time for opposing views if they included opposing views on the issues in their regular news programming. The courts tended to side with radio and television media if they can bring forth reasonably good evidence of "fairness" in the coverage.

One effect of its demise was to open the doors to today's political "talk radio," previously inhibited by stations' concerns that they would be required to give time to opposing views. Liberals such as Rep, henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have tried to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives fear it will cost them their dominance of talk radio.

With the rise of alternatives like cable TV, the networks lost their monopoly on news and public affairs programming. President Ronald Reagan helped introduce competition into the marketplace of ideas by deregulating the broadcast industry and had the FCC drop the "fairness doctrine". Reagan's idea was that broadcasters could endorse whatever views it chose (see free speech and freedom of the press). 

Representative Mike Pence R-Indiana) says “There’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine” 

Philip Terzian at the Weekly Standard says "Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio."