I found the women

POSTED BY JHW22

Earlier, I posted a Planned Parenthood screen grab of the Darrell Issa hearing on "freedom of religion" where only men representing religious leadership were testifying. Many took to the Twittah machine to express outrage that only men were invited to speak about contraception. A friend of mine called Darrell Issa's office to express that frustration, only to be told the hearings were not about "birth control" but were about "religious freedom." I called his office and said that if the hearing is about religious freedom, then there should be women testifying about THEIR religious freedom. I suggested Representative Issa release a public statement explaining why he didn't think women had a say in the first amendment. I suggested that a table full of men talking about religious liberties implies he doesn't think women have any. The staffer told me that these were leaders and that their hierarchy is only men. I asked if there weren't ANY religious institutions that had women in leadership roles and she said, "I guess not." I told her that was incorrect and that there is even a prominent nun who actually sides with the White House plan for contraception coverage. I asked why she wasn't there today. The staffer even thought only Catholics were on the panel, despite there being a Jewish Rabbi.

So, we all freaked for good reason. Only one gender and only one view was represented in a hearing about the FIRST AMENDMENT -- you know, that amendment that allows for multiple views. Of all discussions, this should have had a variety of testimonies. There should have been at least one person on that panel testifying on behalf of the religious freedom of women to choose what to put in their body and to be allowed the same access to rights given to other men and women, despite their boss having a "conscience" problem.

But the second half of the testimony did include two women -- both representing religious university administrations. So, they had women testifying on a "religious freedom" panel and yet, they don't represent members of any religious belief -- they represent universities. Universities that are not legally allowed to deny employment based on a person's faith or "conscience." They are not allowed to force a religious mission, philosophy or doctrine on any employee. Therefore, what these women have to do with another woman's religious freedom to choose to take birth control is beyond me.

What's most troubling is that one of the women who testified is a medical doctor. And she has a problem with birth control.

Folks, we have a serious problem here. Women's rights are being taken away -- prods are being rammed up women's vaginas to forcibly, against her will, influence her not to abort something that looks like a dot on a screen and doesn't have a heart beat. Women are being denied equal access to universal preventative care because of who their boss is. Voter ID laws are limiting how many women can vote. Previously apolitical charities are hiring ideologues to limit Planned Parenthood's impact on women's health. And the Boehner House has spent more time on abortion and Planned Parenthood than creating jobs.

So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to keep getting mad? Are we going to keep fighting this crap? Or are we going to get out the vote and kick these assholes out of office?

Suggestions appreciated in the comments on ways to stand up and create shock and awe!

Morons Have Free Speech Rights

Even the Westboro Baptist Church.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a grieving father's pain over jeering protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

It's unfortunate that these low life scum make a mockery of their god and whatever twisted religion they profess by acting out in profane, bigoted protests whenever and wherever the mood strikes, like at military funerals or Holocaust museums. But hey, hate groups have First Amendment rights just like anyone else, and if you want to look like a buffoon and call the President of the United States the Antichrist, that's within your rights as well. But that's what separates us from almost every other country in the world. And sometimes it's not easy.

"America isn't easy."

Now He's Just Being A Dick

Williams said that NPR's move to fire him was "a chilling assault on free speech" that came about due to "political correctness and ideological orthodoxy" by the "self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR." He also recounted the years of tension between him and his bosses at NPR that resulted from his association with Fox.

Well, at least we now know where Juan Williams stands.

In my opinion, this is not about oppression of free speech, as much as Sarah Palin wants it to be. Juan Williams is free to say whatever he wants. That does not mean that the objective news organization he works for doesn't have the right to terminate his contract because of inappropriate statements he made while identifying himself as an analyst of said organization.

Why do these defenders of the Constitution fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean the possibility of repercussions about the asinine things you are free to say?  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

To top it off, this winds up being a big payday for Williams, as he was immediately contracted by Fox News for a multi-year $2 million deal. Seems to be the best mistake Williams ever made.

Behold! The Tea Party Darling!

Christine O'Donnell doesn't know what's in the First Amendment of the Constitution the Tea Party claims it wants to return to.



The saddest part about the whole exchange is that smirk that comes across O'Donnell's face when the audience reacts. She thinks they're laughing with her, not at her.

Can I Get a Palin 1st Amendment Tweet? Joe Miller Security Detains Reporter- UPDATED

C'mon Sarah, I'm eagerly anticipating your latest tweet in which you express your outrage over Joe Miller's security detail impinging on his 1st Amendment rights.

Tony Hopfinger, editor of the online Alaska Dispatch, tells KTUU-TV that security pushed him as he tried to question Joe Miller on Sunday. He says he pushed back and that guards then detained him, accusing him of trespassing at the public event in Anchorage...

...The Anchorage Daily News reports that "Hopfinger was handcuffed by the guards and detained in a hallway at Central Middle School until Anchorage police came and told the guards to release him."

How exactly does one trespass a public event?

Here you go, Sarah. Just to refresh your memory:

"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."

Now get those thumbs workin'.

And let's hear it from the "Go back to the Constitution the way the Founders intended" Tea Party to call Miller out on this blatant disregard and hypocrisy. I'll be waiting for that as well.

UPDATE (2pm): Sam Stein gets an exclusive with Alaska Dispatch reporter, Tony Hopfinger (emphasis mine):

"Getting handcuffed by somebody you don't know at a public school, no one had said it was a private event or cast it that way, I mean intimidated, yeah [I was]. But I guess I was more pissed off. Miller, I felt, was going to answer my question on the reprimand part," said Hopfinger.

"I think, just like in other parts of the country, the media is finding itself having a hard time doing its job in this political cycle because, whenever we ask questions, there are certain candidates out there who decry 'lamestream media' or whatever. Mr. Miller has had plenty of time to answer questions. He has been given plenty of opportunities. He somehow believes he shouldn't be questioned about his background and yet he wants a job in six years, to a post where there are only 100 in the entire country, and we are not supposed to ask questions about anything of his past. There is a little bit of shoot the messenger. It is happening up here, and other parts of the country. There are certain candidates who just want to turn this around and act like it's the media causing the problem. That has always been there, that element. It is just more ramped up this political cycle."

Dr. Laura Wants Her Rights "Back"

Why is it when someone is expressing their First Amendment rights in disagreeing with someone else's bigoted, racist, insanely stupid comments, it's mistakenly perceived as an infringement of the latter's First Amendment rights? Nobody stopped "Dr." Laura Schlessinger from shouting "nigger" in a crowded radio station, and no one is stopping others from saying she's an asshole for doing so and complaining to the station and her sponsors. See? She spoke freely. Listeners responded freely. First Amendment rights for all! So where were her rights infringed upon?

"Dr." Laura, Sarah Palin and every other moron who waves Constitutional rights in peoples' faces without knowing what the hell they are should realize that exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not make them immune to the consequences and repercussions of whatever idiotic thing spews from their mouths.

Palin's Facebook Scrub Continued

Just for the fun of it.



17 minutes later...



...but shit like this remains.



Just sayin'.

Banned From Sarah Palin's Facebook Page

Oh, the horror.... the horror.  Actually, it really didn't take much.

I joined Sarah Palin's Facebook page initially months ago out of curiosity. You know, the same reason you pay a buck to go into the Circus Side Show tent to see freaks and oddities, or the same reason you can't stare away from a horrific car accident.

But yesterday's craptastic Palin entry, and her sheeple's comments, took me to a very dark place... the point of no return... the rebuttal comment.

Sarah's Facebook ghostwriter wrote:

Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union pay raises. Seriously? What are our priorities?

...going on to cite a Newsmax article. Newsmax!

Oh, the outrage! Comments flying left and right! Or right and righter.

"We should cut his pay to unemployed. IMPEACH HIM."

"How can they decrease it any more...They are living at poverty level now...Grrr!"

"Rid the government reps that are criminals! Including our president that is not a citizen!"

"Can't freaken believe it!! What an a-s hole. Take from the very people that keep us safe and give to the crooks!!! Politicians , unions , special interest etc... I am so mad. Obama has to go !!!"

That damn, Kenyan reverse Robin Hood!  How dare he!!!  Well, I couldn't just sit there dumbfounded at how many stupid people there are in the country. So I thought I'd edumacate them:
"Uh, you do know that the soldiers are getting a pay INCREASE this year, don't you? Maybe you should do some research instead of taking ½ term Sarah's lies as fact." complete with an Army Times link.

I guess that second sentence was enough for the Palin Facebook Gestapo to delete my comment and ban me from posting there ever again. It took about 30 seconds. But I doubt my comment would have survived even without the "½ term Sarah" dig. Pretty amazing to think that her FB page administrators are monitoring comments that closely.

Why does Sarah Palin hate the First Amendment?

Anyway... badge of honor I suppose. Here's fun little game: why don't you head on over to Palin's FB page, join, and politely disagree with whatever you like. See how long it takes you to have your comment deleted. Then join this page and relay what egregious, unthinkable comment got you booted. Keep those Palin police on their toes!

The First Amendment Does Not Apply...

...when threatening the life of the President of the United States. Morans.

Via Gawker:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Be Still My Beating Heart

Via Bob Cesca:

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Walmart, CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on [Glenn] Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

As has been often said, under the 1st Amendment Beck can utter any vile thing he likes. The public has the right to voice their opposition to Beck's opinions and the free market corporations can also exercise its right to refuse to advertise during his show in order not to be associated with the hate speech. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from accountability.

What A Complete Moron

I never thought it would be possible that an elected official, a former Mayor and a current Governor of one of our fifty states, someone running for the Vice Presidency of the United States, would be so ingorant and not understand the Constitution of the country she is running to lead.

Sarah Palin: "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

The Giuliani "Transparency"

It's been a little while since I've posted about Ghouliani. Having to write about the Giuliani scandal du jour can get a little tiresome. But here's a new one!

Under an unprecedented agreement that didn't become public until after he left office, Giuliani secreted out of City Hall the written, photographic and electronic record of his eight years in office _ more than 2,000 boxes.

...In a Republican presidential candidates' debate last week, Giuliani asserted: "My government in New York City was so transparent that they knew every single thing I did almost every time I did it. ... I can't think of a public figure that's had a more transparent life than I've had."

There are some however, including this native New Yorker that lived through the Giuliani Mayoral Administration that don't agree with the "transparency" that Giuliani claims. But don't just take my word for it.

"He ran a government as closed as he could make it," said attorney Floyd Abrams, a widely recognized First Amendment authority who faced off against city lawyers when Giuliani sought to shut the Brooklyn Museum of Art because the mayor considered a painting sacrilegious.

...Mayor Giuliani was in many respects a good mayor, but in regard to First Amendment-related matters, he is surely the worst in living memory," Abrams said in an interview.

...In a slap at Giuliani's City Hall, a judge in one such case wrote bluntly, "The law provides for maximum access, not maximum withholding."

Read the rest of the story.

Zeitgeist

Zeit·geist [tsahyt-gahyst]n.

The taste, outlook, and spirit characteristic of a period or generation. Zeitgeist is German for “time-spirit.”

I finally had some time to sit down and watch "Zeitgeist" today. It is mind-numbing. It's also a must see. So when you have a chance, sit down, take a deep breath and watch it. I'm sure some people will be offended by some of the content, whether it be religious, political or conspiratorial, but in my opinion, it is healthy to question oneself.

As far as the quote below, part of it is in the movie, which stirred enough interest in me to look for its origin.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

...For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence -- on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice... It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

...I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed...

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed - and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

...It was early in the 17th Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder, and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press -- to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news -- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

John F. Kennedy
April 27, 1961
Address to the American Newspaper Publishers

Presidential Advance Manual

Sensitive - Do Not Copy

I love living in a Democracy, don't you? Too bad we're slowly losing ours.

Herr Bush doesn't like dissent. We all know that. We can see it in his face when he is questioned by an occasional reporter who hasn't checked his testes at the door before walking into the White House Press Room. And we've all heard the stories of protesters being arrested by his henchmen (formerly known as local police and the Secret Service) at events just for wearing anti-war shirts or holding anti-Bush signs.

But who knew to what detail they would try to prevent Herr Bush from even having these protesters in view? Now we have proof.

WASHINGTON POST:

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protesters" from President Bush's public appearances around the country.

...The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs," it advises.

Why bother? Can Monkey Boy actually read?

They even have pointers on "rally squads" who should physically block the protesting and drown out the dissenters with chants of "USA! USA!" so Herr Bush doesn't see it.

The only reason we find this out is because of the lawsuits involving the people who were arrested.

For example, "Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended [a] Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing."

The White House of course, could not discuss the manual because it's an issue in two other suits.

Court to FCC: Your Policy is Sh*t So F**k Off

We all know that the holier than thou Federal Communications Commission has been a little stringent in their policies regarding profanity on the airwaves. They've even gone as far as raising the fine ten fold, to $325,000 per offense.

But here's the ruling laid down by the New York Appeals Court:

"We find the FCC's new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy," the court wrote in a 2-1 opinion.

"We are doubtful that by merely proffering a reasoned analysis for its new approach to indecency and profanity, the commission can adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote. "Nevertheless, because we can decide this case on this narrow ground, we vacate and remand so that the commission can set forth an analysis. While we fully expect the networks to raise the same arguments they have raised to this court if the commission does nothing more on remand than provide additional explanation for its departure from prior precedent, we can go not further than this opinion."

The kicker is this: If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

So if Bush can tell Blair to "get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit" and Cheney can tell Sen. Patrick Leahy to "Go fuck yourself", then why should a government agency be able fine a broadcasting company for an expletive that isn't previously planned? They can't.

Score one for the First Amendment.

Imus and Free Speech

I've just heard someone try to make the Imus issue a free speech debate. This is not a free speech issue.

US Constitution - Amendment I
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.

Imus was not fired by the government.To my knowledge, there was no complaint that the FCC responded to that caused Imus' dismissal. If there were complaints, I didn't hear one word mentioned about it during the media feeding frenzy on Imus' comments regarding the Rutgers Women's Basketball team.

Imus was fired by the private corporation he worked for; that corporation has the right to tell him what he can and cannot say. Sponsors have the right to pull their advertising if they feel they may be harmed by what an on air personality says on his program which they support with their advertising dollars.

The free speech that was apparent on this issue were the protests and calls for Imus' firing. The air waves are public and the public responded. Was it sensationalized? Yes. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. Is there a double standard? Definitely, but that doesn't make the comments made by Imus any less hateful, any less racial, any less sexually degrading to the people on the receiving end. Others have been fired for racially motivated comments, and for this there cannot be a double standard. Firing Imus, whose program was in the top 10 in the country as far as revenue was concerned, showed us that CBS had the guts to do the right thing, in my opinion, regardless of how it was going to affect them financially. Imus was bringing in $15 million annually.

If this is truly where we are headed as a community (and I think it's a good thing) then there has to be continued scrutiny on the truly hateful on air personalities that make a living spewing their hate-filled rhetoric. This cannot end with Imus. Let's keep an eye on the Rush Limbaughs, the Mike Savages, the Glenn Becks, and the Melanie Morgans of the airwaves.

First Amendment in Jeopardy?

Steve Watson's latest post (at InfoWars.net) tells us that our First Amendment rights could be in trouble with the current Lobby reform bill. With the redefinition of "lobbying", bloggers could fall under same net as K Street type lobbyists.

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."