Alabama Cop Keeps Videographers Off Public Beach with Ambulance, Paramedic and Fire Trucks

Marguerite Cravatt along with a co-producer and cameraman have traveled the Gulf coast area extensively. On what should have been a busy beach day, the only activity is that of the BP cleanup and "a medical emergency" needing ambulance and a fire truck.

The video below is of an Alabama beach in Gulf Shores. As Cravatt tried to video the action, out of the way of the "emergency," but in camera range and on public property, an Alabama police officer tried to stop her. During that time, more paramedics arrive, and another ambulance arrives and eventually takes someone out on a stretcher.

Marguerite says she is an "independent producer," and with her small crew is traveling the Gulf Coast area and documenting the oil spill:

We collected video footage from the epicenter - Venice, as well as Grand Isle, New Orleans, the French Quarter, and we toured the swamps and the marshes of Louisiana. We drove the coastline of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and we saw oil, oil, and more oil. Hundreds of miles of beaches destroyed.

Visit Cravatt Productions for the whole story.



Marguerite Cravatt Schools Alabama Cop on Rights of an American Citizen (video)
H/T BP Oil Slick
Linked by The republican Mother

Press Banned from Action at Oil Spill: First Amendment Suspended

We can send our press into the heat of Iraq and Afghanistan, but their presence in the Gulf is forbidden by the administration - it's all about their "personal safety" dontcha know. This is outrageous, as you will see in the video. Is air space still closed?

 Obama is still looking for some ass to kick. He chose the press. If you don't see it, it didn't happen. I'd love to see Anderson Cooper this pumped about the border. We could sure use some press about the Arizona and Texas problem. Cooper says "we are not the problem here," but he and others in the mainstream media have become the problem because they won't tell the stories with any sense of thoroughness or urgency. Seriously, does anyone know if the airspace over the spill has been opened?

Thanks to my sculptor friend David Lemon for the First Amendment video. Have you ever traveled the Old Bozeman Trail along the Madison River in SW Montana? David says it has been traveled for 11,000 years. He videoed it for you. Also video of the bronzing of his War Medicine piece. Awesomely beautiful. If you haven't seen this process, you must. At about 3 minutes into this video you see David in the foundry, and the bronzing is going on, and in the background you hear Rush Limbaugh. Gotta love it!








Anderson Cooper First Amendment Suspended )video)

Jeff Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Hearing Video

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) listed an astounding number of violations of Federal law committed by Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. I am at a loss to understand how Democrats will find this woman, who has spent her professional life in activism, with complete disdain for the U.S. Constitution, qualified for this life-time position. The fact that she will end up on the Supreme Court and my children and grandchildren will live with her lack of integrity and contempt for the Rule of Law is heartbreaking. See the video below.

Elena Kagan

Here are a few of Sessions comments (paraphrased):

Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years.

Not only has she not been a judge, she has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration that I think real legal understanding occurs.

Kagan has never tried a case before a jury

She argued her first appellate case just 9 months ago. There is no substitute of being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of law.

Kagan has spent her career in policy and politics, mixed with law.

Her college thesis, Socialism in New York, bemoan socialism's demise.

Her Master's thesis noted the activist tendencies of the Earl Warren court - but said it could have done a better job justifying their activism.

Kagan left law for 5 years for politics.

Kagan was central figure in the White House Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights.

She was the point person for the Clinton Administration effort to block Congressional restriction on partial birth abortions - the key person to convince Clinton to change his mind from supporting restrictions to opposing legislation that would ban it.

While at Harvarvd as the Dean, she reversed existing policy, and kicked military out of recruiting offices in violation of federal law. She punished our Military and demeaned our soldiers as they fought in two wars overseas.

Kagan joined 3 other law school Deans to write a letter in response to Senator Grahams legislation to establish procedures to determine who was an enemy combatant in the war on terror. She compared this legislation, which passed 84 to 14 as fundamentally the same as the lawless actions of a dictatorship. Gr

As Solicitor General for 1 year, her short tenure was not without controversy. In her first appellate argument that speech and press guarantees of First Amendment would allow Federal Gov't to ban publications and pamphlets discussing political issues before an election. [Session reminds her of Thomas Paines Common Sense]

As Solicitor General, Kagan approved filing of a brief  to SCOTUS asking that it strike down provisions of the legal Arizona Workers Act which suspends or revokes the businesses licenses of corporations which knowingly hire illegal aliens, even though Federal law expressly prohibits such hiring. She did this even after the liberal 9th Circuit upheld the law.

There is much more. I hope you will listen to the video. If you believe Kagan should be confirmed, please ask yourself why you want a judge who will attempt to change, at least the First and Second Amendments, refuse to define an enemy combatant and abort late-term babies?


Senator Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Confirmation (video)

Globalvision Guillermo Zuloaga Flees Hugo Chavez: Chavez Seizes Bank: Reuters Unabashedly Supports Chavez

Hugo Chavez still had one opposition television station, Globalvision, until he issued a warrant for owner Guillermo Zuloago's arrest and seized Banco Federal, a bank founded by a Globalvision director. See a video below.

Guillermo Zuloaga

Reuters says Globalvision is "often shrill," its reporting "one-sided," and is simply a "soap box," for Chavez' opponents. Memo to Reuters: there are no other television stations opposing the banty-rooster dictator.

Globovision's news director quit in February, raising fears among government critics about its future as an independent voice. A month later, network boss Guillermo Zuloaga was briefly held on charges that included offending the president.

Zuloaga's son is also charged. The families have fled for their lives and their freedom.

Zuloaga told reporters that the charges against him and his son - which also include insulting the president and spreading false information - are meant to intimidate him.

Here is how it works in Venezuela, unfortunately for many, many citizens who fought hard to keep this from happening:

Hugo Chavez 

The authorities would soon turn the Globovision logo red in honor of Chavez's socialist revolution, with a red beret on top, the white-bearded Silva predicted, wearing an olive green shirt and military cap similar to those worn by the president.

Chavez says he will not tolerate illegal incitement in the media, and accuses opponents of a desperate propaganda campaign against him ahead of legislative elections due in September.

Another look at how a socialist becomes a dictator, March 2009:

Caracas, Venezuela – With the plummeting price of oil, so goes the economy of Venezuela. With prices at $40 a barrel and the budget calculated on a selling price of $60, the country’s very foundations are starting to unravel prompting President Hugo Chavez to enforce harsher restrictions on food producers and retailers. Chavez, long a foe of the United States, has been seen as a socialist dictator by many other countries and this tightening of control comes as absolutely no surprise to any of them.

Reuters points out two other television stations, Venevision and Televen TV were anti-Chavez during the "coup," but have since dropped their more extreme opinions, and became more balanced. Translated: Venevision and Televen caved, followed the government line, and have been allowed to keep their so-called programming on-air. Can Reuters get any more disgraceful?

January 2010:
Military Takes Control of Major Venezuelan Cities Amid Protests - January 2010

Thousands of University students take to the streets and chant "Reform, no - democracy, yes.!"

Venezuelans protest after Hugo Chavez takes TV channel off air

January 2010

Guillermo Zuloaga Flees (video)

Al Gores Journal on Free Press and Censorship

Did you know you can read Al Gore's Journal? There's nothing there about Laurie David, but he does talk about censoring the news and he wants it to stop. It's disturbing, he says, and the behavior is "unacceptable." I agree that any kind of censorship is wrong and unAmerican, including trying to hide Climate-Gate emails, and his reported affair with Laurie David.

 Al Gore and Laurie David

See the original carbon footprint sitting in his office surround by mounds of papers - count the trees. I think I see three or four huge computer monitors - how much electricity are they pulling down?

Something else in his journal:

Access by reporters should be as unfettered as possible. This de facto form of censorship needs to stop.

Remember this, when his goons silenced filmaker and journalist, Phelim McAleer - and they did it quite rudely too. See the video below, The Inconvenient Question.




Phelim McAleer Interviews Al Gore (video)
Related and Background:
Al and Tipper Gore Separate - Update to the first news of the separation:
I heard Tipper left him for bringing copious amount of hot air into the marriage. She was forced to use an inhaler. He was cruel beyond belief, and insisted she wear green - all the time, and when she refused to let him bring the Nobel to bed with them, that did it. She filed claiming irreconcilable carbon credits.

The Montecito Mansion
Linked by Memeorandum - see what others are saying

Cry Freedom Video: Today is the Day to Cry for America

The beautiful song, Cry Freedom, appeared on YouTube on November 3, 2009, but has had fewer than 11,000 views. See the video below.

Today is the Day to Cry for America - Cry for Freedom

"I am one voice standing up for freedom"

We will hold these truths deeper than you and me

Today is the day to cry for America

No Time for Sleepin'

I found the video and this message from Christopher at Conservative Perspective:

PASS IT ON

LETS GET IT TO GO VIRAL!

There are MILLIONS of us Americans who feel this way and many more millions that need to hear this message, which is our message as well after all.

Use the power you have as fellow bloggers as well as email, Facebook, Twitter and all the other tools available at your disposal in our 'new information age'. 

We have but 5 short months to the general election and time is short,

BE PROUD, BE LOUD AND BE AMERICAN!

Please lets turn that distress signal around!

Cry Freedom (video)
Linked by: The Lonely ConservativeMind-Numbed Robot

Repeal the First Amendment Petition Video! OMGosh! Video

I grabbed this from MonkeyintheMiddle via Holger Awakens. Watch as Americans sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment.

Americans sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment (video)

Rahm Emanuel Sean Hannity: Rahm Emanuel First Amendment Overrated (video)

In the video below, Rahm Emanuel tells a reporter the First Amendment is overrated. This administration is a parasite sucking the lifeblood, which is freedom, out of our Republic. So many things have happened so quickly in the past year, we can't begin to keep up, and that is the plan of the Marxist, Communist Saul Alinsky, at whose feet Barack Obama learned the tools of organizing America into a force to destruct, and reconstruct our Nation into the highest order of socialism by:

...feel[ing] so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future ~ Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals (prologue page xix)

The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements [US Constitution] must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns ~ Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals (page 116 in my trade paperback)

To make the audacious dreams of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel come true, they have to denigrate the First Amendment, change it, "word code" it, demolish it. We must find a way to keep track of the chaos this administration is purposefully engineering. Here is another Alinsky quote that describes the puzzling behavior of the birth, death and rebirth of health care, all within one week after the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts:

Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. ~ Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (Page 128 in my trade paperback)

Rahm Emanuel - First Amendment Overrated (video)

Tip of the Maggie Mae to David Lemon

Fox News Michael Clemente Robert Gibbs Meet Privately

You know I hate this. No meetings between Fox and Robert Gibbs. How about complete separation of news and the White House? - except for the White House Correspondents Dinner. Just love those. Apparently, Michael Clemente and Robert Gibbs met and the question is: has a truce been reached?

Michael Clemente

This report says that Fox News Channel's Senior V-P, Michael Clemente, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met in Gibbs' office in Washington, D.C. "Gibbs reached out to Clemente...." Nevertheless:

A Fox source said that the marching orders are to “continue doing what we’re doing – reporting the news, asking tough questions and providing analysis/opinion on shows like O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity.”

That's good news.

A U.S. News and World Report article quotes the White House:

"They're still at it," says a senior Obama aide, who adds that White House officials don't expect to fire another shot in the battle unless FOX strikes first."

There is no indication in U.S. News and World report that a meeting between Clemente and Gibbs occurred.

Valerie Jarrett, the other half of Barack's brain was interviewed on CNN. When Campbell Brown asked Jarrett if she thought Fox News was biased, Jarrett replied,  "of course Fox is biased," but she and the other half of her brain plan to keep speaking "truth to power." Her message was hilariously mixed. When Ms. Brown rewinds the tape, she'll find she let a good opportunity go to waste, although I give her credit for asking Jarrett the "biased' question twice. Read what else Jarrett had to say here.

Iyad Awadallah is CAIR Intern: Iyad Awadallah Jim DeMint: CAIR Intern Evicted

CAIR interns are in the news today. First, we learned that a CAIR memorandum says it spent $50,000 to place two "fellows" in Congress in 2007, and now we learn that Iyad Awadallah, a Cair intern on Capitol Hill was forced to leave the US Capitol Visitors Center Congressional Auditorium "after behaving in a threatening manner..."

According to this hot post at The Jawa Report, Awadallah appeared at a conference on "Freedom of Speech and Religion" today and began to videotape the speakers. He was told the conference registration did not allow taping of any kind, or the taking of photographs. That didn't stop him.  He was removed from the building by Capitol Hill police just before Senator Jim DeMint was to speak.

According to The Jawa Report, the scheduled speakers have "been the subject of death threats by Muslims."

CAIR attacks:

The [CAIR] press release claimed that Awadallah was told by one conference participant that “we want to cut their [Muslims’] necks off.” However, Awadallah entered the auditorium during one of the sessions and never had the opportunity to speak with any of the conference attendees.

There is no information in this report about where the intern, Iyad Awadallah of Boca Raton, FL has worked or is working on Capitol Hill.  Read about the $50,000 spent to plant a Muslim intern in Congress: CAIR Buys Interns - Liberals Object.

First Amendment

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle Wake up, America View at YouTube I find myself amazed at the poor quality of education that $41,500 a year buys at Harvard Law School. You would think that for that amount of money they would at least teach the US Constitution. But it seems not to be the case, especially with one of their most famous graduates, Barack Hussein Obama, our current President. I wonder what part of the First Amendment they did teach him or was he absent that day? For no person who has been taught the US Constitution would ever forget the words of the First Amendment:

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

Yet President Obama has chosen to ignore this and is pushing for full restrictions on our right to Free Speech:

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right. The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries. "The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Not the sort of "outreach" the majority of Americans want. We like our Freedoms very much. Free speech is a protected right here in the US. Our own Supreme Court has affirmed the concept that "Even the most hateful and harmful speech is protected speech." (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 [1977]) Oh yes, we can say what we want about a religion without the fear of blasphemy laws. Oh happy day! Mr. Condell need not worry about the United States losing our Freedoms soon. Not as long as Article VI of the Constitution is the law:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Or in layman speak:

"This Constitution will be the hightest law in the land. No law or treaty can be written or ratified that would violate this Constitution."

This whole idea of forcing Islamic blasphemy laws came about because of the riots over the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, it is only fitting that this post on Free Speech end with these cartoons. To Muslims around the world:

Feel free to riot. For that shows to us the true face and spirit of Islam. A backward cult suitable only for children and those with the intelligence of an imbecile.

The rest of us will just laugh at your ignorance and keep on speaking our mind!

A First Amendment Hero!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
 

Professor Indrek Wichman
 

He looks mild-mannered, not a man who would stand up to bullies and force them to back down. But Professor Indrek Wichman of Michagan State University, has become a Hero. Now what would force this Professor of Mechanical Engineering to stand up for the First Amendment? Nothing less than a planned protest by the MSU chapter of the Muslim Students Union (MSU)

Members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Michigan State University (MSU) didn’t know what they were getting into when they tried to suppress the free speech rights of Professor Indrek Wichman. On February 28, 2006 he read in the MSU student newspaper a call to protest the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. The article struck a raw nerve. He responded with the following:

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests." If you do not like the values of the West--see the 1st Amendment--you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans. Cordially, I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Some may say this reaction was a tad over-heated. But in a university environment, the more important question is: Were the statements accurate? It’s tough to argue with the validity of Professor Wichman’s factual assertions. And even tougher to demand that Wichman remain morally neutral regarding the examples of Muslim misconduct he cites.

For over three weeks Professor Wichman heard nothing about his email. But behind the scenes, the MSA had called in CAIR and had three separate meetings with the MSU provost. The MSA and CAIR both demanded that Wichman be censured, disciplined, enrolled in diversity and sensitivity training, and even “re-educated” on Islam. To his credit, the MSU Provost did not cave in to the CAIR/MSA demands.

On March 20, 2006 he wrote Wichman a letter saying that he strongly disagreed with the “intemperate tone” of his email. But he added that Wichman still had rights to free speech. From there, things got worse. The MSU Provost told Wichman that if he continued to “harass” and “intimidate” the MSU MSA - while creating a “hostile intellectual climate” - then formal charges consistent with MSU anti-discrimination policy (ADP) would be filed by MSU against him. (emphasis mine)

On April 24, 2006 Wichman realized that the issue had not quietly gone away. He began receiving telephone calls and emails from local newspapers, AP, Reuters and other national and international outlets.

CAIR and MSA, frustrated by the MSU Provost, had gone over his head and published a response, organized a press conference, and made a national/international press release. CAIR and MSA’s public call upon MSU to take “disciplinary action" against Wichman’s “Islamophobic” email was a classic example of Muslim cowardice.

Michigan’s CAIR Executive Director Mr. Dawud Walid said it was “unconscionable for a professor to use his university e-mail account to foster a hostile learning environment for Muslim students.” He added, “The University needs to take appropriate disciplinary action in this case to demonstrate through its actions that anti-Muslim bigotry will not be tolerated on campus.”

It should be noted that Mr. Walid has gone to court to argue for applying Sharia law in mid-Michigan. That serves to undercut significantly his stature as an opponent of bigotry towards minorities.

I sat down for a beer - I believe it was a Danish beer – with Indrek Wichman in April. When he said he meant to “protest the protest” of the MSA he really meant it. He helped form a conservative faculty group at MSU. The group serves to protest speech codes, invite conservative speakers to campus, and represent students and faculty whose rights are trampled by the MSU administration. Indrek Wichman is not your typical college professor.

He is a true First Amendment hero. Meanwhile, Dawud Walid is still fighting to repeal the First Amendment and keep Muslims from being offended. He wants to replace it with Sharia law so Muslims can freely beat their wives and publicly execute homosexuals.

How is it that Muslims can say the most hurtful, racially insensitive, anti-Semitic rhetoric on US campuses without the administrations of those schools saying a word no, yet one lone professor on a campus writes an e-mail in protest of the barbaric practices of Islam, he is vilified and crucified?

The behavior of the MSU in regards to Free Speech and other rights is well documented on the net. One just has to read Fousesquawk by blogger Gary Fouse to see what is happening at UC Irvine. And it is happening at every college and university in the US. What the MSU and CAIR are trying to do is first to stiffle free speech, then to impose Shar'ia Law on the US.

Their counterparts have been very successful in doing this in Europe and Great Britain. But unlike those lost lands, the US has the Free exercise of Speech firmly written into the US Constitution. And there are plenty of court cases backing the right of Free Speech. Slowly, on campuses, faculity are speaking out against the MSU. They are challenging their claims, and forcing the 1st Amendment down their throats. I wonder what has taken them so long.

Why People Are Upset With The Health Care Bill.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle I find it ironic and a bit strange that in the Land of the Free, elected officials would be using strong arm tactics to silence dissent. Instead of inquiring why their constituents are upset with HR 3200, and listening to their concerns, they are employing hired goons (union workers and members of ACORN) to stifle dissenting opinions. These goons are not registered in their districts, thus are not their constituents. There are valid points that the "Angry Mob" as Speaker Pelosi and other members of the Democratic leadership calls them. Points they refuse to listen to. Here are just a few of the points of contention in HR 3200 that has angered so many: (Just a listing of less then 1/2 of the 1,017 pages of the bill.)

Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option! Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Health care Exchange. Page 84: All private health care plans must participate in the Health care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens. Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. Page 126: Employers MUST pay health care bills for part-time employees AND their families. Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll. Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll. Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected. Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries. Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in health care companies! Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (health care by phone). Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

This bill is a recipe for death and disaster. Forced Euthanasia, Rationed Health Care, and a Government control of your Medical and Financial records, with no say from you. Our "Elected Officials" seem to have forgotten that they do not hold permanent positions. They have a "Temp Job" predicated on the supposition that the constituents bosses are pleased with the job they are doing. Today the members of Congress act as if their constituents' bosses' opinions have no merit. Their hubris is beyond measure, with most, if not all of the members of Congress feeling as if their seats are safe and secure. They are not! No seat in Congress is a safe seat. Anger enough of your constituents bosses and they will discover that simple, but basic fact. The time has come for the people of the United States to take back their government. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

It is time to stop fearing our Government, but to have the Government start fearing us. It is time we tell Congress that this bill is unacceptable to the American people, that if you vote for this bill it will result in a rude awakening for you on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 when their Constituents Bosses relay the words to them:

You're Fired!

Concord Mills Mall: Simon Malls Attack Conservative Vendor

The Free Market Warrior is a business renting space in the Concord Mills Mall in Concord, N.C. Their lease will not renewed when it expires on July 31, 2009. Conservatism at Concord Mills Mall is racist according to at least one mall-goer. Loren Spivack is the proprietor of The Free Market Warrior. His bumper stickers and posters display messages saying: "Work Harder. Obama needs the money," "Al Qaeda's favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08," and "Impeach Obama," and "my parents chose life." Jennifer Ibanez is a recent UNCC grad and she wrote a letter to the Charlotte Observer:

Free Market Warrior,” a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

One shopper found the items sold at The Free Market Warrior "racist." The management of the kiosk cubbies told a local TV news channel that the items sold are not "neutral" enough.

Mr. Spivack says he is the only conservative vendor in the Mall, while "plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective." Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician, and wants a fair exchange of ideas. “The material that I sell is about politics and ideas,” he told Newschannel 36. “It’s all legitimate criticism.”

The very liberal Simon Malls forced an Atlanta Tea Party to cancel a parking lot Independence Day Tea Party. Mel Simon is a high-profile Democrat donor. Spivac pointed to other stores in the Mall that sell Liberal ideology, much of it crude and offensive:

If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent Newschannel 36 pictures of several t-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we’ve chosen not to share them.

We know what is sold in Malls all over the country. I couldn't shop at my local Simon Mall, Woodland Hills in Tulsa, OK without seeing the most vile messages about former President G.W. Bush - for 8 years! Spivac has lost this battle with the loss of his lease. I hope he can afford to sue, or that someone will come forward and provide counsel so that he can defend his First Amendment rights, and in doing so, protect ours at the same time. Read the entire article and view the video here.

Sakharov Widow: World Ignores Shalit Due to Anti-Semitism

By Findalis
many of the readers of this blog will recognize or remember who Andrei Sakharov was, or his widow Yelena Bonner. Or what they did for human rights and freedom in the Soviet Union. Many say that the Soviet Union would never had collapsed but for the tireless work of that remarkable couple. In the field of human rights, Yelena Bonner is not only an expert, she is one of the leading authorities. She speaks with the voice of the oppressed, having lived through the horrors of Stalinism and Soviet repression. There are very few in the world that can truly speak with such moral authority. Recently she gave a speech at the three-day Oslo Freedom Forum, a gathering in response to the Durban II conference. Here is some of that speech:

…At the age of 14, I was left without my parents. My father was executed, my mother spent 18 years in prison and exile. My grandmother raised me and my younger brother. The poet Vladimir Kornilov, who suffered the same fate, wrote: ‘And it felt that in those years we had no mothers. We had grandmothers.’ There were hundreds of thousands of such children… …Read Sakharov’s Memoirs. It’s a pity his Diaries haven’t been translated; they were published in Russia in 2006. Apparently, the West isn’t interested now in Sakharov. The West isn’t very interested in Russia either, a country that no longer has real elections, independent courts, or freedom of the press. Russia is a country where journalists, human rights activists, and migrants are killed regularly, almost daily. And extreme corruption flourishes of a kind and extent that never existed earlier in Russia or anywhere else. So what do the Western mass media discuss mainly? Gas and oil -- of which Russia has a lot. Energy is its only political trump card, and Russia uses it as an instrument of pressure and blackmail... Russia will remain the way it is now for decades, unless there is some violent upheaval. …They say people are coming together -- but in reality, they are growing apart. And that isn’t because an economic depression suddenly burst forth, and swine flu to boot. [It] began on September 11, 2001. At first, anger and horror was provoked by the terrorists who knocked down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and by their accomplices in London, Madrid and other cities, and by the shahids, suicide bombers who blew themselves up at public spaces like discotheques and wedding parties, whose families were rewarded $25,000 each by Saddam Hussein. Later, Bush was blamed for everything, and as always, the Jews -- that is, Israel… So it is about Israel and the Jews that I will speak... At one time, the Nobel Peace Prize was the highest moral award of our civilization. But after December 1994, when Yasser Arafat became one of the three new laureates, its ethical value was undermined. I haven’t always greeted each selection of the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting with joy, but that one shocked me. And to this day, I cannot understand and accept the fact that Andrei Sakharov and Yasir Arafat, now posthumously, share membership in the club of Nobel laureates. In many of Sakharov’s publications… [he] wrote and spoke about Israel. I have a collection of citations of his writing on this topic. If it were published in Norway, then many Norwegians would be surprised at how sharply their contemporary view of Israel differs from the view of Sakharov. Here are several citations from Sakharov: … “All wars that Israel has waged have been just, forced upon it by the irresponsibility of Arab leaders.” “With all the money that has been invested in the problem of Palestinians, it would have been possible long ago to resettle them and provide them with good lives in Arab countries.” …Now, a new motif is fashionable (in fact it’s an old one): ‘Two states for two peoples.’ It sounds good. And there is no controversy in the peace-making Quartet, made up of the U.S., the UN, the EU, and Russia (some great peace-maker, with its Chechen war and its Abkhazian-Ossetian provocation). The Quartet, and the Arab countries, and the Palestinian leaders (both Hamas and Fatah) put additional demands to Israel. I will speak only of one demand: that Israel accept back the Palestinian refugees. And here a little history and demography are needed. According to the UN’s official definition, refugees are considered those who fled from violence and wars, but not their descendants who are born in another land. At one time the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish refugees from Arab countries were about equal in number -- about 700-800,000. The newly-created state Israel took in Jews (about 600,000). They were officially recognized as refugees by the UN Resolution 242, but not provided with any UN assistance. Palestinians, however, are considered refugees not only in the first generation, but in the second, third, and now even in the fourth generation. According to the UN Works and Relief Agency’s report, , the number of registered Palestinian refugees has grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.6 million in 2008, and continues to rise due to natural population growth. All these people have the rights of Palestinian refugees and are eligible to receive humanitarian aid. The entire population of Israel is about 7.5 million, of which there are about 2.5 million ethnic Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Imagine Israel then, if another five million Arabs flood into it; Arabs would substantially outnumber the Jewish population. Thus, created next to Israel will be a Palestinian state cleansed of Jews, because in addition to the demand that Palestinian refugees return to Israel, there is also the demand that Judea and Samaria are cleansed of Jews and turned over to Palestinians – while in Gaza today there is not a single Jew already. The result is both strange and terrifying, not only because Israel will essentially be destroyed... Because the plan “two states for two peoples” is the creation of one state, ethnically cleansed of Jews, and a second one with the potential to do the same thing. A Judenrein Holy Land - the dream of Adolph Hitler come true at last. So think again, those who are still able, who has a fascist inside him today? And another question that has been a thorn for me for a long time. It’s a question for my human rights colleagues. Why doesn’t the fate of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit trouble you in the same way as the fate of the Guantanamo prisoners? You fought for and won the opportunity for the International Committee of the Red Cross, journalists, and lawyers to visit Guantanamo. You know prison conditions, the prisoners’ everyday routine, their food. You have met with prisoners subjected to torture. The result of your efforts has been a ban on torture and a law to close this prison. President Obama signed it in the first days of his coming to the White House… But during the two years Shalit has been held by terrorists, the world human rights community has done nothing for his release. Why? He is a wounded soldier, and fully falls under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions say clearly that hostage-taking is prohibited, that representatives of the Red Cross must be allowed to see prisoners of war, especially wounded prisoners, and there is much else written in the Geneva Conventions about Shalit’s rights. The fact that representatives of the Quartet conduct negotiations with the people who are holding Shalit in an unknown location, in unknown conditions, vividly demonstrates their scorn of international rights documents and their total legal nihilism. Do human rights activists also fail to recall the fundamental international rights documents? And yet I still think (and some will find this naïve) that the first tiny, but real step toward peace must become the release of Shalit. Release - and not his exchange for 1,000 or 1,500 prisoners who are in Israeli prisons serving court sentences for real crimes. Returning to my question of why human rights activists are silent, I can find no answer except that Shalit is an Israeli soldier, Shalit is a Jew. So again, it is conscious or unconscious anti-Semitism. Again, it is fascism. Thirty-four years have passed since the day when I came to this city to represent my husband, Andrei Sakharov, at the 1975 Nobel Prize ceremony. I was in love with Norway then. The reception I received filled me with joy. Today, I feel Alarm and Hope (the title Sakharov used for his 1977 essay written at the request of the Nobel Committee). Alarm because of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment growing throughout Europe and even further afield. And yet, I hope that countries, their leaders, and people everywhere will recall and adopt Sakharov’s ethical credo: “In the end, the moral choice turns out to be also the most pragmatic choice."

It is time for the world to stop trying to appease the Arabs and listen to the truth. The true obstacle to peace in the region is not caused by Israel, but by the Arabs, who couldn't destroy Israel in battle and will attempt to destroy Israel through diplomatic means. And the world will let them. For it is acceptable to hate and despise the Jews. It is time for the world to listen to the voice of a woman who lived under some of the worst repression that humanity has imposed upon others. It is time to bring Gilad Shalit home.

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth's Victory Dance

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.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America. There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have. Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas. Until now. And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys' oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows: “I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.” The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so. Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239. Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression. If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

Fairness Doctrine: Not Your Daddy's Doctrine

Photo Credit: Reuters

The Liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, has issued a 36-page report explaining why and how talk radio must be, and easily can be, regulated by a Fairness Doctrine - but not regulated in the way we conventionally think of a Fairness Doctrine. This is a simple and doable plan for Democrats. The Fairness Doctrine will happen this way: All stations will be required to issue many new licenses to minorities - ethnic and women, which is known as "localism." Licenses will be up for review, and reissue, every three years rather than the current eight years. Programming will be basically local.

Moreover, the original Communications Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC to require "reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time" by a legally qualified candidate for federal elective office, and equal opportunities must be afforded all their candidates for that office....

These obligations come from the same set of concerns from which the Fairness Doctrine arose. And Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance."...

Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper.

The Center for American Progress says that the original Fairness Doctrine's real value was not in the "fair discussion of important issues," but in the way licenses could be issued:

...limited license terms to three years [from eight, I think], subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.

Perhaps the plan is to scrap the Telecommunications Act of 1996, mandated by Congress, which increased the number of radio stations that "one entity could own in the same market." However, doing so may not be necessary to bring achieve a plethora of Liberal programming and deny Conservative content. The death of syndicated programming (national shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) is imminent if Democrats have their way, to be replaced with local programming. In public, Democrats will say this has little to do with providing opposing viewpoints, but as this study finds, the new licensees will be decidedly Liberal.

...of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations in the country suggests that stations owned by racial or ethnic minorities are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows and more likely to air progressive hosts or shows....

This is an issue Barack Obama and Congress need not direct. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can accomplish all of the above without a word from Congress or the President. A question for readers: Any opinions about advertisers and the enormous income to stations from successful programming, supported by advertising dollars? How will the money be replaced? Does it matter if stations are smaller, local and not in need of big money? Related: To Fairness Doctrine Naysayers: Support from RINO's The Fairness Doctrine: What You May Not Know

World Body Agrees Impinging Free Speech is a Good Thing

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." Ibrahim Hooper CAIR Spokesman.

This should be reported as plainly as possible. Follows some details of the United Nation's attempt to silence non-Muslims, and bear in mind, the U.N. is now run by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Barring free speech is the first step to the institution of Islam world-wide. The following is excerpted from Islamist Watch and features only snippets of their comments. I encourage you to read the article and follow the links therein. "As if the endless tales of corruption, ineptitude, and financial waste were not enough to sully one's view of the United Nations, here is another reason to look askance at Turtle Bay: the organization is pushing a global blasphemy law designed to thwart criticism of the Islamic faith:"

"...a global law to punish blasphemy — a campaign championed by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference that puts the rights of religions ahead of individual liberties."

Consider one key draft resolution at the event.

Introduced jointly by the Philippines and Pakistan, it openly seeks to limit press freedoms. Translation: Don't even think of publishing those Danish cartoons or anything even close to them. And forget about questioning authorities in places like, say, Riyadh.

The Islamist agenda: "Politically correct appeals and soft intimidation." Culture of peace? This is the culture of censorship and the West should have none of it. End Islamist Watch. If you think the actions and protests shown in these pictures will fade away under new anti-defamation laws, think again. The Koran allows and encourages the subjugation of all peoples to Islam. Islam will not be silenced.

*****

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

*****

Photos courtesy of FaithFreedom.org

Media Lies Through Omission

Graphic courtesy of Free Canuckistan!

As Democrats gear up to silence the voices of Conservative radio through a so-called Fairness Doctrine, the main stream media continues to report and lie through omission. This is a nasty little habit that has become all too prevalent.

 We were barraged with Obama's plans for hope and change, but there was nary a word of the depths of his seedy associations, valid questions about his citizenship, his connection to Raila Odinga's Kenyan philosophies, for which he campaigned, his philosophy of Black Liberation theology, or his well-documented ties to ACORN.

 Press omissions affect international news, too, and of course they would - if not so, there would be no need to omit actual facts. These omissions are often used to show Israel in a unfavorable light, and to hide the successes in Iraq. Curious that the half omitted always reflects favorably for Conservative causes.

 Official statements issued by the United Nations condemning both Palestine and Israel are brazenly reported as a criticism of Israel only. These reports affect a world view of Israel and Palestine: Palestine the victim, Israel the war monger. These reports are designed to misrepresent. And, misrepresent...they do. Comments from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have been reported by half. If Ban condemns both sides, the condemnation is reported as against Israel alone.

Just to be clear, the "criticism" or "condemnation" of Palestine is often swept under the rug. Two examples in 2008 alone from CAMERA:

The United Nations Secretary-General last March issued a brief statement condemning Palestinian rocket fire as "terrorism" and condemning Israel response as "disproportionate and excessive." Subsequently, in a dramatic violation of journalistic ethics, a number of prominent media organizations relayed only his comments about Israel's response and ignored the portion dealing with Palestinian terrorism. (See CAMERA's full analysis here.)

Several months later, the media had a second chance to get it right. In November, after Palestinians resumed rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israeli towns and Israel shut down its border crossings into Gaza, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon again delivered a statement condemning both rocket attacks and measures that increase hardship for Gaza civilians. But again, several reporters chose to inform readers only about part of Ban's statement.

Associated Press reporter Ben Hubbard, for example, quoted only the portion of the statement expressing concern with measures that may harm Gaza civilians. The Secretary-General's condemnation of rocket attacks was ignored completely — an omission all the more glaring because his article, "Rockets from Gaza strike deep into Israel" (11/14), was primarily about Hamas's rocket attacks.

A Nov. 16 news brief in the Los Angeles Times also selectively reported on Ban's statement: "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel to open the crossings to humanitarian aid. Measures that increase the suffering ‘are unacceptable and should cease immediately,' he said in a statement." Readers have no way of knowing that he condemned the rocket fire.

Reading Hubbard's account and the LA Times, in these instances, an unaware reader will ask "what rocket fire? Readers would have no clue. There were journalists who got it right, and reported factually. We are in the odd position of being gratuitously grateful to those who choose to do the job right. Poor reporting is first, accepted, and then ignored.

Subverting the truth has become common place in 2008. Where is the outrage?

 The Background: On November 4th, Israel received information on a tunnel built to abduct Israeli soldiers. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) forces entered Gaza, located the entrance to the tunnel INSIDE a residential home and neighborhood, and entered the structure. They encountered Hamas militants who opened fire. Israel replied. Injuries ensued on both sides.

The tunnel was destroyed. Israeli's are familiar with Hamas tunnels. On January 25, 2006, 19 year old Cpl. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and two soldiers died. The Hamas tunnel stretched 300 yards under the border, into Israel. Shalit is still missing.

Israel doesn't plan to lose more of its own to tunnel kidnappings. CAMERA pointed out that China's state-run wire service got it right and asked this question: "If the Chinese state media can get it right, shouldn't the independent U.S. press do the same?"

 Read other incidents of blatant disregard of Palestinian culpability here and here. There is no shame attached to blatant misrepresentation in the press. Some in Congress are trumpeting their support for a Fairness Doctrine, where only a few months ago, it was only admitted behind closed doors. The Left has a confidence now that issues may be distorted, misrepresented and even lied about at will.

 There must be a consequence that concerned American's can impose. How do we keep up the energy to write, email and boycott? It's a good question. If you have ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Our Northern Neighbors: Tough Times with Islam

Canadian publisher, and Free Speech activist, Ezra Levant, spent 900 days and thousands of dollars defending himself against the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities. This on the heels of an identical suit filed by Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, which was withdrawn. Why was Levant sued? He published the Danish "Mohammed" cartoons. Muslims were offended. Who knew a Human Rights Commission could investigate and bring to "tribunal" offensive cartoons? That's what happened to Levant. He was sued within a Canadian Human Rights Commission - not a court. The members of the Commission are not judges, and some are not lawyers. After three years, Levant's case was dismissed, but had it not been, Levant would have stood trial before a HRC "tribunal." The defendant, Levant, bore all of the monetary burden of the suit filed against him, with no avenue to sue his accuser. The charges against him cited, in part, Sharia Law. He paid large sums of money to view some of the paperwork on his case. For three years he and his family pondered his future at the hands of the Muslim Community. Take a look at this incredible case of Palestinians suing Canadian builders, not a free speech issue, but an issue claiming war crimes against Canadians:

Palestinian village sues Canadian builders over Israeli settlement

A West Bank village is suing two Quebec-based companies for $2 million, alleging they violated international law by building Israeli settlements on occupied territory. The claim, filed Wednesday against sister companies Green Park International and Green Mount International, also asks the Quebec Superior Court for an injunction to stop further construction, and demolish apartment buildings already erected in Moddin Illit, a Jewish settlement northwest of Ramallah.The Palestinian village of Bil'in alleges both companies committed war crimes by building housing in the settlement, Israel's largest in the West Bank. The lawsuit also names Annette Laroche, who is named as the director of both companies. Thanks to Kashmiri-Nomad Blog

Canadian author Mark Steyn published a column in Maclean's Magazine and now both have been sued by Canada's Islamic Congress. Steyn wrote the New York Times bestseller America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It, of which I am the proud owner of an autographed copy (hurry, maybe you can get one too). Here are two reviews: Michelle Malkin:

Mark Steyn is a human sandblaster. This book provides a powerful, abrasive, high-velocity assault on encrusted layers of sugarcoating and whitewash over the threat of Islamic imperialism. Do we in the West have the will to prevail?

John O'Sullivan, editor at large, National Review:

Mark Steyn is the funniest writer now living. But don't be distracted y the brilliance of his jokes. They are the neon lights advertising a profound and sad insight: America is almost alone in resisting both the suicide of the West and the suicide bombing of radical Islamism.

For information on the lawsuits, read Mark Steyn is not Alone and Canada: Islamic Congress Sues Macleans Magazine What is happening with some regularity to our Northern neighbor, is happening here in the U.S. Here are some organizations to keep an eye on: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), The Muslim American Society, The North American Islamic Trust and here are some lawsuits to know about: Michael Savage, Brooklyn, Boston, Virginia Beach, VA, and "Scared Silent" in Boston

One way to stay informed: visit Anti-CAIR. The Fairness Doctrine in the U.S. - silencing Conservative talk radio: The resurrection of an FCC Fairness Doctrine, in the U.S. is again being considered. After reading Ezra's speech below, read some comprehensive information on The Fairness Doctrine: What You May Not Know. Visit mrc.org for how you can help stop this Liberal agenda.

*****

Opening remarks at Media Lawyers Association conference in Ottawa [ Nov. 8/08] By Ezra Levant

In the four years that I was publisher of the Western Standard magazine, we received, on average, one threat of a defamation lawsuit each month – or about one every other issue. But never once did any of those threats turn into a statement of claim, let alone a trial. The reason was simple: we put a great emphasis on getting our facts straight, and our opinions, while famously spicy, were always fair. And we knew – and the fifty or so people who threatened us over the years knew – that if they took us to court, we’d eventually win. And if we’d win, our antagonists would have to pay much of our legal costs. Not just that, but they would bear significant costs themselves – not only legal bills, but time and effort and emotional energy, and the potential embarrassment that all defamation plaintiffs face when their own reputation and conduct is carefully examined. But we were, in the end, sued twice for something we published: the Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. We ran them to illustrate a news story about the riots purportedly in reaction to those cartoons. They were the central artifact of the news story. They weren’t presented as our opinion; they were presented as a lawyer might enter a piece of evidence, Exhibit A. In other words, they were news themselves; they were the facts of the story. And we were sued for reporting those facts. We were sued not in defamation law, but in human rights law. And the reason we were sued is precisely because all of the traditional defences that stood our magazine in such good stead in the face of defamation suits, were taken away from us by the government. Our factual accuracy was of no use. The charge was discrimination or, to use the precise language of the law, we had published something “likely to expose a person… to hatred or contempt”. A plain reading of that will tell you it’s got nothing to do with factual accuracy. It also has nothing to do with reasonableness of opinion or journalistic responsibility. Those defences have been developed over 400 years of defamation law. They do not apply to human rights suits. Another defence we were not able to use was that damages suffered by the busy-body plaintiffs were remote or non-existent. Again, a plain reading of the law shows that no damages are necessary to convict – as if being “exposed” to someone’s mere feelings was a compensable damage. But even if it was, that’s not what the law requires: we had only to “likely” expose someone to bad feelings. Likely means maybe, maybe not. As well, the natural check on American-style over-litigation – the financial, time and emotional cost of suing, and the risk of costs being awarded to the defendant – were not in play. The government of Alberta carried the investigation against us, and, had the case not been dismissed, would have prosecuted us before a tribunal. The complainants didn’t have to spend a dime or a minute – and the law prohibited me from collecting costs when I won. There was no discovery process whereby a plaintiff with dirty hands would be embarrassed to proceed. In my case the first complainant, Syed Soharwardy, was a radical imam, who was trained in Pakistan’s madrassahs, who does the Saudi lecture circuit, who taught at an officially anti-Semitic university. Even his complaint was littered not with Canadian law, but with sharia law. He actually cited sections of the Koran to make his case. The secular government of Alberta prosecuted an Islamic fatwa; it was the first blasphemy trial in English Canada in nearly 90 years. Soharwardy would never sue in defamation law. He’s odious. He has called for sharia law in Canada; he has said Western aid agencies doing tsunami disaster relief were secretly kidnapping and converting Muslim children; his treatment of women at his own mosque is so appalling he is the subject of human rights complaints himself. None of this mattered. I, on the other hand, was subject to Section 23 of the Alberta Act, which allows the HRC to enter and examine my office, make inquiries of me and my staff, and seize any document or computer hard drive – all without a search warrant. After Soharwardy’s complaint was filed against me, an identical complaint was filed by another radical Muslim group. No rules of double jeopardy; a hundred such complaints could have been filed – each demanding cash as a shakedown. Look at Maclean’s magazine – they had the same complainants in three jurisdictions. Disclosure? None from the complainant. I had to pay an enormous sum for access to information documents about my own case – most of which have been stonewalled, including every single internal HRC e-mail. I did receive enough paper, though, to see that 15 bureaucrats and lawyers worked on my case for 900 days. I’m a major crime scene. My case was dismissed, eventually, by a bureaucrat who I had never met, Pardeep Gundara who came up with a novel and bizarre rationale for letting me go – including that our publication of them wasn’t “gratuitous”. Did you know that it’s against the law to publish something gratuitously? Neither did I. I also didn’t know that what page you put them in the magazine also is a factor. Let’s be frank. Gundara was just making this up. And if Gundara – who, unbeknownst to me, apparently had become my editor’s editor – had recommended the matter go to a full prosecution, I would have been in even stupider hands. Not a single human rights commissioner in Canada is a judge, of course. But many of them aren’t even lawyers. In Alberta, we’ve got several non-lawyers who run hearings, including a nurse. That’s great if the case is about, say, nosebleeds. But I’m not really interested in hearing her view on freedom of the press, radical Islam, or anything else. It’s a counterfeit court. It produces junk law. Its procedures are a joke. But that’s not what’s dangerous. What’s dangerous is that they are political weapons, used to punish views they hate. I think so-called hate speech laws are un-Canadian. But if they’re on the books, the laws ought to be applied evenly. There is indeed some hate speech in Canada – in Syed Soharwardy’s mosque, for example. Or take the Egyptian-born radical who sued Maclean’s, Mohamed Elmasry. He declared on TV that any Jew in Israel is fair game for a terrorist attack. But no radical Muslim, radical Sikh or radical Tamil has ever been charged with hate speech. 100% of all cases at the CHRC have been white, Christian or conservative. Take a white, conservative Christian named Rev. Stephen Boissoin. After a six-year kangaroo hearing, he was convicted of hate speech for publishing an Op-Ed in the Red Deer Advocate. Six years later. He was fined $7,000 payable to his antagonists. But get this: he has been banned from saying anything disparaging about gays for the rest of his life. Disparaging is the word in the ruling. Not criminal, not hateful. Disparaging. In public sermons, even in private e-mail. Read the ruling. And that’s not all: the government of Alberta positively ordered him to recant his views and apologize – not just to his antagonists, but in the Red Deer Advocate itself. (They wisely refused to print such a Maoist forced apology.) But the story gets better. As a protest, I republished Rev. Boissoin’s Op-Ed on my blog, in full. In bad faith – I didn’t even believe in it. And I knew it had been found, legally, to be “hate speech”. Sure enough, I was taken to the CHRC. And their investigator recommended that I not be prosecuted. My friends, that’s what’s called a controlled experiment. Every variable was controlled, except one. The words were the same; the law was the same. The only difference is that I’m a noisy, Jewish lawyer who knows how to fight back; Rev. Boissoin is a penniless pastor who doesn’t know how to fight politically. I was let go; Boissoin had his face ground into the dirt. For the exact same words. That’s not law. That’s corrupt, that’s abusive, that’s un-Canadian. It’s un-Canadian that not a single person tried under s. 13, in thirty years, has ever been acquitted. It’s un-Canadian that 91% of the CHRC’s targets are so poor they can’t afford lawyers, and aren’t given one. It’s un-Canadian that the CHRC goes online, posing as neo-Nazis, spewing racist venom, to entrap people in discussions that they then prosecute. It’s un-Canadian that the CHRC has no ethics code, and has hacked a private citizen’s e-mail account in one of their neo-Nazi personas – which is why the CHRC is now under both RCMP and Privacy Commission investigation. Anyone who believes in a spectrum of ideas should be furious with these kangaroo courts. And anyone whose job it is to defend the media should be very worried, too

Related: Levant's full-bore confrontation with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. This is a masterpiece.