What are the Limits on Freedom of Speech?

I ask this question after I see the following story:

Republican Councilman Paul Smith, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, has found himself at the center of controversy after video of him holding a sign that depicted President Obama's head on a spike surfaced after being recorded at a Tea Party rally more than three years ago in April 2009. He also had other signs that included Nancy Pelosi with bullet holes in her head, and a noose around the neck of former Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm.

Shocking?  Not anymore.  Frankly, I'm not really surprised by what Republican representatives in our government do anymore.  Has this crossed the line or protected speech?  I'm not sure.  When it comes to the President, the supreme court ruling is clear.

Federal statute [prohibits] “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” ...but [not] mere “political hyperbole.”

Are his signs "hyperbole"?  While the secret service is investigating this, has he broken the law?    It appears the its possibly not the case.  In the supreme court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co:

“emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.

So it seems that violent rhetoric is not illegal unless violent action results from it.  At least from the previous ruling.  But to throw another wrench into these decisions, the ninth circuit court made the following ruling in Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists:

The Ninth Circuit concluded that a “true threat” is “a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person.”⁹⁹⁵ “It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”99

So that's nice and complicated.  I still don't really know if what this Republican councilman said is illegal.  In the context of this situation, it is important to note, that yet again, this is a Republican, right winger carrying out this type of threat.  Once again, it's the tea party using extreme language as the norm.

 These are your Republican representatives folks.  These are the people who claim they are the victims:

Smith went on to say that the city council is like a "fraternity", and that "I'm not welcome to the club."

 Yea, that's because you're a freaking idiot.  You did this three years ago and got caught now.  Suddenly you're the victim. *sigh*

PEACE

Be Very Afraid

What do the current Republicans have that they are running for?
What policies do they have which they are in support?

Or are they simply running against something?

The party that wants to kill government?
The party that wants to end women's rights?
The party that wants to kill voter's rights?
The party that wants to hand the keys of our country to the wealthy corporations?
The party that wants everybody to be afraid of black people?


Are they now officially the party of fear?


Apparently so...



Be afraid!  In just two years, this country will turn into some dystopian, awful, post apocalyptic hell hole.  And it will all be because of that big, scary, Kenyan usurper, Muslim president.

Don't you see?  Being black is bad.  Shit, being half black is bad.  Being Muslim is bad.  Even being a fake Muslim is bad!  He stole the presidency, just so he could ruin this country with his failed policies.

It's SCARY.

Meanwhile, the rest of America wants to know.  Hey Republicans, what are you doing about jobs?  What are you doing about the environment?  What are you going to do about our failing transportation system?

Or are you just going to focus on taking away a woman's rights to her body?  Is that the solution to everything right now?

Oh I forgot, the solution to the country's problems is to be AFRAID.

PEACE


p.s.  Bonus points if you can point out the very very subtle subliminal messaging in the Rick Santorum advertisement.

Ideological Purity

As the election season continues to ramp up, this idea of "ideological purity" is popping more and more into my thoughts.  What does it mean to me?  It means staying 100% true to your ideals and values when you vote.  If a candidate doesn't match you on a key value, or values, you either vote for the other guy or abstain from voting out of protest.

Are you willing to be an ideological purist?

Should Democrats, liberals, and progressives be willing to maintain ideological purity?

What ARE the values and ideals we should prioritize and remain true to?

(1) A clean, healthy, and poison free environment.

(2) A strong government that supports this country's social contract and the "general welfare" of the people.

(3) Strong public education, public healthcare, and public transportation, all publicly and democratically owned.

(4) Equality of citizens under the law; male, female, gay, straight, black, white, brown, religious, spiritual, atheist.

(5) A fair economic system that gives everybody a fair chance at success and the "American Dream".

(6) Rule of law with rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Accountability for those who break the law, regardless of their power or wealth.

Number 6 will bring me back to my original point of ideological purity, in a roundabout sort of way.  I will explain.

When Bush was in office, the thing that tended to make liberals and progressives full of anger and rage was the deterioration of rights.  This included the PATRIOT act, the Guantanamo Bay prison, CIA torture camps, drone strikes, etc.  What made it even worse was the lack of accountability for our government and elected officials, essentially making a farce of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Ideological purity... I'm getting there, I swear.

Now that Obama, a Democrat, is president, it seems that the values have changed.  Embarassingly, it seems that a majority of progressives and liberals approve of the Guantanamo Bay prison remaining open and approve of drone strikes abroad, even against American citizens accused of terrorism.

As a liberal and progressive myself, it's fucking embarassing.

So what happened?  Are values not so important anymore once on of our own is in power?  Are we willing to sacrifice some of our values for the bigger picture?

***

I had a debate with a friend of mine over the NDAA bill recently passed into law.  I thought it was pretty clear that the rules on military detention did not apply to American citizens.  Apparently, it is not as clear as I thought, even to the point where the ACLU is taking up this cause.  As I look deeper into this issue, if its true, this could be at serious conflict with my values.

Do I like it?  No.
Do I "approve" of this policy?  No.
Do I think it needs to be changed?  Abso-fuckin-lutely.

Is this a deal breaker for me on President Obama?

No.

Why not?  After looking at the big picture, I'm not willing to be an ideological purist and have this one policy, as much as I may dislike it, cause me to vote Republican or abstain from voting.

Sure, I could vote Republican, but I know there would be no change on this detention policy and that the Republicans could actually make it worse based on their actions in the past.  Other things voting Republican might mean...

...Support of industries that poison our land, water, and air.
...Privatizing, defunding, or even abolishing public support programs like social security and welfare.
...Selling off our future through privatization and "profitization" of our public education.
...Government sponsored legal discrimination of gays and the deterioration of the rights of women.
...More corporate tax-breaks, deregulation, and support for the .1 - .01% at everybody else's expense.

That is what I fear if I vote Republican out of ideological opposition to this one policy of the Obama presidency.

What if I vote for a third party?  This never works and actually typically helps the opposition party in an election.  What is I abstain from voting?  That is one less vote towards an Obama victory and towards a Republican victory, something I can't tolerate in 2012.

But does voting for Obama mean I am accepting his policy via the NDAA?  No.  Will I try and get it changed?  Yes.

Will I be an ideological purist at the cost of an Obama presidency?  Hell no.

You can disagree with me and act in a way that will give us a Republican president in 2012.  Just be honest, as a liberal or progressive, and say you're willing to make that sacrifice for your ideals.  Admit that you're willing to see and have a Republican president as part of your protest to Obama's policies.  That is the risk you take by abstaining or even voting Republican out of protest.

As I watch the debates and the rhetoric coming from both sides, the stakes almost seem to be even higher than 2008.  I'm not willing to make that sacrifice.

Are you?

PEACE

What have YOU lost under Obama?

I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing the following.

"The country is being destroyed under president Obama."

"We're slowly losing all of our rights under Obama."

"We have to take our country back."

"Our liberties are being eroded little by little."

"This country is turning communist / fascist / marxist."

"Electing a Republican in 2012 is our last hope to save this country."

So lets actually hear it...

What the FUCK have YOU lost under Barack Obama?

What rights have YOU lost?
How has Obama destroyed the country for YOU?
Which of YOUR liberties have been eroded?
How is Obama turning the country away from Democracy?
What will a Republican do better for YOU than Obama?

Seriously...

Anything?

ANYBODY?

...
...
...
...
...

Crickets.... thought so...

I issued a challenge a while back to people asking them what was justified about the Iraq war and why thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had to die for.  I got ZERO RESPONSES.  I realize there are probably no Republicans or even Conservatives who read my blog, so maybe you can share this with them.  Or even ask your conservative friends the above questions.

But lets see the responses.  And yea, I'm mad.  I can't stand that rhetoric anymore.  Its so full of shit it drives me nuts.  Especially when I see rhetoric like this...



Enough already.  Time to back up some of this nonsense with FACTS.


PEACE

Why Voting Matters #1

For those of you who are thinking of abstaining from voting this year out of frustration, here is one reason why voting matters:

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.

What does any of this have to do with voting for President?  It is the president who appoints the judges of the circuit court of appeals.  Do you want a president who appoints judges that supports the rights of all Americans?

Or...

Do you want a president who appoints judges who supports open discrimination of minorities?

There is some history here to support this.  Obama has repealed DADT and "the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to discriminate against same-sex couples."


Romney?  Here is what he said about today's ruling from the courts:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Rights are not political.  Right's are not something to be debated or chosen.  Rights are universal and human, and everybody should receive them.  And we don't need a president who will pick judges who will support policy that openly discriminates against a group of people and takes away their rights.

PEACE

This Blog's Purpose

In the last couple of days, and especially after watching last night's presidential State of the Union address, the purpose of this blog has been made clearer to me.  And I think this will also make blogging easier and more enjoyable.

It is two parts:

(1)  Continue the Occupy discussion - While Occupy may not be making much news anymore, and while people may not be hearing about what they are still doing, the movement is still alive and thriving, although winter is setting it back some.  The corporate owned media does not want you to know about the Occupy movement, because it challenges the status quo of the rich getting richer off the backs of everyone else.  And in a time when people are struggling beyond their comprehension, their actions must be challenged and real change must be demanded.  In the same vein, that leads me to the second purpose of my blog.

(2)  Ensure that Barack Obama gets elected - After watching last night's state of the union, its clear where each presidential candidate falls.  It is also clear which candidate's rhetoric and actions side with the people versus siding with the cruelty of the 1% or even the .1%.  As Occupy continues, and the division between the two sides has been made clearer to me, it seems imperative that the candidate becomes president who will support policies that will benefit the most people of this country rather than the fewest at the top.  I will embrace the candidacy of Barack Obama for reelection, even as he has disappointed me in many ways since he took office in 2009.  Voting Republican, not voting, or voting for a third party candidate out of frustration with Obama will be destructive to this country.  I will debate and challenge anybody who disagrees with me on this blog, respectfully of course.

Ultimately, what it really comes down to is this front page article from Arizona.

TAMPA, Fla. — GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney isn’t just in the top 1 percent of Americans with income — he’s in at least the top 0.006 percent, tax returns he released Tuesday show.

The 2010 adjusted gross income of Romney and his wife, Ann, totaled $21.7 million, according to their tax return. That means they ranked high even among the top 8,274 tax returns.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and private-equity executive, made more than half of his income from capital gains and dividends. They are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, rather than the top rate of 35 percent for ordinary income.

Mr. "Corporations-are-people"?  Freddie Mac "historian"?  Or community organizer?

PEACE

Good Day for Progressives

Today is a good day for progressives:

(1)  Websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit, and others imposed a self blackout to bring widespread attention to the bills SOPA and PIPA.  Before the blackout, it seemed that these two bills were destined to be ignored by the media and fast tracked to be passed into law.  But tonight, the lead story on NPR is about SOPA and PIPA.  The lead story on Yahoo! news is about these two bills.  I don't watch the mainstream media news, but I am wondering if they are finally talking about it as well.  Even on AccuWeather's website, the lead story is about SOPA and PIPA.  Whoduthunkit?

Meanwhile, an update on the bill from CNN:

SOPA was once expected to sail quickly through committee approval in the House. But after a massive pushback from tech companies and their supporters, it's being extensively reworked. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said SOPA won't come up for a committee vote as-is. 

That means the bill could change a lot from day to day -- and one major tenet of the original legislation has already been removed. As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to sites that law enforcement officials deemed pirate sites. 

A markeup process once expected to take days is now likely to last for months. As the outcry around SOPA grows louder, the bill's momentum in Congress appears to be fading.

This only happened because of massive push back from all levels, but mostly from grassroots users of the internet as well as push back from tech companies who would risk losing much from these risky bills.

(2)  In a victory for environmentalists, the Keystone XL Pipeline application was denied by the White House.  While this itself is a huge victory for environmentalists (who almost never have victories these days), it is a small victory because they can still reapply for the permits to construct the pipeline.

However, in a fascinating statement released by the President to explain the decision, Obama says:

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.  As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied.  And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree. 

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.  I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.  Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down.  In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas.  And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

Wow... THIS is the President Obama I voted for.  I thrills me to see him going after Republicans for being the corporate whores that they are.  It also thrills me to see him talking about jobs and workers in a long term context of the health of our environment.  Who would have thought that the two of them were tied together?  Crazy!

We'll see if Democrats, Progressives, and Obama can maintain this opposition to the Keystone project.  Surely they will maintain their pressure to get this pipeline built and the union of progressives needs to maintain our strong opposition.

PEACE

When Mitt Romney Came to Town

If you want to see what your Republican nominee will do to the future of our economy, watch the following video on his history with Bain Capital; the jobs he destroyed, the communities he sank, and the people's lives he ruined.

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

This is the "Capitalism" that Mitt Romney and Republicans equate with Americanism, Democracy, and Patriotism.  Lives ruined in the name of greed and profit.

Who will you vote for in 2012?

The 1%?

OR...

The community organizer?

These are 28 minutes of your life you wont regret.  I promise you.  If you disagree after watching this, sorry.

PEACE


note:  I realize that "Winning our Future" is Newt Gingrich's PAC.  In no way am I saying go vote for Newt as he is just as destructive as Mitt.  HOWEVER, the point of this video and blog post is to show Mitt Romney's stance clearly.  He is the inevitable nominee for president of the Republican party.  And his background as part of the 1% needs to be viewed.  If you object to it coming from Newt, I understand.