The media is calling the Barack Obama attack on the Catholic Church a “culture war.” Culture War. The words and graphics are everywhere. It was the ABC News headline one morning, “Candidate’s Culture War” is what the graphic said. As if this is some sort of battle between Obama and the Republican candidates. Yes, it is that, but it us much, much more.

This is also a fight much larger than “culture.” Culture is something that defines art and common belief. Culture is something that changes with the times and can actually be defined as you wish. Much of our culture today is not what it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. What I think is culture, may not be what you think is culture. Yes, there is an “American culture, and I believe I know what it is, but I certainly don’t trust the media or this President (who would probably see me as a “bitter” American who “clings to guns and religion”) to tell me what it is.

The Constitution doesn’t work that way, certainly not the First Amendment which guarantees religious liberty and expression. I would like to think the Constitution would define our culture, but sadly that is not always the case. For the media to call this a “culture war” greatly diminishes its value, this is a battle over the First amendment of the US Constitution. Obama wants the Constitution circumvented to pander to his base, I would hope that most of us would be united with the Catholic Church in wanting it protected.

The new part of the ObamaCare law (that nobody read before they voted on it) says that churches that provide health care and insurance, must also provide contraceptives. The Catholic Church opposes contraception.

“The White House insists this achieves a balanced approach that respects women’s health care and religious liberty, but that’s not how the Republican candidates see it,” said Jake Tapper of ABC this morning. Jake, this does nothing to protect religious liberty. It tries to destroy it.

Thankfully, the presidential hopefuls joined in the fight.

“We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s First right, a right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. This is a violation of conscience,” said Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum says Obama has been “hostile to people of faith particularly Christians and specifically Catholics.”

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have also been avid opponents to Dear Leaders actions on this. Not just because they want to be seen as opponents, they all believe what he is doing in inherently wrong.

(more…)

On Monday, students, faculty and supporters at the University of California, Davis, attempted a mass general strike to protest tuition hikes and to demand the resignation of Chancellor Linda Katehi after police pepper-sprayed eleven protesters who blocked a public access way at an #OccupyUCDavis event on November 18th. Students maintain it was Chancellor Katehi who requested the police remove the Occupy encampment and clear access to the facility.  The incident sparked a firestorm of media all across the world and has become a viral phenomenon, and now even an Internet meme.

We stand behind those calling for Chancellor Katehi’s resignation.  But not for the reasons they might think.

The events of UC Davis and the way in which the pepper-spray was handled has set a number of dangerous precedents.  In the setting of academia, the rights of the majority of students are being trampled on to appease the tyranny of a minority.  Further, the very system of law and order and its public servants instituted to protect the rights of the public at large have been undermined by incompetent leaders, unable to withstand the growing pressure of a noisy minority and the corrupt media that supports it.  Most importantly, propaganda has established a foothold that is now stronger than ever, and far more dangerous than the short-term effects of pepper spray.

Over the last week, we have seen the media pick up the UC Davis story and run with it, always highlighting the same twenty seconds of one Officer Pike, methodically pepper-spraying eleven “peaceful protesters,” as onlookers gasp and scream in horror and dismay.  The public was almost undivided in its immediate condemnation of the act.

But just as Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Perhaps in this case, it’s not so much a lie, but a lot of omissions.

We know now that the Davis 11 locked arms to block the public access way, creating both a safety hazard and barring other students and the public from gaining access to facilities beyond that point.  What the media has never explained is that the protesters were repeatedly warned to clear the path.  Video shows officer Pike, the one with the pepper spray, informing each protester one last time that they would be “subject to the use of force” if they did not voluntarily move.  The protesters acknowledge the warning and hunker down for the consequences.

The media also never provides an accurate portrayal of why the students were protesting in the first place, and what prompted them to block the access way.  In an interview with Democracy Now, UC Davis Sustainable Agriculture student Elli Pearson, one of the protesters in the blockade who was pepper sprayed, reveals the truth.

(more…)

There has been a good deal of discussion of late about whether or not the IRS should launch an investigation into Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. In today’s part two of a three part series from FOX Business’ Elizabeth MacDonald, details of the civilian complaint filed by C. Boyden Gray demonstrate why the former White House counsel to President George W. Bush believes that Media Matters should have its tax-exempt status yanked.

Citing a pattern of “unlawful conduct,” Gray writes in his petition, which FOX Business has obtained, that the nonprofit has “executed a partisan strategy” in violation of U.S. tax law as it exists “no longer to educate the public but, rather, to declare ‘war on FOX,’” Gray says, quoting from an interview its founder, David Brock, gave to the website Politico.

Also unlawful, Gray says, is the nonprofit’s reported goal to “disrupt” the commercial interests of News Corp. (News Corp. is the parent of FOX News and FOX Business.)

Read the whole article, Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters’ Tax-Exempt Status.

Among the activity noted in the complaint: (more…)

60 Minutes talking to a leftist Supreme Court Justice. Blind leading the blind and both fell into the ditch.

I went into the Scott Pelley interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens with low expectations and I was not disappointed. It was correctly mentioned that Stevens had been nominated by Gerald Ford as a moderate Republican, but eventually became the leader of the Court’s liberal wing. Something happens to people who spend too much time in DC, but that’s another story for another day.

First, the issue of the 2000 Presidential election. Pelley asked Stevens whether the recount of the Bush victory over Al Gore should’ve continued.  Predictably, Stevens said it should’ve continued. What was missing from the interview were two critical points. Pelley never asked the follow-up question; “Okay, if it should’ve continued, which standard should’ve been used?” Remember, the main issue was over how to count votes and how the various standards used led to much of the confusion. Democrats love election recounts to go as long as possible until they have enough votes to win. Anybody wish to challege my contention using the last decade of election history?

(more…)

Americans have seen what speech codes do to freedom in other countries, past and present.  But not to be outdone MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, a man who encouraged voter fraud, said he’d urinate on Hugh Hewitt, and admitted to wanting to kill a former Vice President, says its actually Rush Limbaugh who should be penalized in some way for exercising his freedom of speech.

Schultz again used his hardly watched MSNBC timeslot to demonize conservatives by taking clips out of context.  He plays a couple clips from Rush Limbaugh’s show where he points out that the House Democrats are attempting to push the highest ranking black official in Congress out of his leadership post.  In making his point, Limbaugh used similar language to President Obama’s statement that the GOP has to sit in the back of the car.

(more…)

Last week, Drummond Pike took his FOX News fight to a whole new level, this time painting all of the right with a scarlet letter.  Coincidentally, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald had also published a similar piece in much the same vein, only a week prior.

In his opinion contribution piece to Politico titled “Why Does the Right Hate Soros?”, the founder and CEO of Tides Foundation pondered aloud the imaginary reasons he’s fabricated in his mind for the animosity toward the Hungarian born billionaire.

His conclusion?  Because we hate immigrants.

This is the typical left.  When you don’t get the response you want, inject a new element of manufactured hate into the mix – when you can’t make it about race, make it about immigration.  Drummond Pike even decided to step up the rhetoric, implying that George Soros is in danger because of right-wing media outlets and bloggers.  But the sad truth behind this piece, behind all of these public letters, boycotts and petitions is that they are all coordinated, and they are all aimed at turning the public opinion against those who do not share the ideals of the leftist agenda.

Some highlights from Pike’s opinion piece:

(more…)

What NPR did in terminating Juan Williams was a high profile act of journalistic terrorism.  It was a professional beheading with the goal of instilling fear so that other lesser reporters and journalists who might dare associate on Fox News will now think twice.

The message has gone out:  Whoever can destroy one such as prominent as Juan Williams can effectively censor other less prominent commentators with ease. Welcome to the New Age of Make-Believe Media Sharia.

There’s nothing that controversial about what Juan Williams said. Jesse Jackson admitted a concern similar to the one Williams voiced. Several years ago, Jackson expressed sadness at his own feelings of relief when upon hearing footsteps behind him and fearing robbery, he turns to see a white person.
No great purging took place. Jesse’s still hanging with the power people.

NPR’s taking offense at Williams’s Muslim comment is nothing other than a veil, a burqa, if you will, to cover the real reason underneath his termination.  The real reason is to quash dissent. Especially when, as a liberal, you appear on a Fox News broadcasts.

(more…)

The reason given by NPR for firing Juan Williams was  comments he made on the Bill O’Reilly show earlier this week. In truth, Williams wasn’t fired for the comments he made, but for where he made them, Fox News. NPR even admitted it in their official statement on Williams departure.

Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.

Most probably, NPR had a partner in the decision.  This was the opening shot of the White House’s escalation of its war on Fox News. Its intent was to send shivers down the spine of any journalist or news network that cooperates with Fox News.

Williams is one of the regular liberal voices on the O’Reilly Factor (as well as other Fox Programs). On Monday’s show Juan said:

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

NPR felt that comments “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Huh? For one thing Williams comments were more tame than President Obama made of his late grandmother: (more…)

NPR terminated its contract this evening with Juan Williams, who worked with them as a senior political analyst, after Williams appeared on Bill O’Reilly and spoke of a “Muslim dilemma:”

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

A taxpaying-funded organization fired someone over their free speech? No! Shocker!

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Who could forget NPR’s cute guide to all things teabag? NPR had no problem with this: NPR’s “Learn to Speak Teabag:”

(more…)

When someone calls my office and wants to sue somebody for libel or slander, assuming they manage to get through my phalanx of people devoted to keeping me insulated from time burglars, the first thing I say to them is, “You probably have no case.”  I don’t wait to hear the facts.  I don’t need to know their evidence.  I know that statistically speaking, it just is not going to have merit.  Yet threatening defamation suits is a growing tactic in the war on the new media.

Defamation cases generally fail.  And by “generally,” I mean almost all of them.  I’ve never lost a libel case I’ve defended.  Why are defamation cases so bad?  Defamation is a unique tort because it involves publishing false and unprivileged negative information about someone.  With the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees – you know, the ones that frustrate and irritate the left to no end when those of us on the right avail ourselves of them – defamation takes on  whole new dimension you do not find in regular torts like negligence.  There’s a tension between the right to speak and the right not to be lied about, and the courts generally err on the side of free speech.  This is especially true in the context of political debates.  (more…)

Either the First Amendment means what it says — and it says “Congress shall make no law” — or it doesn’t. President Obama, who increasingly looks and acts less like the President of the United States and more like the President of the Democrat Party, obviously thinks that it doesn’t:

What do you think? In case you need a refresher: (more…)

Today is the 223rd birthday of the Constitution of the United States of America. And do we ever need her, now more than ever. The Bill of Rights came along two years later, but now’s a good a time as any to open a thread about the First Amendment and what it means to you:

Let me say up front that I think Koran burning is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. In fact, I think what this little church in Florida is doing is actually harmful to the nation, their own safety and, unfortunately, the reputation and safety of Christians around the globe.

This is all kinds of stupid.

It’s also completely protected by the first amendment. In fact, it’s a two-fer involving both freedom of speech (remember, flag burning is free speech) and freedom of religion.

So where are the Democrats who, just a couple weeks ago, were lecturing us all on the inviolable first amendment? I assume all of those who supported the ground zero mosque are also in support of Koran burning in Florida, yes? (more…)

From CNN:

Los Angeles, California (CNN) — Embattled radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced Tuesday she will not renew her contract that is up at the end of the year, telling CNN’s “Larry King Live” she wants to “regain my First Amendment rights.”

Schlessinger, 63, has been under fire for using the n-word repeatedly during an on-air conversation with a caller last week.

In announcing her decision “not to do radio anymore” after being in the business for more than 30 years, Schlessinger said, “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry or some special-interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent.”

National furor erupted when Schlessinger used the n-word 11 times in five minutes during a call August 10 with an African-American caller who was seeking advice on how to deal with racist comments from her white husband’s friends and relatives. The conversation evolved into a discussion on whether it’s appropriate to ever use the word, with Schlessinger arguing it’s used on HBO and by black comedians.

(more…)

Technically speaking, the Kennedy Center is not Congress, but the building — a monument to the first Roman Catholic president — is federally supported.

Luckily, this story has a happy ending. But how many ordinary Americans have a microphone or a TV show with which to make bureaucratic enormities like this public?

Behold the wages, not of sin, but of the evil known as “political correctness” –

(more…)

James Taranto in his “Best of the Web Today” column in The Wall Street Journal:

Shirley Sherrod says she plans to sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, the Associated Press reports from San Diego: “Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context”:

Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. “He had to know that he was targeting me,” she said.

Does she have a winning case? Probably not.

For one thing, the alleged defamation (or, to be precise, the defamation that she would allege if she filed suit) took place while she was a public official and involved claims about the performance of her public duties. Thus she would have to meet the rigorous standard, set forth by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), of proving not only that Breitbart published a damaging falsehood about her but that he did so “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Even if she proves that Breitbart published false and defamatory statements about her, he wins the case if he did so only negligently. (more…)

On July 20, 2010, the U.S. Senate Senate passed the Bipartisan HR 2765 (as amended by the Leahy-Sessions SPEECH Act) by Unanimous Consent. The House of Representatives, which already passed HR 2765 introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) by 433-2, has indicated that it will pass the same bill within days.

The bill was introduced by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Ranking Member Senator Jeff Session (R-Alabama). The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut).

At the vote, Senator Leahy noted: “I would like to recognize Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, who herself has been the victim of a libel suit in the United Kingdom, and has been a tremendous advocate for Congressional action in this area.” (more…)

Second of two parts.  Part One is here.

Much of the Draft seems heavily influenced by the findings and recommendations of a USC/Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism study,“Public Policy and Funding the News.” It claims that the Internet and its blogging news reporters have benefited from government investment in development of the Internet, and will benefit again from TARPs I and II.

USC Report –

Long before the United States was founded, the Postal Service was subsidizing the news business. It was in good measure the free-mailing privileges conferred by many postmasters that allowed a robust network of colonial newspapers to emerge. George Washington wanted all newspapers, in fact, to have 100 percent subsidized mailing costs. The Postal Act of 1792 rejected the idea of a total subsidy, but it codified highly subsidized and extremely low rates. What brought a halt to publishers’ receiving 75 percent discounts on their mailed news products was the financial crisis that engulfed the Postal Service in the late 1960s.

It does not logically follow that if, historically, government had some role in the growth of news communications, it should “monitor” the “reinvention” of it by taking control of it. The Annenberg study offers recommendations as woozy and ill-defined as those in the Draft. (more…)