North Dakota Voters Kill Property Tax Repeal; Religious Measures

North Dakota voters decided against repealing the state's property tax, much to the relief of the state's politicians, unions, chambers of commerce, and school districts upon which the property tax is the primary or significant source of funding. The measure lost badly, with most taxpayers realizing that the funding is critical to education.

If approved, it would have been the first time a state repealed a major tax since Alaska abolished the personal income tax in 1980.

At the same time, the state's voters rejected Measure 3, which would have caused all kinds of legal problems and would have likely raised 1st Amendment issues over restricting government actions on religious grounds.

The language of Measure 3 stated that a person has the right to act or to refuse to act in a manner due to a deeply-held religious belief. It would then be up to the government to prove that it has a compelling government interest in infringing on one’s right to act or not act. The measure’s proponents said that it was needed in order to strengthen people’s religious liberty.

North Dakotans Against Measure Three, the main group opposed to Measure 3, had argued that the wording of Measure 3 was vague. One example of vague language noted by opponents was that the government must prove it has a “compelling government interest” in infringing on a person’s religious actions. Another example was over government having to use the “least restrictive means” to further its interest.

Opponents said Measure 3 could’ve opened the door for people to use religious beliefs as a defense in breaking laws protecting against abuse, domestic violence and discrimination. Measure 3 proponents consistently denied this claim, saying that other states with similar laws in place haven’t had such issues.

Christopher Dodson with the North Dakota Catholic Conference said he was disappointed by Measure 3’s rejection by voters. Dodson said in a statement that efforts will continue to strengthen religious protections for North Dakotans.

“We will not rest until religious freedom in North Dakota is protected in the law as a fundamental human right,” Dodson said.

If Measure 3 had passed, North Dakota would’ve joined 12 states that already have passed religious liberty laws: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Alabama is the lone state to have added a law to its state constitution.

Two other measures were considered yesterday in North Dakota. The voters approved a measure to override the Legislature's decision to keep the University of North Dakota's mascot - dropping the Fighting Sioux nickname. Measure 1 was also approved, and allows legislators to be appointed to full-time appointive state offices.

Sheepshead Bay Mosque Project Clears Another Hurdle

Despite complaints from the usual suspects including Pam Geller, a judge has cleared the way for the mosque project on Voohries Avenue in Sheepshead Bay to move ahead.

On Tuesday, Judge Mark Partnow dismissed a lawsuit filed by the anti-mosque organization Bay People and neighbors of the as-of-right project on Voorhies Avenue between E. 28th and E. 29th streets, ruling that the mosque wouldn’t adversely effect the neighborhood.

The ruling came shortly after the lawyer for mosque builder Ahmed Allowey accused opponents of the plan of acting like racist terrorists.

“This is entirely motivated by racism,” said attorney Lamis Deek. “[The Bay People] has forced my client to expend his resources for no good cause and terrorize people with the vitriolic rallies that they hold.”

She added that the anti-mosque group would never have complained if a church or synagogue was being constructed.

“[They] claim that the mosque will be a nuisance and will be out of character with the neighborhood,” she said. “They’ve held rallies, protests and filed repeated complaints with the city, but have never done anything like this to a nearby church that doesn’t have any on site parking or a nearby synagogue that’s twice the size of the mosque.”

The Bay People do have a reputation of holding protests laced with anti-Muslim sentiment. Some protestors have even claimed that the Muslim American Society — which will take over the operation of the community center once it’s built — has ties to terrorism, although no direct evidence connecting the two has ever surfaced.

On top of that, the decision comes on the heels of a vandal spray painting a “happy face” and the words “He is dead” on the fence surrounding the mosque site in an apparent attempt to taunt mosque supporters over the death of bin Laden.

The opposition had further claimed that a lack of on-site parking would have been a burden to the local community, but the backers of the mosque project noted that many of the congregants lived in a 10 block radius around the mosque and there was little evidence that they would be driving to the mosque.

NJ Transit Worker Gets Job Back After Burning Koran During Protest

As I noted last November, I thought that Derek Fenton had a great chance of winning back his job because he was exercising his First Amendment rights for free speech to protest against the construction of the Cordoba House/Park 51 community center and mosque near Ground Zero. New Jersey Transit fired Fenton and the New Jersey chapter of the ACLU took up his cause. Gov. Chris Christie had supported the firing because of the intolerance that Fenton showed in his actions.

Today, a settlement between Fenton and NJ Transit means that Fenton will be reassigned to his $86,110-a-year job as a conductor and as an assistant train-consist coordinator. He will also get $25,000 for pain and suffering, as well as back pay equal to $331.20 for every day since his firing.

Note that Fenton was fired for actions carried out while he was off-duty and not in uniform. The outcome of the case would have been quite different had he been on duty when he burned the koran or had been wearing a NJ Transit uniform when burning the koran.

The First Amendment protects political speech no matter how distasteful and hateful. Fenton's speech was protected, and NJ Transit had overstepped its bounds and authority in firing Fenton for speech undertaken outside his employment.

Westboro Baptists Return To New York City To Hate On Jews and Gays

Westboro Baptist Church is in the news again after their free speech case has been taken up by the US Supreme Court this session and they're returning to Brooklyn to hate on Jews, and will then show their hatred and intolerance for gays and lesbians in Manhattan. They're scheduled to protest outside a couple of synagogues and yeshivas in Brooklyn before heading into Manhattan:

The Kansas-based fringe group plans to stage anti-Semitic and anti-gay demonstrations in Brooklyn and Manhattan on Monday - and counterprotests are expected.

Fred Phelps and his band of rabid bigots will set up shop outside Jewish schools and a synagogue in Kensington and Midwood, in Brooklyn, Hebrew Union College in Greenwich Village, and a gala for a gay and lesbian support group in Tribeca.

Drew Tagliabue, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG NYC), said his group plans to ignore Westboro's presence.

"They manufacture these controversies," he said. "They do it for publicity and attention."

Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Borough Park) plans to attend counterprotests in Brooklyn - where Westboro says it will preach that Jews are destined for hell.

"This is a fringe group. These guys are crazy and the schools are nervous," Hikind said.

"I have to be there. There's a lesson to be learned that there are haters out there."

Outside Chabad of Kensington on Ocean Parkway, members were horrified by Westboro's plan.

This is the same despicable church that protests US soldiers, sailors, and Marines who have died in the line of service because they consider gays to be immoral and against the Bible. Along the same lines, they consider Jews to blame for the spread of all manner of immoral and unethical actions in their view.

They're entitled to their opinions and to express them, but I can just as surely call them freaks who have misinterpreted the Bible and ignore the messages of love and tolerance contained therein.

Others covering the moron-a-thon: L Magazine, Gothamist, Media Matters.

As if that isn't enough, the group has taken upon itself to appropriate the Ozzy Osborne song Crazy Train, which has sent Ozzy into a tizzy. It's not without a certain amount of irony that Osborne is taking a church to task for showing intolerance and hatred.

Cordoba House Proponents Propose Gov't Oversight On Financing Sources

One of the criticisms over the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 community center and mosque near Ground Zero is the sourcing of the financing for the project.

It's expected to run about $100 million. That money has to come from somewhere, and opponents claim that Imam Rauf and the project backers would take money from terror-groups.

To allay those concerns, Imam Rauf has said that he'd ask the federal government to check the financing sources:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told "60 Minutes" that to reduce fears that terror organizations would contribute to the project, he'll ask US officials to approve the sources of funding.

Rauf added that the mosque and Islamic cultural center will have a board of directors that will include Muslims, Christians and Jews.

The olive branch from Rauf came as another proposed mosque in the city -- this one in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn -- became embroiled in controversy yesterday with dozens of protesters waving anti-Islamic signs at the site.

Opposition to building mosques isn't confined to the area around Ground Zero - there is opposition in various locations around the country. A mosque project on Staten Island was killed after local opposition to the sale of a convent raised its profile. However, in that instance, the opposition was warranted because of the group's ties to the Muslim American Society, which had shady ties to fundraising groups with ties to Hamas and other terror groups. The proposed Brooklyn mosque would also be a Muslim American Society project, which can explain some of the outrage.

The opposition to the Cordoba House project has been a clarifying moment - it reveals that the opposition isn't merely about the siting of a mosque near Ground Zero - but goes to whether people are comfortable with Muslims living and praying and congregating in their communities. Some people are still not quite comfortable with the notion of religious freedom and the free exercise of religion. Claiming opposition is based solely on the site’s proximity to Ground Zero when there is similar ongoing opposition to the construction of mosques and Muslim community centers all over the country shows that the issue isn't the proximity to Ground Zero, but a general unwillingness to accept the construction of mosques in areas where there is a growing presence of Muslims.

An increasing number of communities are saying no - and doing so vocally. In one instance, a proposed mosque in Tennessee was the target of arson.

Lab reports indicate that accelerants were used to start and spread the fire, which destroyed an earth mover and damaged three other vehicles at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, ATF spokesman Eric Kehn said.

There are no suspects in the arson, which occurred early Saturday morning, Kehn said. The investigation is ongoing and the ATF and FBI are offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a suspect or suspects, authorities said at a Friday press conference at the construction site.

"Somebody here in Rutherford County knows what happened here," said Keith Moses, an FBI assistant special agent based in Nashville, at the press conference, which featured representatives from the Islamic center.

"Whether or not we have a civil rights hate crime will be determined once we have a suspect or suspects and a motive," Moses said.

Indonesia Warns Of Christianization Threat Over Proposal To Build Church

Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world, and minorities have had a difficult time preserving their religious freedoms. The latest strain on religious relations in the country follows Indonesian Inslamists who are up in arms over the proposal to build a church in Bekasi, which has a Muslim-majority. Rallies continue to be held opposing the construction of the church and warn against the Christianization of Indonesia.

In June, the Bekasi F.P.I. leader told The Jakarta Globe, “All Muslims should unite and be on guard because … the Christians are up to something.” He also suggested that it might be necessary for mosques to establish militias and be prepared to fight a “war” to prevent “Christianization.”

As Al Jazeera explained in a video report last week, the small Christian group said that it had obtained all the necessary signatures from local residents who agreed to allow them to build their church, but then the Islamist vigilantes pressed people to withdraw their approval.

F.P.I. vigilantes have attacked a wide range of targets in the past, throwing rocks at members of minority Muslim sects, beating gay people, destroying bars and vowing to track down the editor of Indonesia’s short-lived version of Playboy magazine, Erwin Arnada, who is now in hiding.

As Reuters explained in June when the vigilantes attacked a group of Indonesian legislators, the F.P.I. “attracts limited support in moderate, majority Muslim Indonesia, but fear of being seen as defending vice means politicians and police often turn a blind eye to their attacks on targets, such as transvestites, which are deemed un-Islamic.”

It's not quite a mirror image to the debate about the Cordoba House proposal to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero, but the parallels shouldn't be lost on anyone here.

It does, however, show that the world over struggles with religious freedoms and stresses that the United States and its First Amendment protections for free exercise of religion are there for a reason. Religious intolerance has been a significant issue as the central government has left issues largely up to the regional governments, increasing the intolerance of minority religious groups.

NJ Transit Went Too Far In Firing Employee Who Burned Koran

It's an emotionally charged issue, but emotion has nothing to do with the clear boundaries of the law. A person has the right to free speech and the conduct of burning a Koran falls within the protections of the First Amendment.

It may be hateful speech and stupid speech, but it is protected speech nonetheless.

That's why NJ Transit's decision to fire an employee who attended a demonstration against the Cordoba House proposal in Lower Manhattan and burned a copy of the Koran on his own time is likely to get the agency in trouble.

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.

Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.

He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.

NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.

"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."

Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.

The employee, Derek Fenton, has every right to voice his opinion in that setting. This isn't an instance of an employee carrying out such conduct while in his capacity as an employee or public official.

It looks like NJ Transit stepped over the line in pursuing actions against Fenton for speech Fenton undertook while not on duty. Moreover, it appears that the agency determined that dismissal was the option, rather than probation or other disciplinary measures or undertaking sensitivity training or other such programs.

Media Outlets Finally Catching On To Hatemonger's Ground Zero Church Stunt

If you want a reason to get pissed off for a religious institution encroaching on Ground Zero's sacred soil, the group led by Bill Keller fits the bill. New York papers have finally caught on to his story, and are now pursuing it.

From the Daily News:

The crusade against a proposed mosque near Ground Zero turned Biblical Sunday as a fire-and-brimstone Florida preacher declared that those behind it will "burn in hell."

"All these people will die and burn in hell," Bill Keller told a crowd of 40 people gathered to hear his sermon at the New York Marriott Downtown overlooking Ground Zero.

"Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace," he said. "How could you build bridges with people who ask their Muslim brothers to fly a plane into the twin towers and killed thousands of innocent people?"

It's inflammatory rhetoric like Keller's that has supporters of the mosque most worried: They say it is wrong to tarnish the entire Muslim religion because of the actions of a few.

Many opposed to the Park51 project have also dismissed the Muslim-bashing preacher, fearing they'll be lumped in with his bigoted and racist views.

The News focuses on his anti-Muslim views, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Then again, so does the New York Times, which notes in passing that Glenn Beck is worshiping a false faith.

Keller doesn't just go after the Park51/Cordoba House group, but is up to his eyeballs in hatred towards homosexuals, Mormons, and even pushed the conspiracy theory that President Obama isn't a US citizen for purposes of becoming President.

Keller is currently operating out of a conference room at the Marriott next door to Ground Zero on West Street. His followers published flyers that were plastered all around Ground Zero promoting his Sunday sermon, but curiously didn't note the hate-filled bilge he was peddling.

Mind you, Keller has every right to peddle that hate (so long as he isn't promoting violence and is within the law) as it is protected both under the freedom of religion and freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

So, while the attention largely remains on the Cordoba House proposal for a community center and mosque, Keller's hate goes largely unremarked upon.

AOL News has more, including a copy of Keller's "sermon", which includes claims that Gahndi was a nice person, but was in hell presumably because he was not a Christian. A crowd of about 50 showed up, with most members of various media outlets.

Between 40 and 50 people attended the hour-and-a-half long event, which began at 11 a.m. and was held in the ballroom of the New York Marriott Downtown hotel, located across the street from ground zero. Although members of the press made up nearly half of the audience, it was unclear how many of the roughly 20-odd non-media-affiliated attendees there because they wanted to actually worship, versus the number gathered there based on their curiosity of Keller and his goals.

For example, Richard Borowski, who supports the controversial mosque project called Park51, said that he attended the service under the assumption that Keller "was coming out strongly against the mosque," but was surprised to hear the televangelist "pretty much come out in favor of it."

"We have a firewall between church and state to keep our country from being ruled by any one religion," Borowski told AOL News Surge Desk once the service had concluded, "Nothing would uphold and demonstrate that more than the construction of [both of] these houses of worship."

Even the speaker who preceded Keller during the service, Vincent Forras, a 9/11 volunteer and first responder, said he still had "not made his mind up" about the fiery televangelist or his project, although he did confess to being against the construction of Park51. Forras, who credits his Christian faith for his survival during a secondary building collapse on Sept. 11, is co-founder of the Gear Up Foundation, a charity for other 9/11 first responders.

Throughout Keller's sermon, two protesters who appeared to be 9/11 "Truthers," sporadically heckled Keller, shouting various denunciations, including "Liar!" at him from the crowd. At one point, a man rose and unfurled a red flag, before loudly shouting that Keller was "a false prophet," before being escorted out by Keller's bodyguards.

What McCain-Feingold Has Wrought

It has meant that judges now get to determine what is political speech and what isn't. Here, they've decided that a film about Hillary Clinton is campaign advertising subject to McCain Feingold. The film happens to be anti-Hillary.

The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.

Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues "Hillary: The Movie" and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.

Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue- oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.

"What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.

"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist," Bopp replied. "That is an issue."

"Which has nothing to do with her campaign?" U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.

"Not specifically, no," Bopp replied.

"Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"

Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."

"Oh, that's ridic...," Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.

Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.

The movie is scheduled for two screenings in theaters, once each in California and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods are regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.

Of course, you remember that Michael Moore purposefully released Farenheit 9/11 right before the 2004 elections, and yet that was okay. I'd say that there's a double standard if this film gets restricted, but that's the court system for you - it's all about your venue. That too is a flaw in McCain Feingold, which places far too much power in the courts and tramples all over the First Amendment.

You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It is straight forward with respect to what Congress can or cannot do:

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.

What part of Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech did McCain and all the other lemmings who approved this bill not understand?

McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, which has done nothing to actually reduce the amount of money in politics, has created an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The First Amendment was specifically written by the Founding Fathers with political speech in mind, and yet Congress approved it, President Bush signed it into law, and the Courts approved it. Just because they approved the law doesn't make it right - just look at how the Courts had no problem approving Dred Scott and separate but equal laws until Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny.

The fact that the courts get to decide whether something is political speech or not is abhorrent to the US Constitution and should be abhorrent to anyone who seeks to uphold the Constitution and the First Amendment.

We now have to live with the repercussions of this abomination, and I hope that the courts realize that they're supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and strike down this repellant law.

US Supreme Court's Mixed Signals on Free Speech

The Supreme Court decided that free speech does give people and groups the right to air advertisements during a period close to elections. This decision rejects a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. That's a good thing. The ruling can be found here (Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., Dkt. No. 06-969, 6/25/2007).

The Court, however, found that schools could restrict certain forms of student speech.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

''The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic,'' Roberts said. ''But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.''

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.

The idea that students do not have the same rights to speech as adults is one that I find troublesome. The actual content of the speech could be considered political speech (as noted by Souter - which calls the case ruling 6-3 and not 5-4 as in the NYT above), which is exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect, and the last time I checked, there is no age restriction on when the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to only some individuals and not others. The text of the decision can be found here (Morse v. Frederick, Dkt. No. 06-278, 6/25/2007).

More analysis to follow.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has quick hits on the major cases that came down today, and suggests that the speech related cases (Morse and FEC) suggest a conservative approach is taking shape, even though the decisions were fractured with concurrences and Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote. Also, the FEC case doesn't exactly invalidate a portion of the BRCA but rather may force the Court to take up the constitutionality of those provisions in the future. SCOTUSBlog, Powerline, and Orin Kerr also weigh in on the decisions.

Repeat Performance

"Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends..." So begins the famous song Karn 9 Evil by Emerson, Lake and Palmer. For some, the show that never ends is the continuing assault on free speech all in the name of fairness.

The leftist dream to reassert the Fairness Doctrine on the media continues to percolate among the left because conservative shows dominate the airwaves of talk radio. They would love to get their grubbies on all forms of media, in the claims that some groups - those they oppose - have a better ability to find an audience than their own point of view.

To them, the market forces be damned. The concept of the Fairness Doctrine cuts hard against the heart of capitalism and free speech. It determines who can say what and in what forums and the government gets to arbiter the content, instead of the free market. It would save progressive radio stations like Air America from oblivion, while limiting successful right wing talk radio/syndicated shows out of "fairness."

That's neither fair nor a legitimate use of government power to save leftists from their own failures to capture audience on talk radio.

Rapping the Ban and Banning the Rap

Russell Simmons, who heads up one of the most influential music companies in the country, is calling for a ban of three words from radio airplay.

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons said yesterday that the recording and broadcast industries should consistently ban three racial and sexist epithets from all so-called clean versions of rap songs and the airwaves.

Currently such epithets are banned from most clean versions, but record companies sometimes "arbitrarily" decide which offensive words to exclude and there's no uniform standard for deleting such words, Mr. Simmons said.

The recommendations drew mixed reaction and come two weeks after some began carping anew about rap lyrics after radio personality Don Imus was fired by CBS Radio and NBC for referring to the players on the Rutgers university women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

Expressing concern about the "growing public outrage" over the use of such words in rap lyrics, Mr. Simmons said the words "bitch," "ho," and "nigger" should be considered "extreme curse words."

Are you kidding me? Does he honestly think that this will get the rappers to change their wordsmithing to something else?

Let's be absolutely clear here. These artists have the right to say whatever they want, and the government should not be involved in limiting what they have to say, regardless of whether it may offend the sensibilities of those who listen. There's a cure for that - change the station. George Carlin would be quite amused at all this.

As for the consideration that some words should be treated as extreme curse words, will Simmons take a step that he knows would cause an immediate change in how artists write their lyrics? Will he fire those rappers who use the words? Will he stop promoting them? Will his company stop profiting from their sales? You know, those are truly steps that would get the rappers to actually pay attention and change what they say and rap about. However, as you and I know, this isn't going to happen.

It wont happen and the reasons go beyond Simmons. Other music companies aren't likely to stop making money off artists who use these lyrics because they sell lots of records. We've seen how music companies get to adjust the image of artists in their stables - just look at what they do on American Idol to adjust and tweak an image to get the musicians to appeal to a wider audience. The same goes for other artists who do everything from changing their name (John Mellencamp) to changing their look and sound from album to album. So, we know that they've got the ability to impose change if they want to.

They don't want to, no matter how much some might protest - and it is interesting to note that the protests fall short of demanding people be fired as was the case with Don Imus and his staff.

Thus, the simple answer is really an excuse. They can hope that the government takes to banning certain words, and they can slap parential warning stickers on the albums, but they'll keep selling and the words still get spoken and heard.

The music companies, including Simmons' will keep making money off records that include themes that denigrate minorities and women.

Five Years After McCain-Feingold Became Law

I came across this piece by Ed Morrissey and it sums up much of what I think about this abomination - McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. The legislation was not so much about campaign finance reform as a direct assault on free speech - particularly political speech.

It limits who can say what and when in the run up to elections, which is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to protect. The law prohibits certain forms of political speech about incumbent congressmen for 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. Congress passed this mess (in part because it helps incumbents), the President signed it (a huge mistake - arguably the most devastating of his tenure), and the Supreme Court even botched its analysis (on par with Dred Scott) to find that political speech could be limited in the way sought by the law.

The fact that the Bill of Rights is explicitly clear as to the nature of speech was lost on all three braches of the government.

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.

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." did Congress, the President and Supreme Court not understand? The three branches of the US federal government chose to ignore 220+ years of precedent, tradition, and law to find that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" was not nearly as absolute as anyone should expect. This wasn't about limiting fighting words or hate speech, but the very cornerstone of our nation's existence - the right to speak out against elected officials - political speech.

The rationale for passing this legislation was that it would reduce the reliance on money in campaigning, but no one with a functioning neuron can make that claim knowing that it will likely cost $500 million to become President in 2008 or that each campaign since the law was passed has broken records for spending.

The biggest spenders are now 527s, which funnel money into opposition ads and has done nothing to slow the funneling of money into the political process. Instead of knowing who is funding an individual campaign, 527s make things less transparent. 527s fund each other and money gets shifted around in huge sums.

Mark Tapscott also weighs in with a solid piece about McCain-Feingold.

So, not only has the legislation proved to be a failure at controlling the influx of money, but the limitations on free speech are there.

New York City Council's Asinine Priorities

In the past week, we've come to learn about Ratgate - a KFC/Taco Bell establishment in the West Village that was overrun by rats, and yet passed a New York City Department of Health inspection just the day before. You've all seen the video:



In response, the Department of Health closed that location, suspended the inspector, and has started closing other restaurants where there are vermin infestations. Part of the problem is that there are insufficient inspectors to cover all the establishments in the city as thoroughly as needed.

So, instead of focusing on the very important health and safety aspects that can and should be improved, the New York City Council has decided to opine on the use of the word "nigger."

New York declared the n-word off limits to all races Wednesday in a purely symbolic resolution prompted by the common, casual use of the slur in hip-hop music, comedy and street slang.

“People are using it out of context,” said Leroy Comrie, a black city councilman who sponsored the unanimously passed measure. “People are also denigrating themselves by using the word, and disrespecting their history.”

New York’s resolution is not binding and merely calls on residents to stop using the slur. Leaders of the nation’s largest city also hope to set an example.

Ah, the purely symbolic gesture. I have another symbolic gesture - the Bronx Cheer.

Has the New York City Council forgotten their copies of the United States Constitution? Here's a quick refresher for them:

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.

Or, if they've forgotten that they're citizens of New York State:

Art I, Sec. 8: Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

I read that to be even more protective of the right to free speech than the US Constitution, even as it speaks of the responsibilities that come with such speech. What part of this does the City Council not understand? Free speech is just that - free speech. It means accepting words and ideas that you do not agree with along with those that you do.

Patterico notes that even if the City Council has read their copies of the Constitution, there's case law that would point to their efforts as being violative of the Constitution. Governments cannot simply ban a word. Even ones that can be used in an offensive and harmful manner.

Register This!

Consider this my registration of utter disgust with those who try to undermine the First Amendment in this country. Once again, members of Congress think that they can or should infringe on the First Amendment for no good reason other than to keep their hides nice and safe from criticism. That's precisely what the following two measures would do if implemented.

The first is the reimposition of what is euphemistically called the Fairness Doctrine. It is nothing of the sort. Instead of giving the marketplace the right to decide what airs, it would require broadcasters to provide equal time between competing viewpoints. This would be felt hardest in the AM talk radio marketplace, where left leaning radio is a mere fraction of the right leaning radio market. Air America's failure was one sign that the market was not accepting of this view since it doesn't resonate with most Americans. So, what could not be gained through market competition will now be overcome by federal diktat. The Left wants to kill off talk radio, and this is just the thing to make that happen. Dennis "the Menace" Kucinich is behind this gambit.

The second, and potentially far more damaging, is the supposition of registering bloggers. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced this mess and can be found at S.1 (which the Democrats have helpfully called ethics reform). Among the key features:

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

Indeed, the acutal text of the offending section is here.

Gee, that would bring some of the biggest names in blogging under the registration requirement including Instapundit, TPM, Daily Kos, LGF, Firedoglake, Andrew Sullivan, Ed Morrissey, TTLB, and even yours truly (depending on the day). This comes on the heels of the earlier McCain Feingold campaign finance reform legislation that cut into your 1st Amendment rights.

Never mind that the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform was not reform and took away a clear First Amendment right to free speech - and in particular political speech (and yes, I'm aware the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality, but the Court has been wrong before - see Plessy v. Ferguson), but this is yet another assault on the right to free speech in the US. It is high time that people tell our Representatives that we will not tolerate further infringements of the right to free speech.

Thankfully, it appears that the GOPers in the Senate decided to append line item veto legislation to the ethics reform package and scuttled the whole damned thing for now with parlimentary procedures. Blue Crab Boulevard has more on what happened (via Sister Toldjah). The ethics package may have been delayed because of partisan bickering, but the American people benefit by giving more time to reveal the nature of this provision.

UPDATE:
The offending language in S.1 was stricken as a result of an amendment passed earlier tonight. That such language was included in the first place should raise eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.

UPDATE:
Never mind that part about raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle considering that the 55-42 vote (2 not voting) was nearly along party lines: Alexander (R-TN); Allard (R-CO); Baucus (D-MT); Bayh (D-IN); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Bunning (R-KY); Burr (R-NC); Chambliss (R-GA); Coburn (R-OK); Cochran (R-MS); Coleman (R-MN); Collins (R-ME); Conrad (D-ND); Corker (R-TN);
Cornyn (R-TX); Craig (R-ID); Crapo (R-ID); DeMint (R-SC); Dole (R-NC); Domenici (R-NM); Dorgan (D-ND); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY); Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA);
Gregg (R-NH); Hagel (R-NE); Hatch (R-UT); Hutchison (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Isakson (R-GA); Kyl (R-AZ); Landrieu (D-LA); Lott (R-MS); Lugar (R-IN); Martinez (R-FL); McCain (R-AZ); McConnell (R-KY); Murkowski (R-AK); Nelson (D-NE); Roberts (R-KS); Salazar (D-CO); Sessions (R-AL); Shelby (R-AL); Smith (R-OR); Snowe (R-ME); Specter (R-PA); Stevens (R-AK); Sununu (R-NH); Thomas (R-WY); Thune (R-SD); Vitter (R-LA); Voinovich (R-OH); Warner (R-VA).

CAIR's Outrageous Conduct of the Day

Via Stop the ACLU:

CAIR has successfully shut down a friend's blog, Vilmar of Rightwing Howler. I'd provide a link, but it would only go to a suspended account. They claimed he was a hate site and quote he advocates the murder of Muslim children. Where did they get this idea? Well, he quoted some Satire from the well known satire site IMAO. I've gathered up quite some angry reactions to this. Most agree that CAIR should put their focus in shutting down all of the jihadi hate sites if they really want to make a difference. People are outraged and urging others to contact his server and ask them why they are afraid of CAIR. Please share with your readers.


Beth of MVRWC has a lot of details.

Outrageous doesn't begin to cover this. Free speech for me, but not for thee...

Does CAIR call for the shutdown of jihadi sites that announce and publicize the beheadings of infidels? Does CAIR call for the ISPs to shut down jihadi meeting places where they gather to discuss terrorist tactics and plot? They instead [seek to] shut down those that satirize the jihadis and Islamists who use their religious beliefs as a battering ram.

Now, this is not a situation where governments are involved, but rather private entities putting pressure on other entities to stop a particular kind of conduct. What CAIR is doing is pressuring and threatening those that shed light on the destructive nature of the jihadis and their fellow travelers.

This cannot stand.

UPDATE:
Right wing Howler posted a notice on his site. He had been considering quitting blogging for some time, and this gives him the opportunity to do so. He also says not to be too hard on the hosting ISP and put yourself in their shoes.

Okay. I'll put myself in their shoes. CAIR is trying to shake down anyone who doesn't kowtow to their line. I'd hold my ground against them. Did RWH actually violate the TOS or did they act precipitiously? RWH thinks that they were within their rights to do so. Again, that doesn't mean that the hosting service was right to do so.

And more to the point, it doesn't mean that CAIR gets to determine what can or can't be said about the jihadis and Islamists who seek to destroy our way of life. Satire is a useful tool in exposing the hypocrisy of the likes of CAIR and others who threaten to muzzle those who expose the jihadi and CAIR agendas.

The truly sad thing is that the text that CAIR complained of didn't even originate at RWH, but at another website, IMAO.

Ed Morrissey who notes the following - and with which I agree:

The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not prior restraint and silencing techniques. People who try to shut down bloggers have no interest in freedom and liberty.

Also, I added text above in brackets. Others blogging: Cao's Blog, Macker's World, Iowa Voice, and Barking Moonbat.

Not An Issue

Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in. The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.

Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."

"Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," he wrote. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.

I know why people are trying to make a big deal about Keith Ellison and his intent to be sworn in on a koran instead of a bible. It's a big deal to be the first Muslim sworn into the House of Representatives.

But here's the thing. The Constitution addresses the issue quite adequately. No where does it make any religious qualification for the office of Representative or Senator. No where does the Constitution require the swearing in on a bible.

Indeed, the First Amendment states things quite nicely:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Note that this does not require the separation of church and state, but rather the prohibition of government interference in the exercise of one's religion or creating an official religion sanctioned by government action.

While once can have questions and doubts about Ellison's politics, his request to be sworn in is fully within his rights.

More to the point, there were quite a few conservatives who disagreed with Prager on the matter, including Mark Levin on his radio show on Friday. Levin, whose legal knowledge is quite considerable, broke down the Ellison matter into simple legal terms - outlining what I noted above.

The fact is that Prager is wrong and one of the reasons that this nation is so great is that we do not have religious tests for political offices. Indeed, there are no such tests at all other than the ability to win elections. Voters in Minnesota found Ellison worthy of their votes and that was sufficient.

It will be up to his constituents to determine whether he does a good job for them over the next two years, and whether he or someone else should represent them.

Spiked

I'm assuming that everyone has heard that OJ Simpson had a book coming out, and was going to be interviewed on television about it? Well, Fox cancelled the book/television special. No reason was given. The Moderate Voice says that Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch considered the whole special to be ill-considered. Via MSNBC:

In the projects, Simpson speaks in hypothetical terms about how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Goldman.

Relatives of the victims have lashed out at the now scuttled publication and broadcast plans.

“He destroyed my son and took from my family Ron’s future and life. And for that I’ll hate him always and find him despicable,” Fred Goldman told ABC last week.

The industry trade publication Broadcasting & Cable editorialized against the show Monday, saying “Fox should cancel this evil sweeps stunt.”

One of the nation’s largest superstore chains, Borders Group Inc., said last week it would donate any profits on the book to charity.

I suspect that the change of heart had just a wee bit to do with the firestorm of criticism directed at the network and its related media outlets because of the publication. It goes to the bottom line, and the bean counters thought that this might do harm, though the old adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity was probably why this whole project went forward in the first place.

I have a couple of thoughts on the subject.

1) Does anyone really care what OJ Simpson says at this point? He was found not guilty by a jury in the criminal law trial that was best known for its multitude of gifts to the world - the infamous Bronco car chase, "... if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit," and who can't forget the Dancing Itos. Never mind that two people, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, were heinously slaughtered and a civil trial found OJ guilty. This was the mother of all celebrity trials, and who knows what would have happened had this happened in the present - bloggers would have had a field day with all the evidence and coverage.

2) The book and television special were creating quite a bit of buzz about OJ. The usual suspects were wondering whether this was a confession to the murders - psychoanalyzing whether OJ was confessing because of the burden of carrying around the secret all these years. All the armchair shrinks have a field day and bloggers have a story or two to write about - including myself.

3) Is this really going to change anything? Are we hearing anything new that we haven't already heard? Did OJ really find the real killer while playing golf all these years? Those who think he did it aren't changing their tune, nor do I suspect that those who thought he didn't do it have changed their minds as well.

4) What about free speech. You know, the same folks who would complain about censorship because the Dixie Chicks weren't able to get their advertisements on the air. Are they now going to complain because the Juice got canned? I don't think so.

Not that this is a free speech matter, let alone one of censorship. It was corporate decisions that led to the special being spiked, and there was no government involvment, a predicate for there being a free speech issue.

All in all, this is whole lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing at all.

At the end of the day, all that matters is that the Goldman family and Nicole Brown's relatives still mourn the loss of their loved ones. This latest move by OJ is not going to heal any wounds or salve any consciences, and only serves to reopen old wounds - primarily for the families of Ron and Nicole. Even OJ's lawyer can't believe that OJ went ahead with this book, and the television special.

UPDATE:
Quite a few folks are rendering their opinion on OJ and the decision to spike the tv program and book deal. Tammy Bruce wonders whether Simpson gets to keep the advance. Decision 08 thinks News Corp made the right decision and notes that this has nothing to do with censorship. Logic and sanity prevailed notes Sister Toldjah.

Michelle Malkin says OJ is out of juice. Her message to the media? Stop feeding the troll. Three words for Malkin: Not.Gonna.Happen. Someone will pay to publish the story; someone will pay to get the interview; and someone will pay to hear/see Simpson.

Also blogging: AJ Strata, Wake Up America, Scared Monkeys, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Hot Air.

Technorati: oj simpson, ron goldman, nicole brown simpson.

Common Sense on McCain

Sen. John McCain is an opportunist. Good politicians usually are. He's saying all the right things now about how the GOP needs to stand for smaller government, less taxes, and the usual things that conservatives and libertarians would agree with.

The big problem is that McCain's record shows anything but disdain for those conservative values.

The Left Coaster notes that McCain is busy pandering to the right wing conservative base. It's a very good point. He is pandering. All the visits to places like GOPAC or The Federalist Society do nothing to burnish his actual record.

You do remember his record, don't you?

Member of Keating Five. McCain got cited for questionable conduct in that whole affair. But he's managed to resurrect his career by being considered a maverick.

Part of that image includes running on issues that run counter to what most GOP base voters would find objectionable - open borders for one. More importantly, as Rob Port also notes, McCain was a prime author of McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, which is in actuality an abomination that undermines free speech for all, by specifically limiting political speech. Political speech was precisely the kind and form of speech that the Founding Fathers were concerned about when they designed the Bill of Rights. It is from political speech that other rights flows. Yet, McCain wanted to limit where and how that speech was conducted, and who could provide that speech.

Others blogging: Liberty Lounge.

Dumb and Dumber

Not sure why NBC or the CW thinks that the commercials for the new Dixie Chicks movie isn't worthy of being broadcast on their network, but unless this is a calculated manufactured story to increase the exposure of the Dixie Chicks, NBC really doesn't have any reason to object to the commercials. The CW says that they do not have any programming content where the ads would be appropriate. Mmm-kay. Right.

The movie takes a look at the fallout from statements made by the band's members in 2003. Exciting stuff. Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's got Bush bashing, politics, Democrats, and red meat for Dixie Chick fans in a documentary style.

There are supposedly machinations to take legal action against the networks despite the fact that the networks have every right not to run the commercial. After all, it has its profits and bottom line to look after. This isn't so much a free speech issue as it is companies looking after the bottom line.

However, what do they think they gain from not running it? They get bad press, and may in the end run the ads anyway. Will it curry favor with those who think that the Dixie Chicks were way out of line or somehow censored. From what I can tell, the basic premise of the movie is that the Dixie Chicks were censored once their political views became known. If by censored they mean getting [more press and attention].

That's why I think it's part of a plan to increase exposure without running the ads. And it's not a bad strategy either. It increases the exposure at no cost to the studio.

UPDATE:
Others noting the kerfuffle over the Dixie Chicks and the supposed snub by NBC and CW: Blue Crab Boulevard, The Political Pit Bull, Lorie Byrd and Outside the Beltway both note the style of this story has all the hallmarks of a PR stunt - even down to NBC and CW stating that there was no such snub but that the studio wasn't going to do a national buy, Ed Driscoll, and Ian Schwartz and Jo's Cafe.

Mary Katherine Ham, among others notes that it must be rough getting censored and appearing on the talk show circuit to discuss the censorship.