Jim Wallis slips, tells the truth

This is Political Correctness defined: Dissenters are to "stop talking".
In other words: "Shut up," he explained.

Happy Chic-fil-A Appreciation Day

National Day of Blogger Silence

June 8, 2012, is the National Day of Blogger Silence. Since I'm silent more than I blog, I'm celebrating it by speaking out about free speech.   Let's start by pointing to an excellent discussion of free speech from Australia, where they don't have a First Amendment to protect them from the sort of shenanigans we're protesting today. This is where they're trying to herd us:

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I'm not that much good at drawing, so mine's in the form of a rebus:

And yes, it's midnight GMT, so we're joining the party.

Poor Muslims aren't allowed to have any Ham. You know, I pity them.

DBD Nails It (Again)

If you are reading Day by Day already, you don't need me to tell you how well Chris Muir nailed the latest outrage brewing in Congress:

If you aren't, what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is wrong with you?

I turned Charles into a newt, or something.

Ever wonder what it takes to be purged by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs? Well, wonder no more. I have demonstrated it.

You see, Charles doesn't like being lumped in with Rabid Reich Winger RethugliKKKans. So he's drawn some lines in the sand. He doesn't much like "Intelligent Design", nor "racists" (a term that includes as guilty by association anyone who ever attends any event at which anyone else he considers a "racist" attends, but we'll get to that one in more detail later), nor <dramatic music>"Nirthers".

He is so freaked out by the controversies over Barack Obama's birth, the possibility of his ever having citizenship of the UK, Kenya, and/or Indonesia, that he will not tolerate anything that faintly resembles advocacy of "Nirtherism". Well, the other day, Charles decided to take another shot at that particular punching bag:

Even among people who accept that Barack Obama is a US citizen, a sort of “spinoff” idea keeps coming up in our discussions of the Nirther craziness: that Barack Obama “won’t release” his original birth certificate (some people refer to it as a “long form” certificate) because there’s something on it he wants to hide.

The two most common explanations suggested by LGF commenters for this “hidden info” are that the birth certificate: 1) lists Obama’s religion as “Muslim,” or 2) lists his race as “black” or “white” (both possibilities have been argued).
...
Note that there is no space on the form for any kind of religion, and no space for either the religion or the race of the baby, although the race of both parents is listed.
...
Status: debunked.

Let's boil his argument down to its essentials:

1. There is a meme floating about that Obama won't allow people to see his "long-form" birth certificate because "has something to hide"
2. He might be trying to hide how his race or religion is listed. (Note that Charles' commenters helpfully supplied this nose and hat.)
3. There is no place on a Hawaii "long-form" birth certificate to list a child's race or religion.
4. ???
5. Therefore there can't possibly be anything at all on his "long-form" birth certificate that he wants to hide, and anyone who thinks there might be is looney.

It seems to me that last step is a doozy. Let's try an equivalent argument:

1. Alice thinks Bob has a book from the library.
2. Carol wonders if it's is the eighth in the Harry Potter series, and Dave opined that it could be the ninth.
3. J. K. Rowling has only written seven Harry Potter books.
4. ???
5. Therefore Bob doesn't have a book from the library, and Alice is cuckoo, at least according to Carol and Dave's friend.

Does that make any sense to you? Me either. But I've noticed LGF changing over the last few years. As Charles has excommunicated people for various heresies, the remaining lizards have become an echo chamber, unwilling to challenge such logical fallacies.

It's really a shame, because I remember the halcyon days when he stood up against the faked TxANG memo (aka "Ra^thergate". In fact, I find it ironic that the Left used similar logic to "debunk" the arguments we made. Yes, I contributed to those discussions:

I just heard a talk jock take ONE call on the forgery issue. He erected the straw man of 'proportional', found the reference that IBM was selling proportional typewriters in the '40s, and declared the issue closed.

The words 'Times New Roman' were never uttered.

The point I made then was eerily similar to what I make now: We in the Dextrosphere were saying that no typewriter in a TxANG office in 1973 would be able to do all of a list of things, and the Lefties thought they "debunked" our reasoning by pointing to a list of machines, each of which could do some of the things in the list, but none of which could done them all.

It's also the same kind of twisted logic as they use to oppose the Iraq War: The Bush administration outlined a list of reasons to go to war, one of which was that Saddam Hussein was trying to build WMDs. Because our troops never found huge stockpiles of WMDs armed and ready to fire at them, there was therefore no threat that there would be any WMDs, so not only does that reason fail, but all of the others with it. It doesn't make any sense when they say it, and it doesn't make any sense when "one of ours" says it either.

One of his pet lizards went so far as to make this bizarre statement:

The burden of proof is not on Obama- it is on the nirthers to provide reasonable evidence he was not born in the United States. What Obama is doing here is upholding the rule of law. He is innocent until proven guilty.

That final sentence is a particularly nasty bit of logical gymnastics. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. the private person is not accused of a crime. No one has threatened to imprison him, confiscate his property, deny him the right to go about public places as he pleases, nor even to detain him temporarily and question him in connection with the investigation of suspicious behavior at his home. He is the one who claims to hold power over our lives, including the power to do those very things to us (or to order others to do them) should he or his subordinates deem any of them necessary.

If he has that power, it is because he has been given it by the Electors in conformance with the Constitution of the United States of America. Some people have raised various overlapping questions about whether he has done so. He is not entitled to the presumption that those questions are without merit. The burden of proof belongs on the person who wishes to exercise the power to limit another's freedom, whether that be the prosecution in a criminal proceeding, or the candidate for any office that carries such power.

Besides, it is logically fallacious to insist that someone produce evidence they have been legally forbidden to obtain. So, I responded, initially to the above comment, but also to the larger issue:

That makes no sense at all. His records are sealed, requiring him to release them. Since he controls access to the information that would prove his place of birth, it is impossible for anyone else to prove anything without his cooperation.

The new-style CertificatION Of Live Birth does not carry any signature, nor does specify which hospital, the name of the attending physician, or a great deal of information that the original "long-form" CertificATE Of Live Birth shows.

Nor does this view of someone else's long-form CoLB debunk the idea that there is something on it that Obama doesn't want us to see. It merely debunks the idea that the religion of the child is the particular thing in question.

The fact remains that Obama himself has refused to allow anyone to see his original birth certificate, his school records from Indonesia, Princeton, or Harvard, and the passport information that would show whether he used his US passport to travel to Pock-EE-stohn, or perhaps instead used an Indonesian passport.

Because if he travelled as an adult on a passport issued by some other country, he may legally have renounced his citizenship, and regained it later when he decided to enter into a political career. As a re-naturalized citizen, there is a reasonable argument that he therefore isn't a natural-born citizen. These are interesting legal questions, which have never been answered, because no court has allowed the questions to be decided. Instead, the courts that have had suits come before them have all insisted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to do so, as if a mere citizen has no right to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office.

By wrapping up all of the questions being asked into the single package called "Birtherism" or "Nirtherism", it becomes possible to take the statement by a HI official that the records do in fact indicate that Obama was born there as a refutation of all of the other questions.

But that's not the worst rejection I've heard of the Nirthers. The most disgusting of all goes this way: "He won the election, and you can't just invalidate the election on a 'technicality'; there would be riots if that happened."

In January, Obama took (and later retook, to make sure the words were in the right order) an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. The qualifications for his office clearly stated therein are not a "technicality"; they are the legal basis for the oaths taken by every other USGOV employee to follow his executive orders, including the military. If you have never taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, maybe you just don't understand how important it is to those who have.

And that's who filed the most recent suit; uniformed servicemen, who need to know that the orders they are following are lawful, no matter how popular the person giving them, may be.

I attracted a few non-sequitur responses, and 10 down-dings on my comment, which put me on Charles' radar screen for my auto-da-fé from the Lizard Kingdom:

I'm not going to tolerate idiots who promote Nirtherism at LGF.

"The Monster" is blocked.

Now, Charles is entirely within his rights to ban me from his site. And I am entirely within mine to respond. But even though I would be within my rights to ban him here in retaliation, I won't. I'll let him come over here and explain why my comment was so noxious that he simply couldn't tolerate my participation on his site any further. But if he does, I ask that he also explain why debunking one particular idea of what President Obama is trying to hide on his long-form birth certificate somehow invalidates the notion that he's hiding something else.

And by the way.... Is National Review Online's Andrew C. McCarthy a "Nirther" now?

The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?

UPDATE: Someone who still has posting privileges over there quoted McCarthy in another thread, (discussing a purported Kenyan birth certificate that is likely to be a fake) prompting Charles in Charge to call him a Nirther. Since he was responding to McCarthy's words, I think that means Charles has officially classified McCarthy as a Nirther too, despite the fact that McCarthy says he's "quite confident" that Obama was born in Hawaii. This stretching of "Nirther" to include anyone who asks why Obama refuses to disclose information proves my point that Charles has conveniently packaged together a diverse collection of questions and contentions under a single umbrella, and tars them all with the broadest brush imaginable. Argumentum ad stramentam.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

CATO: Free Speech v. The Federal Election Commission

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is so hard to understand?

We may be on the 'Losing Side' - ain't convinced that's the 'Wrong Side'

Take the quiz and then go man your station:
Here's mine:



Seems to only make sense - seeing how many of us 'Aim to Misbehave'.

- MuscleDaddy

The Death of the Fairness Doctrine - and Dick Durbin's work-around

Just to get this part out of the way:

The real point of a “fairness doctrine” would be to silence such voices as Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham & Glenn Beck – by forcing radio stations to broadcast equal time-slots of such personalities as Joy Behar, Al Franken, and Roseanne Barr. This would (as has been demonstrated) offset the money-making ability of the conservative shows, and very likely make the whole endeavor not worth the financial-effort for the local radio stations – which would, in turn, drop the whole talk-radio format in favor of something that would reliably sell advertising.

There - now we're all on the same page.


If you were paying close attention to the news recently, you may have heard that senator Jim DeMint was able to push through an amendment to prevent the FCC from forcing the enactment of a “Fairness Doctrine” – which would use the FCC’s “public interest” clause under TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 303. Powers and duties of Commission
to force (in the “public interest”) broadcast media (read: Talk Radio) to devote “equal time” to opposing-viewpoints.

Senator Jim DeMint, realizing that a bureaucratic-process quashing of free-speech would be just as egregious as any other kind, inserted an amendment into Senate Bill 160 – the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 - A bill with the intended purpose of granting that : ”… the District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.”

Knowing that the assembled body would be …(ahem).. ‘unlikely’ to vote-down a bill granting DC one more voice on the national stage, Senator Demint included the following amendment:


DeMint Amdt. No. 573 - To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

SEC. 9. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

(a) Limitation on General Powers: Fairness Doctrine.--Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)--

``(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or

``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.''.

(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

So there it is, right?

After a winning vote of 87-11, the FCC cannot (even under threat or political pressure) bureaucratically, or by virtue of internal process, re-enact the conditions of the Fairness Doctrine – “Done and done”, as they say.

...Well,...not quite.


Enter Senator Dick “Americans are Nazis” Durbin


You see, knowing that Senator Demint was moving to block the re-emergence of the Fairness Doctrine in a time & way unlikely to be opposed, Senator Durbin countered by inserting his own amendment into the very same Bill.

Knowing also that he couldn’t insert an amendment with language in direct-opposition to an already-accepted amendment, Senator Durbin (in a move remniscent of colleague Barney Frank) went quietly for a back-door:

Durbin S.Amdt. 591: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.

``SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

``(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.--The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

``(b) Construction.--Nothing in section 303A (the section created by Demint’s Amendment – MD) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.

(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

Looking at the money-quotes there:

- The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership

- ...to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

- Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission

- ...regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.


Written with specific language intended to thwart the spirit of Demint’s amendment – with the application of Durbin’s oh-so-thinly-veiled amendment language – the FCC may not be able to specifically dictate the content of a particular radio station’s programming…

But they can determine that the “decisions” of a particular radio-station-owning company indicate that their ownership of said radio-stations does not sufficiently “encourage and promote diversity” – demonstrating, in turn, that license is not being used “in the public interest”.

Ownership & Licensing decisions that “Nothing in Section 303A” shall limit.


In short:

While Durbin couldn’t find a way to allow the FCC to dictate “diverse-broadcast-content”, he could make sure that no-one could stop the FCC from shutting-down a radio station for lack of “diverse-broadcast-ownership”.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]



In the face of losing the Fairness Doctrine, Dick Durbin has created a back-door.

So now what do we do?

- MuscleDaddy

Looks like I'm not the only one...

...who's "too clever by half".

I haven't posted anything about the latest 'cartoon-scandal' before - mostly because it's already over-done and I try to stay away from doing a straight "me-too" thing here on the Gazette.

But something happened the other day to change my mind.

We've got this talk-radio station here in the Denver-area, and they carry a drive-home show - "Caplis & Silverman". They do a sort of medium-power "Hannity & Colmes" schtick, with Dan Caplis in the 'Conservative' seat and Craig Silverman usually trying to defend the indefensible.

Yes, it's been done, but I usually really like the way Caplis is able to destroy opposing arguements by just maintaing his cool, staying focused, keeping to the facts instead of 'feelings' and almost never biting at Silverman's straw-arguments, and I also keep listening because they hit a lot of local issues.

But...

Holy Crap, were they in-synch with their PC, apologetic (nearly apoplectic) hand-wringing over the "Cartoon Scandal"!

The only thing that kept them from singing "It was Wrong, Racist, and Called for Obama's Assassination" in four-part harmony, was that there are only two of them with dedicated microphones.

Personally - I didn't see it.

Having been reading & banging on the "Great Generational Theft Act of 2009" as much as I have (and will continue to do), my first reaction to the newest "Killer Cartoon" was:

"Heh... Yeah - Crazed Chimp Shot - Crazed Chimp had to have Written the 'Stimulus' - Have to Get A New Crazed Chimp If They Want to Write a New One..."

But 'Oh, No', I am told over the sound of the knuckle-chafing hand-wringing - 'The *Chimp* is really Racist Code for *Obama*' (who, of course, wrote the Stim... no, wait - he didn't) and the police officers who have shot the *Chimp* aren't really a temporal reference to the sensationalized story of actual Officers who had to shoot an Actual Crazed Chimp - No! - that's really a call for the *assassination* of *Obama*.

Now, I've come to expect that sort of thing from Silverman, who appears to check the LGBT/Rainbow-Push-Index to know whether righteous indignation is in order, but that Dan Caplis wasn't even trying to apply Occam's Razor to what was right in front of him?

This finally bothered me so much, that I just pulled over and called-in to the show, pointing out my reaction to the cartoon (before the Reverend Sharpton told me what I was *allowed* to think, of course) and attempting to explain that sometimes-a-comic-is-just-a-comic and that the sort of Offense-Seeking-Grievance-Mongering that has resulted is not only a direct connection to Eric Holder's "Nation of Cowards" speech, but also the very reason that any "frank discussion of Race" will never, ever be allowed in the US (for, invariably, the Sharpton-Shakedown and sycophantic 'mea-culpas' will ensue).

In response, (by the "Conservative" no less) I was told that to take the cartoon @ face-value - and without applying *Racist Code* to it, the Author and the Newspaper was just being "Too Clever By Half".

As I was given the bum's-rush off-line, my parting remark was that I must be more "Post-Racial" than Eric Holder.

Well, now it looks like I'm not the only Clever-Kid on the block:

Will The Real Monkey Stand Up!
Rev. Peterson of BOND Action, Inc. Blasts Sharpton Over NY Post Cartoon Controversy

Yup - looks like the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND is calling 'foul' on the Race-Baiters as well.

"The Post cartoon was provocative, but not racist. And it certainly was not an 'invitation' to assassinate President Obama. These are manufactured allegations by racist left-wing Democrat operatives. Sharpton, the NAACP, and their angry supporters want to intimidate and silence independent media outlets like The New York Post and The FOX News Channel. The cartoon was poking fun at the ineptness of those who wrote the horrible stimulus welfare package -- nothing more.

"I've said repeatedly on my national radio show that Barack Obama was elected because of white guilt and black racism. The majority of whites voted for Obama to prove once and for all that they don't have racial hang-ups. Ninety-six percent of blacks voted for him because of his race. We now have the first black president and his party leading our nation towards socialism; and anyone who dares poke fun or criticize are racists?

"Most blacks see racism under every rock and newspaper because they've never repented of their anger and racism toward whites. But this so-called boycott is not about racism; it's an attempt to muzzle free speech. And it's apparent who the real monkey is in this circus."

So - who's interpretation to go with?

Grievance-Monger "Reverend Sharpton" and other like-minded career Shakedown Artists...

Or Reverend Peterson, who has always held that self-determination is the way to build families & society?

Never mind - I think I've already got it figured out.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - Dan Caplis - that you immediately "recognized" the *Chimp* as 'code' for *Obama* - means that you also had to automatically associate *Obama* with the *Chimp*

... so what's really goin' on?

P.P.S. - The morning guy on KHOW - Peter Boyles - is great.

Is the Honeymoon Already Over?

Is it possible that Obama's press pass may actually have an expiration date? Here Campbell Brown takes Obama to task for derisively dismissing the "tough questions" about his apparent change of heart regarding Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience/expertise. Now, granted, the toughness of this question must be judged on a sliding scale, but still . . . is this a sign of things to come? Is that possible?

Major Leftist Newspapers Still Sliding

The percentage loss over the last four years (to 9/2007) in average daily circulation for major leftist weekday newspapers, along with their current circulation. Those with over a half million circulation are in bold. (NB, The Wall Street Journal has a very leftist editorial board.)

 -2.1% USA Today, 2,293,000
 -3.8% The Wall Street Journal, 2,012,000
 -6.5% New York Daily News, 681,000
 -7.2% The New York Times,  1,038,000
 -8.8% Chicago Tribune, 559,000
 -8.9% The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, 333,000
 -9.1% Houston Chronicle, 503,000
 -9.2% Detroit Free Press, 320,000
-10.0% == Newspaper Industry Average Loss ==
-10.2% (Minneapolis) Star Tribune, 342,000
-10.2% The Philadelphia Inquirer, 338,000
-10.9% The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, 385,000
-13.3% The Washington Post, 635,000
-13.6% The (Newark) Star-Ledger, 353,000
-16.8% The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 318,000
-19.9% The Boston Globe, 361,000
-20.2% Los Angeles Times, 795,000
-28.8% San Francisco Chronicle, 374,000

Stock tip, stay away from the SF Chronicle.

From my cold dead hands

Errr, or something like that.

Ezra Levant Update

Ezra Levant has a blog where he is chronicling his experience with the Alberta Human Rights Commission kangaroo court. He has several more videos of his interrogation posted as well as an in depth look at this extremely misguided process.

Little Green Footballs points to an example of the grammatically and ethically challenged thoughts of Mr. Levant's accuser, Syed B. Soharwardy.

[Ed. Note: Our previous story about Levant is here]

Speaking the truth

Magazine publisher Ezra Levant appears before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.