May 6, 2009

Enjoy It While We Can

Ezra Levant, on how he was saved by the internet.

Had I been charged with hate speech 10 years ago, I could not have fought back as effectively. If all this had happened in 1996 instead of 2006, few would have known anything about my battle. YouTube, which brought my story alive for 600,000 people by the time the traffic died down, debuted only in 2005. Before that, there was no universally surfed repository of current event–themed videos, and bloggers were much less prevalent. And without the credit card donations made possible by PayPal (which was started in 2000), it’s unlikely that I could have raised the money to cover my legal expenses.

In short, the Internet saved me. In that sense, my story isn’t just about free speech. It’s also about the way new technology has leveled the playing field between big government and private citizens.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”


The bill is a telling example of how the American Left has turned against free speech and civil liberties. The bill’s sponsor, Linda Sanchez (D-CA), and nearly all of her 14 co-sponsors are liberals. All of them backed the federal hate-crimes bill passed by the House yesterday, which is designed to allow people who have been found innocent in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court..

Could mean big trouble for Andrew Sullivan...


Posted by Kate at May 6, 2009 11:07 AM

The Phantom has two pronouncements on this.

1) Toldja. Who's a paranoid now, Lefties?

2) Good luck to the DemocRats making this stick. Even the Chicoms and Cubans can't make it stick, with concentration camps and secret police on every f-ing street corner.

DemocRats: Evil AND Stupid.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 6, 2009 11:11 AM

Legistlating a 1 party State???

Posted by: sasquatch at May 6, 2009 11:14 AM

This cannot fly, there is too much vitriol on both sides to shut it down now. The loss of entertainment value would be too great.

With Hollywood and music as bad as they are now, we need whatever sources of good entertainment possible. There is no better entertainment than in the world of politics ... that is show biz for ugly people with little talent.

Sort of like a gong show. Not to be missed.

Posted by: Momar at May 6, 2009 11:17 AM

Well Obama said he was bringing a new era of open and free government.

He just didn't say which direction he was going in his new era.

Posted by: Fred at May 6, 2009 11:18 AM

'Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them...
Once passed, I guess us Rightist riffraff down here in the lower 56 will have to rely on you'll to the North for our news?

Posted by: martywd at May 6, 2009 11:19 AM

What the hell ever happened to "sticks and stones ..." and all that wonderful stuff?

Posted by: Axeman at May 6, 2009 11:23 AM

I'm actually debating whether to start a Canadian blog, hosted on a Canadian site, so that I can actually write about US politics without being jailed.

By the way, thanks for the hat-tip, Kate!

Posted by: Wintery Knight at May 6, 2009 11:38 AM

What about the vicious assault on Sarah Palin? Does this mean that those people could be jailed?

The assaults against Christians? Against anyone who objects to abortion?

What about the malice against Bush? Cheney? Rice?

What about Obama's denigration of Limbaugh, Hannity and Tea Parties. Does his telepromper not count as a blog?

Posted by: ET at May 6, 2009 11:43 AM

I've tried, twice, to post on this but get sent to the corner. I'm not sure which words are triggering the filter.

But, does this law mean that all those people who trashed Palin would go to jail? And the same with Bush?

Posted by: ET at May 6, 2009 11:45 AM

Chris Matthews did the same thing to Michelle Malkin face-to-face several years ago. (Aren't you cute? How old are you?) I wonder if the panel 'discussion' is on youtube?

Posted by: andycanuck at May 6, 2009 11:46 AM

Could mean big trouble for Andrew Sullivan...

You can be sure that the bureaucracy for this new bill will have the same approach to leftist and liberal bloogers as Canadian Human Rights Commissions have to all non-white, non-Chrisitian, LGBT, differently abled persons. Any complaints against these people will disappear down the memory hole never to be seen again. No investigations, or prosecutions will ever occur.
This bill is directed only at those right leaning bloogers who dare to question the liberal groupthink that has invaded the U.S. How dare anyone question Global Warming, ACORN, Obama, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any other liberal program that is designed to appease the “Entitlement Generation”. If this is allowed to continue the next thing you know these people are going to expect that people actually have to earn their keep, including politicians.

Posted by: Kerry D. Barton at May 6, 2009 11:48 AM

And the "progressive" left regresses once more. Let's all hope such an open language Orwellian bill is not passed.

" Rightist riffraff down here in the lower 56 will ..."

snicker snicker, lower 56 :D

Posted by: meshuggah at May 6, 2009 11:54 AM

The mask seems to be slipping a bit. Isn't all the scary stuff supposed to start happening in the post off year election second half of the term when everyone has gone back to sleep and big "O" finally gets security clearances for his "A Team"?

Are there worries Acorn and rich backers can't deliver the goods for the next couple of decades?

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at May 6, 2009 11:58 AM

Gee - wonder why they didn't propose this bill when dubya was POTUS. The loonie lefties are really getting out of control. Obummer said they were not going to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". Don't be surprised if he does anyway. He is showing himself to be quite the liar.

Posted by: a different bob at May 6, 2009 11:59 AM

"Substantial emotional distress"

This is on the internet so thankfully Dave will be off to Gitmo.

Posted by: richfisher at May 6, 2009 12:01 PM

"two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them..." -- That's astonishing and I suspect counter to the First Amendment. So I guess if such a thing were passed in Canada we would not be allowed to discuss Ruby Dallah and the nanny issue.

Posted by: LindaL at May 6, 2009 12:15 PM

"Hate speech" laws equal censorship, pure and simple. One right that citizens of a democracy DON'T have is the right to not be offended.

Firstly, adults should have a thick, adult skin and secondly, if you don't like what someone said or wrote, come up with a better counter-argument. That's what's known as "the marketplace of ideas".

Rather than tyrannical censorship, a free society operates under the idea expressed by the great American Supreme Court Justice Brandeis a century ago, that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" to obnoxious speech, not restriction of the natural rights of Freedom of Speech and Press.

Posted by: Dave in Pa. at May 6, 2009 12:16 PM

Liberal fascism at work.

Posted by: grok at May 6, 2009 12:19 PM

I guess Ezra owes Al Gore a 'thank you', then.

Posted by: andycanuck at May 6, 2009 12:32 PM

The post's quotations include mention of the passage of the "hate crimes" bill.

What's little known is that the "hate crimes" bill grants protection to ALL sexual "orientations" (hundreds of them are listed by the APA), including pedophilia.

No doubt all kinds of sick freakazoids will be protected from so-called "hate crimes", as we know that Obama will certainly have his people ("judges") in the courts, including the SCOTUS, rule according to the wishes of the Far Left.

And, dare I predict, knowing how things actually work in the real world, that this likely will lead to the legalization of pedophilia and whatever other psychosexual depravities you can think of...

With each day, we see even more extremism being committed by the Obama Regime.

Is there any doubt now that the Obama Regime is a Left-Wing Extremist regime?

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 6, 2009 12:35 PM

That law will of course be interpreted asymmetrically. If a Democrat calls a Republican a drunken pedophile, that will officially be "fair comment". If a Republican says that a Democrat embraces an economic policy which might prove unsound, that will be considered hate speech.

Under such oppression, the use of coded speech tends to grow, as in France in WWII.

Posted by: John Lewis at May 6, 2009 12:45 PM

Ezra's in Winnipeg tomorrow!

Canadian Sentinel now if someone rapes an american child and the parent slugs them it will be a hate crime.

They wanted change, they got it!

Posted by: dinosaur at May 6, 2009 12:46 PM

"I've tried, twice, to post on this but get sent to the corner. I'm not sure which words are triggering the filter.

But, does this law mean that all those people who trashed Palin would go to jail? And the same with Bush?
Posted by: ET at May 6, 2009 11:45 AM "

Let's see....bill to ET for new keyboard and medical expenses to have cup removed for nose!

Now that is sarcasm I like,ET. Now let's see how many leftards are going to try to answer your rhetorical question!?!?! (if they can figure out rhetorical)

Posted by: Justthinkin at May 6, 2009 12:47 PM

If this law does pass the market for faux/proxy servers and un-traceable accounts will soar.

The best intentions of morons are usually easily by passed.

Posted by: Fred at May 6, 2009 12:50 PM

If this law does pass the market for faux/proxy servers and un-traceable accounts will soar.


Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 6, 2009 1:01 PM

Thought for the day:

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people.

A disarmed public can't fight back." -- Adolf Hitler

If the word is 'mightier than the sword' ... then this proposal is no different than what Hitler said.

Remember folks, the one thing that all slaves have in common, is that they don't own guns. Nor, apparently, blog sites.

It's all unfolding as it should eh ... the control freaks enslaving the freedom lovers.

The freedom lovers has better get their asses in gear and start fighting back.

Posted by: Momar at May 6, 2009 1:04 PM

At some point, the peasants will storm the Bastille and lop off some heads.

Faster please.

Posted by: Warwick at May 6, 2009 1:04 PM

The use of the word "“harass” here is a bit foolish. If a public figure were to be harassed by a blog, would they not have to make a point of going to that blog to read what is being said. Online harassment is not the same as blocking access to buildings or even threatening phone calls. The online environment is a neutral forum where people can express and counter ideas. This will quickly turn into harassment of the bloggers for simply criticizing.

Posted by: LindaL at May 6, 2009 1:11 PM

Shades of PET's Bill C-3.

Anything challenging PET was "hate speech".

Obama is Turdeau with a tan.

Posted by: Curious at May 6, 2009 1:15 PM

Funny how the left accuses everyone else of being what they actually are themselves without the slightest hint of self awareness and without understanding the irony of their actions.

Hypocrisy doesn't come close to describing what these demented, unsound, irrational people suffer.

Here's a good story about that very thing:

Posted by: Warwick at May 6, 2009 1:21 PM

"What's little known is that the "hate crimes" bill grants protection to ALL sexual "orientations" (hundreds of them are listed by the APA), including pedophilia."

Psychologically speaking, pedophilia and homosexuality are the exact same thing.

The bill Canadian Sentinel refers to is a result of categorizing homosexuality as a right instead of a choice. If it was a choice, the sexual act is a choice between two adults; therefore no crime. Because the sexual act is a right, this right MUST be extended to pedophiles; but, a young child MUST be violated for the sexual act to be carried out; therefore, a crime has been committed. Right?


These conflicts will be resolved the same way other conflicts are resolved between historically discriminated against identifiable groups(HDAIG); your rights are void if the violation is perpetrated by someone higher up on the HDAIG hierarchy. So, if a child is raped by a pedophile the child will not receive justice because the pedophile is a more important victim; but, that same child will be very empowered by international children’s rights if his parents send him to bed without supper.

I haven't heard any commentary from the gay community regarding the aforementioned bill. It will be interesting to see how they justify supporting this one.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 6, 2009 1:22 PM

Momar, contrary to Edward Bulwer-Lytton, the pen in not mightier than the sword. But it is easier to hide on your person. ~:D

Mr. Obama is right now proving the contrary axiom: You can get more with a smile and a gun than you can with just a smile.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 6, 2009 1:23 PM

Leftist positions cannot stand up to the scrutiny of free expression.

By the way, I linked to your article from Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is an Idiot

Posted by: bernie at May 6, 2009 1:30 PM

We're living through a slow-motion revolution of the left, but that does not mean that our counter-revolution needs to be waged at the same incremental pace.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at May 6, 2009 1:40 PM

Fascism on the march is what this is. I must comment on the statement that this is an example of how the American Left has turned against free speech and civil liberties, for in fact the Left anywhere has never ever supported free speech or civil liberties. Their track record confirms it. The myth, of course, is that the Left supports both just as the myth that the Left supports and represents tolerance. The Left, being fascist, will never support tolerance for anyone who is out of step with its ideology.

Posted by: Alain at May 6, 2009 1:45 PM

I have no doubt that the Fairness Doctrine will show it's face again, before 2010 elections I predict; just as I agree with those that said BO will flip-flop on gay marriage before 2012. His current stance on gay marriage and the Fairness Doctrine were at the time good politics. IMO his position on these two topics don't reflect his personal views(an educated guess) and he will address these issues at the earliest politically opportune time.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 6, 2009 1:46 PM

"t's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.

Ah, but that's the Good Totalitarianism. What about the Bad Totalitarianism? You know, the one everybody disapproves of: Nazism. Isn't it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, "hateful words" led to "unspeakable crimes"? This argument is offered routinely: if only there'd been "reasonable limits on the expression of hatred" 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There's just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such "reasonable limits." Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, put it:

"Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. "

Posted by: richfisher at May 6, 2009 1:51 PM

Saw this one coming when "o" had his lawyers stationed at polls "threatening" to arrest anyone who said he was Muslim or any other "untruth". There was no outrage mentioned in the MSM regarding him using this outrageous tactic at the time either.

Posted by: No-One at May 6, 2009 2:02 PM

Actually, I took a look at the bill. It's about cyber bullying and states:

"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

First, it doesn't seem addressed to 'public figures' in the sense in which I understand the term, to mean a political figure. Or anyone in the public eye. It can refer to one teen spreading hateful lies about another, on the net.

The problem with this is that 'cyberbullying' is gossip. Gossip, mean-spirited tales, outright lies, etc, are basic to mankind. They have been kept in place by moral standards, espoused by religious rules (thou shalt not speak ill..etc).

There is no way that a state can legislate gossip, malice, jealousy etc. No way. A state is not a means of enforcing ethics and morality. Only a values system, a religion or whatever, can do that.

Second, it is almost impossible to link cause to effect in such an emotional interaction as speech causing an effect.

We, in Canada, have been 'able' to do this in our HRCs ONLY because the HRC tribunals have moved themselves totally and completely out of the requirement for any evidentiary proof of cause and effect. Indeed, our HRCs moved out of the requirement for any effect whatsoever! As long as the inquisitors, the HRC people, themselves decided, without evidence, that there was 'the likelihood' of an effect and that such and such 'might' cause it - that was it.

I think that this bill will be difficult to put through, not only because of the First Amendment, but because providing a court with factual evidence of intention, and of cause and effect, will be almost impossible.

Now, if the US wants to instead, go The Canadian Way, and remove facticity, remove any requirement for any effects to have even occurred, remove any relation between cause and effect, and instead, leave all authorship of 'reality' in the hands of a small, unelected, patronage appointees - well, that's their choice.

At least, Americans have a choice. Our HRCs weren't put through parliament; no vote on their requirement or existence was ever done.

Posted by: ET at May 6, 2009 2:14 PM

Here you go, I'll comment from the gay community. The problem as I see it is that sexual orientation is not defined in the bill. Homosexuality between adults harms no one.

The other items listed are sexual turn ons, not orientation as I understand it.

Posted by: Kyla at May 6, 2009 2:27 PM

people are going to have to die for their freedom. "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" if our freedom to call some politican an asshole is infringed upon then we have the right to spill the blood of the tyrants that tried to take that freedom away.

Posted by: old white guy at May 6, 2009 2:43 PM

I think "saved" may be too strong a word. Rescued maybe. There ain't no saving Canuckians.

Read your municipal/rural plan. The only thing you own about your property is the right to pay taxes. Think it's going to get better?

Try going for a Sunday drive without running into a regular save the world from seatbeltless drivers/papers please police state roadblock. Think it's going to get better?

How much of YOUR income are you salvaging from your government these days? Think it's going to get better?

Would you like to be in any way involved with your " Justice System"? Any government agency?
Think it's going to get better?

Some sycophantic Stapi student/Lucy is monitoring your comments for a government that can't wait to penalize you for your misbehaviour/thoughts/morals.
Think it's going to get better?

No, I don't think Canadians are in any way saved. I'd just like to see them get off their knees.

Posted by: bud at May 6, 2009 2:53 PM

Sounds like there may well be another American Revolution.

Coincidentally (then again, maybe not), I see, via Drudge Report, that the House of Oklahoma has passed a bill effectively declaring sovereignty, meaning that the Feds had better butt out of areas where they're not Constitutionally allowed to operate. Next hurdle: OK Senate. Then it goes to Washington, as a message, more or less, saying PFO.

America is starting to look more and more like the old Liberal Soviet Canuckistan all the time, ever since Obama stole the Presidency. Only worse.

Five years ago I wouldn't ever have imagined the incredible switcheroo between socialist-dictatorship Canada and free America. At least with the Conservatives in power, we don't have the latest of Left-Wing Extremism being imposed upon us, as the Liberals would, no doubt, do.

I predict that a lot of Americans are going to be fleeing the U.S. for Canada. Just wait til y'all hear about the increasing stats in the Big Media.

At least Canada will benefit from good, conservative-American immigration.

But I hope they'll stay in their homeland and fight the fascists and tyrants, for it's their country and it's being taken away by The Enemy Within. The Extreme Left must not be allowed to win and destroy the United States of America as her Founding Fathers made her to be.

I've been blasted on my site for comparing the Obama Regime to the Third Reich, but, you know, those who understand what happened in the latter will see the disturbing parallels in the former.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 6, 2009 3:05 PM

Exactly Kyla.

Straight or gay, a sexual relationship between two people is a choice. All people (should) have a right to exercise this choice so long as both participants consent(or can legally consent). I hope the political arm of the "gay community" echo your thoughts publically. Far too often I find this group on the wrong side of common sense issues.JMO

That being said, when you make all sexual preferences a "right" the requirement for consent is removed because some sexual preferences, by definition, require a non-consenting participant. Personally I don't see the difference between raping an adult or a child, if one is a protected right, how can the other not be?

Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 6, 2009 3:25 PM

I'm confused. When I first read this, I thought the bill was specifically targeting criticisms of "Public figures". Now I have discovered that it is aimed at cyberbullying (most common among younger people). If this is to prevent cyber-bullying this changes the character of the bill considerably (in my mind), acknowledging that it could be used to abuse freedom of speech. I think we should be looking for balance here, and I have a certain sympathy for the real damage that could be done particularly to young people with cyber-bullying. Full text of the bill is posted here:

Posted by: LindaL at May 6, 2009 3:34 PM


I think this revolution might cross borders.

What do you think the likelihood of union between western Canada and the central part of the US? I've seen articles showing a migration of conservative middle class people from major centers like Los Angles to smaller mid-west cities. The problem the American right seem to have is they’re not regionally defined; or, they're spread thin. If this migration condenses these likeminded people; such a revolution may be possible, and the aforementioned union seems to make sense.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 6, 2009 3:35 PM

Is it just me or are leftists pathologically averse to freedom of speech? Can they exist in a world where their ideas are freely questioned? What the hell is wrong with these lawmakers? How have Americans elected people who don't recognize the value of freedom??

Posted by: Mark at May 6, 2009 4:04 PM

The left know they are at war with us. By us I mean anyone with morals and common sense. But we refuse to believe they are at war with us. We have our heads in the sand and that is why we will lose in the short run. Words are not enough anymore.

They are playing hard ball and we are playing smurf ball. Until we organize and grow some cojones we will continue to be run over. We keep imagining that it will all be okay and that they really aren't so bad. Every day we lose more freedoms. Death by a thousand cuts.

The similarities between today and the Germans of the thirties is unmistakable. They mildly protested hitler and were met with scorn and mocking. That lead to beatings and finally killings and slavery. That is what is happening to us right now, but we continue to play smurf ball, while our enemies gather strength and power.

Words are not enough anymore. Either we make the decision to revolt and push back hard, or the decisons will be made for us.

One thing is in our favor though, we still have our guns. They haven't all been taken yet. Of course this is just my opinion, others may vary.

Posted by: A storm is coming at May 6, 2009 4:25 PM

Maybe we should Pelosi, Reid and all the other Democrats back to watching the movie The American President. Starring Michael Douglas as Democrat Andrew Sheppard and written by Adam Sorkin (ithink) both of whom are well known Liberals.

In his closing monologue when chastising Republican Bob Rumson (played by that well known right wing radical, Richard Dreyfuss) he says "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

As usual with so many, not all, on the left side of the political spectrum, it remains do as I say not as I do.

Posted by: KenAinCGY at May 6, 2009 4:32 PM

This is the most honest comment I ever saw from a liberal named "Phil" on the Andrew Sullivan link:

"I actually agree, but maybe that makes me sexist, too. You’d have to hear my reasons to decide." --Phil

What is so funny is that Phil feels no need whatsoever to list his "reasons", only his opinion. Because, evidently, if "Phil" says it, that aught to be good enough to carry the day.

Posted by: tim in vermont at May 6, 2009 4:33 PM


Instead of moaning about ‘we', do it for yourself.

There are plenty out there who value individual freedom and are not afraid to speak out about it.

I'm not going to wait for some right-wing collective to define what or how I should say things.

Any time I hear anybody promote statism (the government should do something about this), that's when I object.

Hundreds of millions of individual acting on a principle of supporting progressiveness as long as progress means more individual freedom will quickly beat the Borg.

Posted by: set you free at May 6, 2009 4:35 PM

Err "ought" not "aught"

As for the qualities in Obama that somehow outweigh the actual governing experience of Palin, I guess that if you don't believe it, you will not see it.

Andy reminds me of the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes" patiently explaining to the child that his eyes were deceiving him.

Posted by: tim in vermont at May 6, 2009 4:37 PM

syf wrote: Instead of moaning about ‘we', do it for yourself

I'm not moaning and I do do for myself. My point was we are stronger together than alone. How long do you think you will 'do' for yourself when the brownshirts knock on your door? You may think you're a tough guy but not tough enough. That's my point. Alone is not enough.

Right wing collective? You're kidding right? What right wing collective would that be?

Posted by: A storm is coming at May 6, 2009 4:48 PM

Here's the link to the proposed bill, entitled "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act"

If I understand it correctly, findings do not have legal standing, therefore the intent to address underage "cyberbullying" is not relevant and the act thus applies broadly.

Any comment from the lawyers?

Posted by: Tenebris at May 6, 2009 5:00 PM


Keep up the fight. Never let them define you. Stay humble.

When they speak about ‘vision,' hang on tighter to your wallet.

The brownshirts think they can pick us off one at a time.

They can't.

Posted by: set you free at May 6, 2009 5:05 PM

"They are playing hard ball and we are playing smurf ball. Until we organize and grow some cojones we will continue to be run over."


I've commented on this before; I'm of the opinion that as long as women stand idle while liberals wage their "War on Men" there will be no fighting back.

wrt SYF's comment here are my thoughts. After witnessing what is happening to that hottie down south(miss Cali) and reading the DNS document I've decided that I will not speak my mind on many topics anymore. For example, I will not answer any questions regarding gay marriage; and, if I'm pressed hard enough I will say what is PC. I will not be a martyr! As I've said before, it will be quite easy for me to assimilate. Yeah I'm white but that will only knock me down a peg or two. My concern for women and gays waivers a little more each day since it is apparent for the most part that the aforementioned don't value liberty; generally speaking of course.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 6, 2009 5:12 PM

"All of them backed the federal hate-crimes bill passed by the House yesterday, which is designed to allow people who have been found innocent in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court.."

For those that are not familiar with US Law the above statement violates two restrictions in the constitution. Double jeopardy and Expos Facto. (You may not be tried for the same crime twice; and you may not be charged with a crime that was not a crime when you committed it; e.g. the law was passed after the fact.

Posted by: Michael C Keehn at May 6, 2009 6:05 PM

Michael, what you say is true... depending on who's in the SCOTUS. Bary gets to pick one already, and the USA is just one banana peel away from Bary getting to pick -another- one.

That'd give him two sock puppets on the court, which might well be enough to get him a majority ruling on any damn thing he wants.

Constitutionality is decided by men, it does not descend fully formed from Heaven. If the men are corrupt, well, there you go. For a preview of this, the US holds the accused innocent until proven guilty... EXCEPT in tax court. Not going to be too hard to expand that "guilty and you can't prove you're innocent to our satisfaction because we can't be satisfied" to hate speech, fairness doctrine etc. etc. et bloody cetera, given the foot in the door from the McCain/Feingold law and the obscene SCOTUS ruling thereupon.

Trolls who think The Phantom is being needlessly alarmist, see topic at top.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 6, 2009 9:37 PM

What we are watching is the end of the Republic.
It took Ceaser only bread with the circus to bribe the citizans of their vote & freedom.
I weep for America. A great light in its time.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at May 6, 2009 11:33 PM

Don't forget, Phantom, tax court is not the ONLY place where innocent until proven guilty is tossed out the window.

The wonderful women's rights movement, something which every POTUS grovels before, has teemed up with the courts to ensure that men are stripped of many constitutional rights...

Like, being arrested solely upon the words of another, and ejected from your home and denied access to your chilren until you PROVE you are innocent.

The government grants Temporary Restraining Orders against MEN without even so much as a trial, nor the man being able to defend himself before a judge. A woman's word is good enough. A man can loose his job under such circumstances. (ie. A Policeman will lose his right to carry a firearm when under a TRO and thus, lose his job).

The government has re-enacted debtor's prisons in the name of "dead beat dads," of which statistics show that the vast majority are seasonally employed and only 4% earn more than $40,000/yr.

The right to face your accuser has been stripped from men in cases of rape, sexual assault and abuse. In fact, during the trial, it is legal to publish the man's name, even though he has not been convicted, but the accuser's name is protected both during and AFTER the trial - even in cases where it is PROVEN to be a false accusation and the false accuser has committed perjury. (There is no attempt to clear the innocent victim's name, but all things are done to protect the false-accusing, perjuring criminal!)

The least thing they do is certainly not the least, and that is the government KIDNAPPING your children from you, and handing them over to someonw who BROKE A CONTRACT. When a woman files for divorce, she is breaking a contract, and yet the courts reward her for breech of contract with the husband's money, his house, and by kidnapping his children from him and handing them over to the person who is the aggressor.

I could go on and on.

But anyone who believes that the constitution means jack-shit ought to have a look at the family court system.

Oh, that's right, you can't!

All trials are supposed to be public - to keep the judges and courts in line from wielding their powers maliciously - EXCEPT for family courts, where judges are the most totalarian, UN-just sonsabitches in the whole system.

Let it crash.

A society that hates its own citizens so much - especially its men - deserves to die. That's the same reason Rome died. In the end, no birthrates meant having to rely on immigrants or slaves to defend the empire, of which none of the immigrants or slaves were invested in doing... the same that is happening to the West by marginalizing their men, rather than honouring them.

Let it rot. From it will come new life.

Posted by: rob fedders at May 7, 2009 3:43 AM

What about Obama's denigration of Limbaugh, Hannity and Tea Parties. Does his telepromper not count as a blog?
Posted by: ET at May 6, 2009 11:43 AM

Absolutely, ET! In fact, TOTUS has its own blog, here

"Because There Is No POTUS Without TOTUS" - quote.

at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at May 7, 2009 11:11 AM

Well, let's not forget that leftards tend to allow their emotions to work heavily on their decisions.

Every dog has their day.

Posted by: Steve Harkonnen at May 8, 2009 9:36 AM