moonbattery.gif


« Making a Living in America's Most Liberal City | Main | Dawn Johnsen: Yet Another Depraved Obama Nominee »


April 2, 2009

Obama Regime Pushes Political Censorship

When bad laws are applied by bad people, bad results follow. For an example of an awful law applied by evil people, refer to the Obamination Administration exploiting McCain-Feingold to quash our right of political dissent. If Obamunists succeed in this latest push for totalitarian power, the First Amendment will have been effectively repealed:

On Mar. 24, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC [Federal Election Committee], the latest installment in an ongoing series of challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold. This case has far-reaching implications for the future of campaign activities, and draws an important line between the right of citizens to speak out and the power of government to imprison them if they do.
The group Citizens United produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during her failed presidential campaign. … But when the group sought to market the movie through Video On Demand, the FEC blocked it. The FEC cited BCRA, which makes it a federal felony to fund any TV or radio broadcast that names a candidate for federal office in the thirty days prior to a primary election or sixty days prior to a general election, called the "blackout" periods. …
Far more important than the specific facts in this case was the enormous scope of power that the Obama Administration was claiming under BCRA, an array so broad that the justices balked at the government's answers to their questions. The Obama Administration claimed that BCRA allows the federal government to ban a 600-page book if it mentions a candidate's name only once, a 90-minute movie if it mentions a candidate's name once, or even a toy action figure of a candidate. If the organization uses a single dime of its general funds to produce, promote or distribute any such materials during the "blackout" periods, it becomes a federal crime. …
Selling a banned movie, book or even toy action figure is a felony under this law, punishable by five years in federal prison.

Needless to say…

Such laws have a chilling effect on political speech that violates the core purpose of the First Amendment. That such a law could ever be enacted in this country is itself a fact that should raise concerns.

That's putting it mildly. Whatever happened to the Left's righteous advocacy of free speech? But I'm forgetting, it only applies to frivolous speech like pornography. When it comes to banning books and movies deemed unsupportive of Chairman Zero's agenda, the liberal establishment will dutifully line up in support.

On a tip from Kevin R. Hat tip: Teh Resistance Blog.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 2, 2009 8:54 AM

Comments

Whatever happened to the Left's righteous advocacy of free speech? But I'm forgetting, it only applies to frivolous speech like pornography.

Our Supreme Court gives more free speech protection to child pornography than it does to political speech. If you create a simulated act of adult-child sex, you're constitutionally protected. But create a simulated image of a politician, and you're in violation of Federal law.

So, if you want to make a video opposing Barney Frank before an election, make sure his simulacrum is molesting Macauley Culkin (c.1990) and not AIG.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 9:15 AM

The rule of tyrants is DISARM THE POPULENCE,BAN ALL OPPISITION and REGULATE as well as TAX EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING Just like MAO,HITLER and STALIN did

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 2, 2009 11:28 AM

...the liberal establishment (McCain) will dutifully line up in support (of McCain).

As bad as BO is, he at least seems to have a foggy awareness of the kind of liberal anti-constiutional socialist he is.
McCain doesn't.

Posted by: Fiberal at April 2, 2009 2:07 PM

So where was your blog post about this when the FEC originally made their decision? Oh yeah, that was back when the bush administration was in charge and you couldn't make this look like a liberal issue.

Really, why was it fine and dandy for this to happen when Bush was president, but now it's being warped to look like Obama ordered the FEC to do this? How does this kind of deception help the political process in any way? As I read more and more here it seems this blog is just like obama, bush, reagan or any politician - your just spinning a story for your own purposes and you could hardly care about the truth.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2009 4:09 PM

Anonymous, with all due respect, you're a dipshit. It's being commented on the blog now because it's in the news now and a lawyer from the Obama Justice Department made the argument that censorship of anything that could be construed as political speech is permissible under the statute.

Have you ever considered starting you're own blog and covering the things you think are relevant? Oh, wait, that would mean coming out from behind your cowardly anonymity, and you are far too chickensh!t to do that.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 4:34 PM

ha, another great example of a fine logical thought process! Is this a debate or a 1st grade name calling contest?

have you considered that by allowing comments on your blog you are inviting people to make comments?

It certainly doesn't matter if I'm chickenshit or not. In fact, lets say for the sake of argument that I'm not only chickenshit, but dogshit times infinity (to use my favorite preschool insult device!).

Ok, now i'm dogshit times infinity but my thought stands on it's own, so if what you think has any relevance to reality, maybe you should speak to the idea rather than attacking a straw man?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2009 4:43 PM

...maybe you should speak to the idea rather than attacking a straw man?

What idea? Seriously, what idea are you presenting here that's new and original? Also, do you even know what a strawman is?

Posted by: cowlove at April 2, 2009 5:13 PM

Also, do you even know what a strawman is?

I'm guessing that word does not mean what s.he thinks it means.

S.he also doesn't seem to realize this isn't my blog.

If it were, it would have more half-naked chicks on it.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 5:19 PM

If it were, it would have more half-naked chicks on it.

I've noticed you've had that identity problem before. Maybe you should use a handle that doesn't have a 'V' as the first letter? I mean, we can't expect the visiting trolls to understand the difference between 'Van Helsing' and 'V the K,' right?

Posted by: cowlove at April 2, 2009 5:22 PM

the idea is that the topic of this post is used only because it can be spun into a misleading story implicating liberals in removing everyone's constitutional rights. I don't pretend that this is a new idea, I'm sure someone in greece had a very similar idea thousands of years ago.

If this had been a liberal video attacking John Mccain, my bet is that everyone here would have first used their 'common sense' to see that it was obviously a political ad and that the bush administration was justified in blocking it.

a straw man is used in military training as a target to hit with weapons. It is obviously much easier to hit a straw man than a real enemy. In debate the term straw man is used as a metaphor when someone shifts the debate from the original topic to one that is easier to attack. Often the character of the other debater is the straw man.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2009 5:22 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2009 5:22 PM

Look, brave Anonymous, we get that you don't like us criticizing your Dear Leader. That's cool. Understand it's going to continue.

In debate the term straw man is used as a metaphor when someone shifts the debate from the original topic to one that is easier to attack.

I'm not surprised.

This is the actual definition of a straw man.

What you described was actually ad hominem.

Glad to be of service.

Posted by: cowlove at April 2, 2009 5:32 PM

why does this idea constantly keep comming up that anyone who disagrees with you is a loyal disciple of obama? Is the proper etiquette to refer back to the poster as a subject of Dear Leader Reagan?

you think I don't criticize obama? You think my point is to defend obama?

What do you think about the fact that FEC made their original decision when Bush was in office? Does that mean anything to you at all?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2009 5:38 PM

You think my point is to defend obama?

You're here defending the Obama administration, no?

What do you think about the fact that FEC made their original decision when Bush was in office? Does that mean anything to you at all?

On Mar. 24, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest installment in an ongoing series of challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold.

Considering that, and the fact there is at least one soon-to-be open spot on the S.C., no, that doesn't mean anything to me at all.

Posted by: cowlove at April 2, 2009 5:50 PM

Since the troll won't thank you for correcting his multiple errors, I will. Thank you, cowlove.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 6:44 PM

I see the troll has now visited my blog and left a witless remark there, as well.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 6:46 PM

More specifically, anonymous whined like a little bitch because there was a jpg of an attractive woman on my blog.

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 7:28 PM

Posted by: V the K at April 2, 2009 7:28 PM

The horror...the horror.

Maybe he's scared of attractive women?

Posted by: SK at April 2, 2009 11:36 PM

The Obamaadministrationhasplenty of time and money to prosecute thier critics, but do not have the resorces to prosecute the thousands of criminals crossing our borders daily? The only mantra Obama follows is "the ends justify the means". Shameful, criminal. immoral.

Posted by: Bruce Pierce at April 3, 2009 3:54 AM

Thank you, cowlove.

Ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

More specifically, anonymous whined like a little bitch because there was a jpg of an attractive woman on my blog.

...and attempted to insult you by saying you had a vagina. I wonder what Freud would say...

Posted by: cowlove at April 3, 2009 6:35 AM

were getting closer and closer to the "camps" bamer's pal, ayers wants. i'm probably on the list cause i piss off the local libs at every turn. GHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Bring it

Posted by: czuch at April 3, 2009 3:25 PM