Repeat It: "Freedom = I Won't"

When confronted by an overbearing version of group think and increasingly instrusive political demands of power seekers, it is always an option to refuse to participate in the way demanded. Refusal to play along with the zillion gender game, the ignorance-based economic guilt trips, and the pressure to conform to rules that seem to change with the wind direction - is resistance at the highest level.

Some people talk about going "John Galt", others suggest forceful confrontation. What really infuriates the bullies is passive resistance to their demands. Simply refusing to conform to someone else's idea of how you should live and think. Passive resistance requires courage but can be extremely effective. Unlike John Galt, who disappears to make his point, passive resistance requires confrontation.

For some fun thinking on how passive resistance works, see Eric Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None"

“What does this F. — I.W. mean?”
“Initial-slang,” informed Baines. “Made correct by common usage. It has become a worldwide motto. You’ll see it all over the place if you haven’t noticed it already.”
“I have seen it here and there but attached no importance to it and thought nothing more about it. I remember now that it was inscribed in several places including Seth’s and the fire depot.”
“It was on the sides of that bus we couldn’t empty,” put in Gleed. “It didn’t mean anything to me.”
“It means plenty,” said Jeff. “Freedom = I Won’t!”
“That kills me,” Gleed responded. “I’m stone dead already. I’ve dropped in my tracks.” He watched Harrison thoughtfully pocketing the plaque.
“A piece of abracadabra. What a weapon!”
“Ignorance is bliss,” asserted Baines, strangely sure of himself. “Especially when you don’t know that what you’re playing with is the safety catch of something that goes bang.”
“All right,” challenged Gleed, taking him up on that. “Tell us how it works.”
“I won’t.” Baines’ grin reappeared. He seemed to be highly satisfied about something.
“That’s a fat lot of help.” Gleed felt let down, especially over that momentary hoped-for reward. “You brag and boast about a one-way weapon, toss across a slip of stuff with three letters on it and then go dumb. Any folly will do for braggarts and any braggart can talk through the seat of his pants. How about backing up your talk?”
“I won’t,” repeated Baines, his grin broader than ever. He gave the onlooking Harrison a fat, significant wink.
It made something spark vividly within Harrison’s mind. His jaw dropped, he dragged the plaque from his pocket and stared at it as if seeing it for the first time.
“Give it back to me,” requested Baines, watching him.
Replacing it in his pocket, Harrison said very firmly, “I won’t.”
Baines chuckled. “Some people catch on quicker than others.”
Resenting that, Gleed held his hand out to Harrison. ‘Let me have another look at that thing.’
‘I won’t,’ said Harrison, meeting him eye to eye.
‘Hey, don’t start being awkard with me. That’s not the way—’ Gleed’s protesting voice petered out. He stood there a moment, his optics slightly glassy, while his brain performed several loops. Then in hushed tones he said, ‘Good grief!’
‘Precisely,’ approved Baines. ‘Grief and plenty of it. You were a bit slow on the uptake.’

So, when someone says, "Comply or else!" There is response that defeats their goal of your submission.

On Reading Walter Lippmann's The Good Society

Thinking of Freedom of Thought and Speech and the willingness of some to believe they have the ideas to make a better world, if only everyone would conform.

Written as WWII approached, The Good Society (emphasis added):

Their weapons are the coercive direction of the life and labor of mankind. Their doctrine is that disorder and misery can be overcomeonly by more and more compulsory organization. Their promise is that through the power of the state men can be made happy.

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must, by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. They believe in what Mr. Stuart Chase accurately "describes as "the overhead planning and control of economic activity." This is the dogma which all the prevailing dogmas presuppose. This is the mold in which are cast the thought and action of the epoch. No other approach to the regulation of human affairs is seriously considered, or is even conceived as possible. The recently enfranchised masses and the leaders of thought who supply their ideas are almost completely under the spell of this dogma. Only a handful here and there, groups without influence, isolated and disregarded thinkers, continue to challenge it. For the premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in the totalitarian states. No doubt there have been despotisms which were more 'cruel than those of Russia, Italy, and Germany. " There has been none which was more inclusive. In these ancient centres of civilization, several hundred millions of persons live under what is theoretically the absolute dominion of the dogma that public officials are their masters and that only under official orders may they live, work, and seek their salvation.

But to those who Lippmann describes, there is this:

Ring Out a Warning

A few of us who spent much of our lives working to ". . . defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ." either on a full time or part-time basis have undertaken blogs and other activities to share our concerns over the dangers facing the country to which that Constitution belongs.

You will find some of the few of these "milbloggers" and fellow travelers over there on the right side of this blog. Some great milbloggers have moved on, others have taken up the torch.

Some of these concerns we discuss are over the actions, both potential or actual, of foreign nations. North Korea, Iran, China, and a couple of others come to mind.

Some anxiety arose with the increase in trans-national groups who have declared "war" on the United States and its form of government. Or, perhaps, on the "life style" of its people. Some more came with the increase in sea piracy off failed states - a threat that should have pointed out the vulnerable nature of sea-going global commerce and the need for strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open and free. People simply don't know or forget how much commerce flows by sea.

Other concerns crop up because of what former and current military and civilian planners see as disconnects between the tools provided to war fighters (weapons systems - ships, airplanes and ground-pounder stuff) and the needs of the end users and the cost to the country. E.g. Is the F-35 worth the cost? Is the LCS worth anything as a warship? Three Zumwalt-class "destroyers" the size of a WWII battleship? Really? What about the A-10? Can bombing bring something like ISIS to its knees?

Questions are raised about the priorities of the Defense Department. CDR Salamander has a regular Thursday feature Diversity Thursday in which he documents the problems arising from a "diversity industry" which has levered its way into the DoD and made appearance seemingly more important than performance. Want a discussion about the failure of naval leadership and lack of trust in that leadership? See what the Skipper wrote.

Given this, it is with a great deal of interest that I read Sarah Hoyt's Ring The Bell about another question of priorities of the media and the powers that be. In her world, "ringing the bell" was to, in the words of the old "progressive" (read "coomunist") song, If I Had a Hammer:

... ring out danger,
... ring out a warning . . .

Which song,according to the link at Wikipedia, was

The song was first performed publicly by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays on June 3, 1949, at St. Nicholas Arena in New York at a testimonial dinner for the leaders of the Communist Party of the United States, who were then on trial in federal court, charged with violating the Smith Act by advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The irony, as you will see, is that Ms. Hoyt nails the media:

Our media by and large learned Marxism in their “best colleges” and therefore are blind to the dangers of totalitarian regimes of the left. And therefore haven’t been very good at sounding the alarm, even when the world-divorced philosophies of the left destroyed our society. They would have delivered us hand-tied to the Soviet Union if only the Soviet Union had been coherent enough to win.

Balked of their victory, they’d happily deliver us to ISIS even though, REALISTICALLY, they should oppose everything ISIS stands for, including oppression of gays and women.

BUT our elites REALLY don’t like us. They’re not going to ring the bell.

Sort of like listening to "For What It's Worth" in light of today's PC world:


Only it's step out of line and get an IRS audit. Or a bunch of protesters demanding your firing and proposing "re-education" for those who disagree with them and their world view.

Which gets me back to the defense of the Constitution including its amendments.

We need to stand up against those who would attempt to transform things like freedom of speech and independence of thought into something that the "government" has graciously bestowed on us and which can be taken away if our thoughts and speech displease some crowd. Freedom of religion - not granted by the government - but protected from the government (and the mob) by the First Amendment. Gun ownership? Not granted by the government, but protected from the government by the Second Amendment. Freedom of speech? Not granted to us by the government, but protected from the intrusion of government.

In sum, we need to continue to fight back against those who would "happily deliver us to ISIS." One of the best weapons is mockery of their self-righteousness, their priggery and their exceptionally shallow understanding of either freedom or the threats to it.

So, if the right to bear arms is important to you, engage in your First Amendment right to associate with others to reject efforts to restrict that right. Join the NRA. Write letters to your elected representatives. Call lying politicians liars.
Oh, and more of this:


Don't let up. Never surrender a point.

The bell is ringing.

First Amendment Threats: George Will on the Challenges to Free Speech

Well, here's what the sensitive snowflakes of "trigger warnings" are bringing us:

“Today’s attack is different. It is an attack on the theory of free speech. It is an attack on the desirability of free speech . . . What we have today is an attack on the very possibility of free speech. The belief is that the First Amendment is a mistake.”

Regarding Ms. Clinton's challenge to free speech, it's couched in terms of getting "anonymous" money out of politics, as set out here:

The one comment that arguably raised the most eyebrows was Clinton’s reference to political reforms: “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment.”
***
Clinton didn’t delve into too many details – not surprising given that this was only her second full day as a candidate – but as the campaign unfolds, Andrew Prokop sketched out what a possible constitutional amendment might look like.

The problem, as campaign finance reformers see it, is that for decades the Supreme Court has defined speech too broadly and corruption too narrowly. It has ruled that laws capping how much an individual or group can donate to a particular candidate are acceptable, because they help prevent corruption. However, overall caps on the amount any candidate or corporation spends on elections are unconstitutional, because they muzzle speech without specifically preventing corruption. (The court’s narrow definition of “corruption” has consistently been disputed by some justices in the minority.)

So the Democrats’ proposed constitutional amendment specifically says that both Congress and state governments can limit the “raising and spending of money” meant “to influence elections.” It lists several rationales for doing so – advancing “democratic self-government” and “political equality,” and protecting the “integrity” of the political process. However, it only says that “reasonable limits” are acceptable – so if the amendment is ever enacted, there would undoubtedly be court battles over which restrictions are reasonable or unreasonable.

What Happens When the Bill of Rights Gets Trampled

A stunning article from David French at National Review, "Wisconsin’s Shame: I Thought It Was a Home Invasion":

Yet no one in this family was a “perp.” Instead, like Cindy, they were American citizens guilty of nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to support Act 10 and other conservative causes in Wisconsin. Sitting there shocked and terrified, this citizen — who is still too intimidated to speak on the record — kept thinking, “Is this America?”

An extremely partisan prosecutor, a remarkably compliant judge and out the window go the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.

Further, as noted in the article, the "chilling effect" on others by the acts described reach far beyond those actually assaulted by law enforcement agencies.

What that old Buffalo Springfield song (written about a different set of circumstances, but still valid):

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
***
t's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Why isn't this song being sung on college campuses today? Go back to that first verse.

Those first ten amendments to our Constitution are important.

James Madison

UPDATE: Another good read Myron Magnet's piece in City Journal Free Speech in Peril:

. . .  I think Madison right to say that the proper response is not criminalization but argumentation. In a remarkable foreshadowing of John Stuart Mill’s 1859 classic, On Liberty, Madison wrote in 1800 that it is to free speech and a free press, despite all their abuses, that “the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Only out of freewheeling discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion—including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, Madison believed no less than Mill—can truth ultimately emerge. So it is troubling to see that the camel of repression has gotten his nose under the Constitutional tent by a law allowing the prosecution of bosses for tolerating speech by some employees that allegedly creates a “hostile environment” for others. The Court ought to squelch such an affront to the First Amendment. And it is equally troubling that state and federal laws have created such a thing as a “hate crime.” All that should matter to the law is whether the perpetrator of a crime acted with criminal intent, not whether that intent rested on an outlandish opinion.
***
Equally wrong are campaign-finance laws, which, happily, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has begun to undo. In the American political system, based on man’s natural right to life, liberty, and property, money should talk. The core of Madison’s worry about the “tyranny of the majority” in Federalist 10 was that the unpropertied many might vote themselves the property of the rich few—whether by disproportionate taxation, abolition of debts, inflation to erode savings and investments, “an equal division of property, or . . . any other improper or wicked project”—which the Founders believed would be no less a tyranny than an absolute monarch’s expropriation of property. Madison argued in Federalist 10 that the clash of many competing interests in such a big republic as America would prevent such democratic tyranny from occurring; but he proved wrong. . .

On the Deaths of the Members of the French Humor Magazine

History teaches us things - not the least of which is that attempts by people who fear ideas to squelch differing opinions and especially to squash those who would poke fun at their ideas are founded in the weakness of those ideas.

As previously set out here, whether the tyranny is in one man - like Hitler, Stalin or Mao - or in a mob, these thugs are terrified of ideas. Ideas that threaten their comfort zones.

Evidence? The killings at Charlie Hebdo:

In the latest attack, terrorists armed with guns and shouting "Allahu akbar" murdered several of the publication's staff and two police officers at its Paris office. At the time of publication, the terrorists are still on the run.

Pertinent thoughts from a previous fight against fascism:

They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind.
Winston Churchill, in "The Defence of Freedom and Peace (The Lights are Going Out)", radio broadcast to the United States and to London (16 October 1938)

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.

Robert A. Heinlein

And when a radical element of a religion undertakes to control those who are not its members?

Welcome to the 15th Century.

The Slippery Slope of Thought Crimes: 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

The estimable Victor Davis Hanson offers up a peek in to the slippery slope of "Who Among Us Will Cast the First Bid for Donald Sterling’s Clippers?" :

punishing words and deeds without trials and on the basis of outraged public opinion

If the NBA establishes the precedent that it can force the sale of an owner’s property because of one’s illiberal speech, however odious, what now is the new standard of behavior? A sort of descending French Revolutionary justice, predicated on the sound and fury of the mob?

Harry Reid believes the Washington Redskins owner should be targeted next for his insistence on keeping the Redskins logo. Should he too be forced to sell and by whom—his fellow morally superior owners? Should the Orlando Magic owner, Doug DeVoss, be hounded out of the league—as was recently suggested—because he opposes gay marriage? How many owners don’t believe in the idea of man-made global warming? Oppose illegal immigration? Doubt the wisdom of affirmative action? Can we scour their emails, tap their phones, or ask the public for their private indiscretions?

And who will police the police? Oddly, some of the very public officials who weighed in on the Sterling matter themselves have a sorry record of racist speech—and in the public, not illegally taped private, realms. Could any of them in their retirement pitch in to buy the Clippers?

Reminds me of the trial Alice in Wonderland:

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out ‘Silence!’ and read out from his book, ‘Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.’

Everybody looked at Alice.

‘I’m not a mile high,’ said Alice.

‘You are,’ said the King.

‘Nearly two miles high,’ added the Queen.

‘Well, I shan’t go, at any rate,’ said Alice: ‘besides, that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now.’

‘It’s the oldest rule in the book,’ said the King.

‘Then it ought to be Number One,’ said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. ‘Consider your verdict,’ he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.
***
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’

‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

‘I won’t!’ said Alice.

‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

I hold no brief for Donald Sterling.

Except, of course, those concerns all of ought to have about mob rule egged on by those with the loudest mouths. A "pack of cards" indeed.

Want a Neutral IRS? Then do away with the IRS and the Tax Code it rides on

The NYTimes takes a look at the IRS scandal in "The Real I.R.S. Scandal" and virtually ignores the First

Amendment ramifications that the IRS actions placed on free speech in favor of a view that suggests the trouble is all related the the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Oh, woe, says the NYT, after strong evidence of partiality surfaces, the IRS now faces a damage control problem:

But even more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade scrutiny in the future.

Here's an idea - let's get rid of the IRS as it exists today and set up a tax system that can't be manipulated and does not rely on various special provisions designed to favor one group over another (e.g. does not favor couples with children over single, unchilded people, nor does it favor homeowners over renters, etc).

The least obtrusive tax system I have read about is the Fair Tax, which replaces all the zillions of tax code provisions and regulations and the power of the IRS with a simple sales tax:

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% and equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.

What about the poor, you ask - won't a sales tax have more impact on them? That is offset by the "prebate":

Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S 122) provides a monthly, universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax-free up to the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. This is not an entitlement, but a rebate (in advance) of taxes paid – thus the term prebate. Everyone pays taxes at the cash register.

Are there potential problems with the Fair Tax? Probably, but compare them to the mess we have now . . .  not so many.

And there would be no worries about "the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S."

Except for tax lawyers, certain tax accountants and IRS employees, I'm not sure who would miss the IRS and its zillions of pages of gobbledygook. Well, maybe Congressmen, who curry favor with their constituents by "fighting" the IRS on the constituents behalf to gain financial support for re-election.

Let's face it, the unfair tax system is broken and needs a restart.

Fighting Fascism: The Oath I Took and the Wrongness of an Obscure Law Professor

 Some time ago I swore an oath:

“I, Mark Tempest, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

It was the same oath my father swore before he went off to fight the Germans. The same oath my older son took before he flew his first Navy aircraft, the same oath my younger son will take (God willing and the creek don't rise) in May before he, too, continues the steps to earning his "wings of gold."

At every promotion we take this oath again, to remind us that we serve the Constitution, not a person, not a political party, and not even "the people" except as their will is set out in the Constitution.

Over the years, I have had the privilege to take the Texas Lawyer's Oath:

"I Mark Tempest do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of the law, and will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability. So help me God."

The Georgia Attorney's Oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will conduct myself, as an attorney or counselor of this court, truly and honestly, justly and uprightly, and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

The North Carolina Oath of Office as Attorney at Law:

I, Mark Tempest, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; so help me God.
I, Mark Tempest, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina and to the Constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said state, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the
United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.
I, Mark Tempest, do swear that I will truly and honestly demean myself

So it really frosts me when a law professor, a molder of young legal minds, suggests something that is just so wrong as, "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution" in the name of some form of political expediency:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Well, Professor Seidman, I may be a little ole practicing attorney far removed from the halls of academia, but I know this - far better men than you will ever be have died defending that Constitution you find archaic and, in part, "downright evil." When you write:

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

I am agog with the pure simple idiocy - dangerous idiocy at that- of a man who claims to have taught "constitutional law for almost 40 years."

While the path we take by having a Constitution means we follow an often winding trail to reach the right result, that path has put an end to slavery, has put an end to most forms of racial discrimination (even when, after careful consideration the Supreme Court found that "separate but equal" was just fine), has put an end to the seemingly "considered judgment" that provided for anti-miscegenation laws, has put an end to forced sterilization of "undesirables," has provided indigents with legal representation, has opened the vote to women and has led to a million other things that make us what we are - the beacon of hope in a world filled with dictators, absolute monarchs and others, who often have made "a considered judgment that a particular course of action" was best for their country and that led to horrible crimes against humanity.

It was a "government official" (or perhaps a gaggle of them) that decided on a "considered" solution to the Jewish problem in Germany. It was a "government official" who decided that internment camps for Japanese citizens and legal residents in this country was a necessary course of action. As you note, "John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech." Was he acting on a "considered judgment?"

Yes, it is a slow and often ponderous process to get things right.

Tough.

What you offer up instead is - what? The belief in some sort of "good neighbor" policy that, untied from the Constitution, will allow us to "respect" the institutions of our government based on "tradition?" When you write:

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy . . .

Good luck with that.

What you are proposing seems a fantasy of a law professor too long stuck in academics and frustrated with the rough and tumble world of real people.

Is the Georgetown faculty lounge such a civil place to serve as a model for the rest of society?

No, Professor, take your pipe dream elsewhere. Those of us who take our oaths to support and defend the Constitution seriously may argue for improvements to our Constitution and for a more prudent Congress to argue and pass laws that will sustain Constitutional challenge, but we stand by the Constitution and its amendments and the genius of the idea it represents.

What we fear, sir, is someone like you - well-meaning but totally wrong - trying to govern by "a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country."

Is it today's "considered judgment" that no one should have printing presses except for those approved by a "government official" or a "party leader?" That certain types of books deemed by "considered judgment" immoral be banned, perhaps? That ordinary citizens should not be allowed guns and ammunition in our homes? That all that we "own" really belongs to the state and the state gets to decide it highest and best use? Perhaps our religious beliefs are getting in the way of progress - can they be "condemned" by "considered judgment?" Perhaps the right of the "Tea Party" and its members to assemble and protest should be constrained after a "considered judgment?" Oh, and, of course, why bother with warrants and probable cause - especially when some "government official" has made a "considered judgment" that, say, some outspoken Tea Party member may have things like weapons or anti-government literature at home?

No, Professor, no thanks to your vision of the United States unfettered by the Constitution.

You know, if I hadn't taken all those oaths, I might be tempted to laugh at your thoughts - sort of like laughing at the Emperor who bought that new "special" suit, I suppose.

Let me leave you with a couple of things:

1. Do away with the Constitution and I am certain that the United States of America, as it currently exists will dissolve. Whether the split will be "Red States" and "Blue States" or some other combination or permutation, it will come. One of the groups will hold on to the old U.S. Constitution as its guiding document, flaws and all. The other - well, they are welcome to your vision of how things should run. I know where my allegiance will lie.
2.  From the Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Perfect? Not yet. But far, far better than your idea.

Sunday Reading Fun for the New Year: "Mind Your Own Business"

CNN headline: Hoyer compares GOP debt limit tactics to hostage taker threatening to shoot child

When a Congressman from one party compares members of the other party who are in vigorous disagreement with the direction the national government is taking to "hostage takers" it is time to take a look at where this sort of politics takes us (and, yes, Mr. Hoyer is not the first politician to use such language - members of both major parties are guilty of demonizing their political opponents).

A piece on what the politicization of everything means to us at Human Events "The bitter wastes of politicized America":

The rest of us should consider the contemptible behavior of people like Hoyer as we watch the expansion of politics into every area of our lives. The government grows; the private sector diminishes; everything becomes a political act. Soon you will see the phrase “none of your business” become an antique aphorism, as quaint as telling someone to “dial” a telephone number. Everything is everyone’s business now. That’s what Big Government means.

I'm no anarchist, but John Hayward has put his pen exactly on the problem with "nanny-statism" and the old theory, espoused back in my college days that "everything is political" and "the personal is political" (linked to C. Wright Mills and The Sociological Imgaination).

It is time to revisit the social contract. As Clint Eastwood said at the GOP convention:

We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.

In a society founded on protecting dissenting views, it is remarkably autocratic to suggest that only your view is the proper view and that is the "duty" of citizens to get in line.

Once again I invoke an old piece I read years ago,
Eric Frank Russell's planet of Gand, which introduced me "MYOB" - and you can read about it here:

‘A man has duties. He has no right to refuse those.’

‘No?’ She raised tantalizing eyebrows, delicately curved. ‘Who defines those duties—himself or somebody else?’

‘His superiors most times.’

‘Superiors,’ she scoffed with devastating scorn. ‘No man is superior to another. No man has the slightest right to define another man’s duties. If anyone on Terra exercises such impudent power it is only because idiots permit him to do so. They fear freedom. They prefer to be told. They like to be ordered around. They love their chains and kiss their manacles. What men!’

Do not allow our political class, nor other slavish followers of any would-be autocrat to decide for you where your duties lie. In this time, facing these enemies of republican government, reasoned dissent honors freedom of speech and thought.

Do not be cowed into silence.

U.S. Naval Academy: Settles Case with Professor Fleming Involving Criticism of USNA Affirmative Action Policy

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports U.S. Naval Academy Settles Complaint With Professor Critical of Its Affirmative Action Policies:

The United States Naval Academy has agreed to a legal settlement with a tenured English professor after a federal investigation uncovered evidence that the Naval Academy violated his First Amendment rights. The professor, Bruce Fleming, had filed a complaint in 2009 with a federal agency, the Office of Special Counsel, claiming that top ranking Naval Academy officials denied him a raise based on his public assertions about the college's race-conscious admissions policies. In a widely circulated newspaper column, Fleming had written that the Naval Academy used an admissions process for minority students that was so much less demanding, it likely violated federal civil rights laws.
***
Fleming, who had criticized the college's affirmative action policies for several years, issued a statement after the settlement. According to Fleming, "[t]he reason I felt it important to pursue this issue is to ensure that an institution whose military members swear to uphold the Constitution do not infringe the civilian rights to free expression the military is meant to protect."

Your tax dollars at work.

Fighting Words

Words like "freedom," "the rights of the individual" ... "living free meant a lot more to them than cowering in security."


Remember the Alamo? I have enough Texan in me to do just that.

Blow Up Your TV, Throw Away Your Paper

If you don't like Fox News or Larry David, here's a couple of ideas:

She was a level-headed dancer on the road to alcohol
I was just a soldier on my way to Montreal

Well, she pressed her chest against me
About the time the jukebox broke
She give me a peck on the back of the neck
And these are the words she spoke

Blow Up Your TV, throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home

Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try and find Jesus on your own

I sat there at the table and I acted real naive
Cause I knew that topless lady, she had something up her sleeve
She danced around the room awhile and she did the hoochy cooch
Yea sing a song all night long tellin' me what to do

Blow Up Your TV, throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home

Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try and find Jesus on your own

But I was young and hungry and about to leave that place
Just as I was going she looked me in the face

I said "You must know the answer"
She said "No, but I'll give it a try"
And to this day we've been livin' our way
Here is the reason why

We blew up the TV, threw away the paper
Went to the country, built us a home

Had a lotta children, fed 'em on peaches
They all found Jesus on their own

Or, use this to change the change the channel:


Free speech is free speech. Even if it's speech you disagree with.

But you don't have to listen if you don't want to. That's freedom, too.

The Death of Free Speech

Here's the story in a nutshell:

1. A recognized, but controversial, campus group brings a public figure to a college campus to speak about in opposition to illegal immigration;

2. Forces opposed to the speaker's views do not engage the speaker in "civil discourse" but instead stage a "mini riot" - shouting down the speaker and damaging campus property:

UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.

3. Speaker withdraws, protesters are arrested;

4. In court, some punishments are meted out, though most arrested "activists" had charges dismissed but promise further action, see here:

Fight Back: Please give us a little background about the trial. What where you charged with?

Haley Koch: I was charged with "disturbing the peace at an educational institution," a subsection of the disorderly conduct statute. I was arrested nine days following the protest of the white supremacist hate group Youth for Western Civilization (YWC) and the racist, xenophobic Tom Tancredo. Although more than 250 students and community members expressed their outrage and disapproval at his presence, I was the only person arrested. I was handcuffed outside my class, in front of my classmates and professor, and walked across campus before being patted down, searched, and then taken to the police station. This followed the disgraceful behavior of the University and its police forces in their apology to Tom Tancredo and their harassment of student activists.

Fight Back: Despite months of pressure from the UNC administration and right-wing forces, the judge dismissed the charges against you and other protesters. How do you feel about this? Do you feel vindicated?

Haley Koch: I believe the dismissal sent a strong message to the University community that protest (even loud, visible protest) is legal and should not be repressed and policed in the way it was. I should hope that they would think harder about arresting protesters in the future. I also hope that students take note that we can and will have our voices heard.
***
Fight Back: YWC's previous faculty advisor Chris Clemens stepped down over the summer, and was nearly disbanded from campus as a result. But now they have a new faculty sponsor and have announced events for the fall. Will the organizing continue against the YWC?

Haley Koch: The organizing against YWC will continue. Chris Clemens' decision to step down as advisor of YWC revealed the fact that sometimes protest and "controversy" are necessary to create social change.

YWC is planning to bring Bay Buchanan later this year. There will be protests. I still have hopes that the advisor and the president will come to realize that they are enabling a white supremacist hate group and will choose to step down. But, if they desire a fight, they should know that we have the strength and resources for it.

We will continue to organize against fascism, racism, and hate speech. These oppressions must not be allowed on our campus or in our communities.

Fight Back: The struggle against YWC has also put forward to other demands about a police review board and a hate speech policy at UNC, can you briefly let us know what is going on with that?

Haley Koch: The Protesters Defense Committee (PDC) is having conversations with Student Government about creating a police review board, and we will continue to fight for this. The next step will be mobilizing broader student and faculty support. We now have recorded testimony by police officer Lieutenant Twiddy saying that he shoved me to the ground that I believe will help in this struggle.

Several of us are meeting with Chancellor Thorp in the coming weeks to discuss the University's acceptance of hate and to explore ways to make the campus community a place safe for all students.

We will also be thinking creatively about ways to advance the struggle against institutionalized racism across the campus and our town.

The dismissal of the case against Koch apparently was due to her limited participation in the protest:

[Judge] Buckner said the defendants' obeying police orders to leave the events shielded them from prosecution.

"The event went on," Buckner said.

In the Tancredo case, under cross-examination by Ekstrand, Twiddy testified that Koch complied with his order to leave the classroom as the event began. The judge found Koch "was only responsible for 90 seconds of disruption," Assistant District Attorney Jeff Nieman said.

Less clear is what happened to the part, previously noted, about:

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

I assume that poor police work in failing to identify and arrest the window breaker allowed him/her to escape prosecution. That Trancredo feared for his safety seems and "fled" seems to have not an issue at trial.

5. The "activists" are back in the news and seem to be getting their way with the university administration, as set out in UNC-CH chancellor freezes activist group:

UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp shut down a campus anti-immigration group Friday after an anonymous flier targeted its faculty adviser, who then joked about his skills with a Colt .45.

Activists put out the flier at UNC-Chapel Hill this week revealing the home address of Youth for Western Civilization faculty adviser Elliot Cramer. Protests at speeches sponsored by the group led to seven arrests and a broken classroom window last spring.

On Thursday night, chapter President Nikhil Patel warned Cramer by e-mail that the flier included his name, photograph, home address and telephone number with the caption, "Why is your professor supporting white supremacy?" It encouraged students, faculty and community members to urge Cramer to withdraw from organization.

"I thought I'd let you know so that you can plan for some sort of protection," wrote Patel, an Indian-American who denies the group is white-supremacist. "It seems like an indirect threat to your safety."

"Thanks for your concern," Cramer replied just after midnight, copying Thorp. "I have a Colt .45, and I know how to use it. I used to be able to hit a quarter at 50 feet seven times out of ten."

By Friday afternoon, Thorp asked Cramer to step down as the group's adviser.

"This email is highly inappropriate," Thorp wrote to Cramer. "It is certainly not consistent with the civil discourse we are trying to promote."

Thorp said Youth for Western Civilization is out of business until it can replace Cramer.

"We're trying to come up with a way to have civil discourse and for different points of view to be shared," Thorp said in an interview Friday. "Somebody who's the faculty adviser has to show some restraint."

Cramer said that the flier didn't feel like a real threat and that his response to Patel was "off-hand" and "light-hearted." He complied with Thorp's request to resign.

"I'm sorry that I placed [the chancellor] in an awkward position," said Cramer, who retired from the psychology department 15 years ago.

Yes, I know, you thought the "activists" in the headline might be the "protesters" who interrupted free speech and damaged the university property. Nope, it's the student group that followed the rules, got a sponsor and complied with university rules that gets hammered. The protesters, of which the "hate speaking" Ms. Koch ("white supremacist hate group . . . racist, xenophobic . . .") now champions as defenders of "free speech" that have prevailed afer taking the provocative action of distributing fliers carrying an implicit threat toward the properly credentialed YWC's sponsor.

Could YWC do the same thing to the "protesters?" Nope, the protesters have no organization, no faculty sponsor and no sense of the irony of their form of "protection" of free speech. Having shouted down voices opposed to illegal immigration they have also killed "civil discourse." It'll be a bold faculty member who does not bow to the pressure and steps up for the YWC.

One would think that various "free speech" advocacy groups would step forward to assist the YWC...

Query: Is calling some person a "racist" or a "white supremacist" a form of "hate speech?"
What about if you add the following?

Violent threats of "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!" and other general "racist" shouts,,,

What about if the above quote was accompanied by violent activity?

ACLU on hate spech:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.

More information of Youth for Western Civilization:

Our mission is to organize, educate and train activists dedicated to the revival of Western Civilization.

Is that "hate speech?" - since it indicates a belief that Western Civilization if to be preferred to other civilizations?

UPDATE: From here:

"He said it was a joke, and I said, 'this just isn't something we joke about,'" Thorp said.

Cramer said he copied Thorp and Koch to the e-mail because he wanted them to be aware of the brochures with his address. He stressed his comments about the gun were a joke.

"Oh, of course it was a joke," Cramer said. "It's one thing to say that they simply ought to contact me, but to put my address is an implied threat."

Cramer, who has been retired for 15 years, added he no longer owns a Colt .45, but said he used to be a target shooter in college. He said he thinks he owns a .22 caliber.
***
The group's future is now uncertain. Jon Curtis, associate director of organizations and activities, said the group will have 30 days to find a new faculty adviser, which is standard for when a group loses its adviser.

"I'm contacting some professors who might be able to help," Patel said. He added he hopes to meet with Thorp to discuss Cramer's resignation, and he said he disagrees with Thorp's request.

"I thought it was kind of funny," Patel said about Cramer's gun comments. "I understood it to be a joke."

UPDATE2: Of course the allegation of "racism" may be true - if the speaker actually believes in the supremacy of one race over another, but what about this? And see here for info on labeling Trancredo as racist.

Not in My Country, Senator

Somehow the braying jackass image fits this Democrat: Leahy calls for truth commission:

South Africa used one to try to get past apartheid after the end of white-minority rule.

Now, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is proposing one to sift through all the wreckage of the Bush administration.

Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a speech today at Georgetown University that a "truth and reconciliation commission" could investigate abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, intelligence before the Iraq war, and other matters, according to the Associated Press.

Leahy said the primary goal of the commission would be to learn the truth rather than prosecute former officials. "I'm doing this not to humiliate people or punish people but to get the truth out," he said.

Human Rights First, which has been calling for an investigation of US detention of terror suspects, applauded Leahy.

Show trials do not belong in my country and I will fight them to the end of my strength. Further, if I have to move to Vermont to vote against Senator Leahy, I will do so.

Count me in as defense counsel and, I promise, that there will be a hell of fight before my services would be needed at that table, Senator.

Vice-President Chaney was right on with respect to Senator Leahy.