May 31, 2013

Has Obama Repealed the "Clear and Present Danger" Doctrine?
— Ace

In the early twentieth century, there were a lot of prosecutions of Communists because they urged blowing up factories and train lines -- their literature was full of incitements to violence.

However, in a lot of cases, these incitements were largely (it was contended) rhetorical.

The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment is too important to permit prosecutions of on-the-line speech -- speech had to be well over the line to be subject to prosecution.

Oliver Wendel Holmes established the "clear and present danger" test -- no speech could be prosecuted unless it produced a clear threat of imminent, immediate (present) lawlessness and violence.

Prosecutions could not be founded on speculative "This might lead to violence" grounds.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater could get one prosecuted -- because one can see how such speech would immediately provoke a panicked run for the exits.

Shouting to an angry, near-riotous crowd "Let's go kill the mayor!" could get you prosecuted, because that would be called an incitement which has a clear and present danger of actually being followed through on.

But less than that? Anything less than a direct incitement to perform a specific illegal action which has a present likelihood of being executed?

We are free in such speech. As Holmes argued almost a hundred years ago, we must be pretty free in our speech, or else we'll always be looking over our shoulders and censoring ourselves for fear of the Government Prosecutors putting us in jail for exercising our inalienable rights as Americans.

This was the law of the land for nearly a hundred years.

Apparently it is no longer US law in the Eastern district of Tennessee.

Why? And did we vote on this? At what point did we, as a free people which supposedly decides our own laws, decide to overturn this nearly 100 year old judicial precedent?

Did Bill Killian decide to overturn this precedent himself, or was this directive crafted by his boss, Eric Holder?

Corrected: I originally suggested this case came down in the 30s. It's older than that -- it came down in 1919.

More: A commenter notes the doctrine was expanded and intensified in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

I've never heard a liberal challenging this doctrine -- until now. They really liked the doctrine when it was protecting elements of the left from prosecution. Now it's protecting some elements on the right (well, I don't know if they're on the right, but they're antagonistic to members of the left's coalition) so apparently now it's been repealed.

At least as far as people hostile to the left's coalition.

Posted by: Ace at 06:38 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

1 All your words and Bytes are belong to us.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 06:40 AM (ndlFj)

2 Why? Because Fuck You, that's why...

Posted by: CSMBigBird at May 31, 2013 06:40 AM (jsWA8)

3 Biggest scandal in my memory.

Posted by: USA at May 31, 2013 06:41 AM (VIaw0)

4 Get in their faces.

Posted by: Barnum & Bailey Barack at May 31, 2013 06:41 AM (FcR7P)

5 First! It's amazing how close Orwell was.  1984 only took 19 extra years.  Apparently he didn't anticipate the Union delays.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 06:41 AM (ndlFj)

6 “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” that's going to be rich to listen to

Posted by: morgan at May 31, 2013 06:41 AM (/mrpB)

7 But, our president is a constitutional law professor, so you're over-reacting.  The guy has perfectly creased pants.

Posted by: Cowboy Bob at May 31, 2013 06:41 AM (6GZ+p)

8 'I will stand with islam.'

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama's Greatest Hits at May 31, 2013 06:42 AM (MZtem)

9 >>> Corrected: I originally suggested this case came down in the 30s. It's older than that -- it came down in 1919. Same thing.

Posted by: Ezra Klein at May 31, 2013 06:42 AM (z9HTb)

10

These idiots are testing the small shit out in the hinterlands, before springing it on us.

It's not being paranoid if you're right.



Posted by: Rev dr E buzz at May 31, 2013 06:42 AM (raGXo)

11

Why? And did we vote on this? At what point did we, as a free people which supposedly decides our own laws, decide to overturn this nearly 100 year old judicial precedent

 

We haven't decided our own laws for at least thirty years.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 06:43 AM (4df7R)

12 Will they replace Eric Holder with Jamie Gorelick?

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 06:43 AM (ndlFj)

13

The constitution is old and hard to understand.

Posted by: Eine Kleine Ezra at May 31, 2013 06:43 AM (6GZ+p)

14 Did Bill Killian decide to overturn this precedent himself, or was this directive crafted by his boss, Eric Holder?



That is long standing SC precedent.  Neither one of these criminal assholes have the authority to override it.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (lZvxr)

15 I keep tellin' ya'll, barky wants shari'a so he can make the mooch cover her face.

Posted by: teej at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (RYVE/)

16 FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT... get in their faces!!  skittle-shittin' unicorns will be here soon! 

Posted by: Bronco Bama at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (/jHWN)

17

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater could get one prosecuted -- because one can see how such speech would immediately provoke a panicked run for the exits. ]

 

Can't     you yell "fire!" in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire?     This has always confused me.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (4df7R)

18 People were saying Huxley's Future was more likely, but Orwell's Future has just kicked up its chances a few notches. Spengler's Future is still a shoo-in for the long game, though.

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (El+h4)

19 Why would you bring my name up? I read about this in the newspaper just like you. I find this appalling and you can be sure that I will investigate the extent to which these AUSAs may have followed my memo stating that we should find ways to prosecute those who disparage Islam or Mohammed.

Posted by: Eric Holder at May 31, 2013 06:44 AM (N9thc)

20 #17

Yes, you can. Only if there isn't a fire can you be prosecuted.

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 06:45 AM (El+h4)

21

Will they replace Eric Holder with Jamie Gorelick?

 

That would be a step up, as hard as that is to believe.

 

Then again, replace Holder with a golden retriever would be two steps up. At least they're lovable.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 06:45 AM (Z2Bkq)

22 Under this new standard, satire like this might be considered unlawful...

liveleak.com/view?i=3bf_1324671661

"I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see...
When I kill all the whiteys I see, then whitey he won't bother me...
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see..."

Unlike pornography, not everyone interprets speech in the same way.  Some are just humorless and thin-skinned.

Posted by: Serious Cat at May 31, 2013 06:45 AM (UypUQ)

23 Variable, this is Knife, stand by to copy, over.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (irlNU)

24 I think that several morons have forgotten that the world began in January of 2009, when King Puttsalot was elevated to the position from which he now rules.  Once you understand that, the rest is easy.  

Posted by: Exceptionally Mediocre at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (ZKGJl)

25 But, fun fact, the actual speech in question in the case was a dopey socialist pamphlet put out by an anti draft activist.

Posted by: Clinton's aids at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (wsGWu)

26 Did Bill Killian decide to overturn this precedent himself, or was this directive crafted by his boss, Eric Holder?



I didn't know anything about this until I read it in the newspaper.

Posted by: Eric Holder at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (MwpsQ)

27 The "shouting fire" canard is actually a violation of property rights. It's a doubly stupid example because even if you did shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the only thing that would probably happen is somebody would tell you to shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Michelle Chewbama at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (EX+sq)

28 Damn icky sock.

Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (wsGWu)

29 The amazing thing is that Holmes, despite having an epic moustache, was no libertarian and his opinions were seen to take constitutional law leftward.

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 31, 2013 06:46 AM (t06LC)

30 My goodness. I honestly never thought I would see my country target citizens while defending non citizens and those seeking to do her harm. And treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like toilet paper to boot. God help us.

Posted by: moki at May 31, 2013 06:47 AM (SdetR)

31 Well, it appears to be a concerted effort, a conspiracy even, to mitigate and obstruct our constitution.  Damn.... we sure are living in interesting times....

Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 06:47 AM (/jHWN)

32 Where's Janet Reno when we need her?

Posted by: Cowboy Bob at May 31, 2013 06:47 AM (6GZ+p)

33 It may not have come down in a memo, but it's simply following the President's proclamation that "The future must not belong to those who slander Islam."

It doesn't take a memo to get the message.

Posted by: xbradtc at May 31, 2013 06:47 AM (N6KNa)

34 Can't you yell "fire!" in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire? This has always confused me.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (4df7R)



That is because you seldom hear the entire quote.



The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 06:47 AM (lZvxr)

35 Best & brightest.... Best & brightest

Posted by: phoenixgirl....in Maui phoenixgirl@phxazgrl at May 31, 2013 06:48 AM (QgtxK)

36 How long until Clark and Ding have a chat with the people at the White House who cut them off?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 06:48 AM (zA7Zp)

37 Also, everyone should note: It is unlikely that anything on most punditry websites that constitutes whatever Zero's Council finds to be inflammatory will be prosecuted. Rather, it will be certain high profile cases to put the fear into the people.

We can't be done with these criminals fast enough. It is my sincere hope that Obama does do time, but he might be clean of any specific implication, and thus won't be able to be indicted. However, it is a moot point if the criminality of this administration can be used to trash the Democrats and Liberalism in extension. That is the war, this is merely a battle.

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 06:48 AM (El+h4)

38 That is long standing SC precedent. Neither one of these criminal assholes have the authority to override it.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (lZvxr)

 

The problem there is that you have to go through acres of red tape and   hundreds of legal hurdles before a case can be heard before the SC.  And what are the odds that   along the way     you'll find yourself trying to plead your case in front of a   series of    leftwing judges,   the products      of a Harvard education, who think you're just the worst person in the WORLD to be saying mean things about    Muslims?    

 

And even if    you don't -- even if the case is thrown out    before it goes to trial,       on the grounds the charges are unconstitutional -- how long will that take?  How long do you get to sit in prison for exercising your Constitutional rights while the lawyers and the judges haggle over the meaning of     the words     "civil" and "rights?"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 06:49 AM (4df7R)

39 PASADENA (CBSLA.com) — A mile-long asteroid set to pass safely by Earth on Friday appears to be bringing along a companion.

[It has its own moon.]

SMOD, take us away!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2013 06:49 AM (lVPtV)

40 Time to connect a dot or two here, Ace.

Does anyone believe that Choom Boy is NOT pushing this shit like crazy (except his toe-sucking liberal worshipers, that is)?

It all works together: punish free speech (at least that of conservatives, Christians, persons of non-color, etc.), make the world safe for President Historic First's© Muzzie terrorist pals = power and profit.

At some point, the only remedy will be for someone to actually start a push to hold the Chicago Jesus accountable. The alternative is to surrender the Constitution and say hello to our new America-hating, treason-sowing criminal overlords.

Do I think anyone of the "conservative" side will get up off their asses and lead? Naaaah.

That would be too much like work....

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 31, 2013 06:49 AM (mHrip)

41

@22

 

"Kill all the Whities I See," did he write that before or after "Monkeys with Figs in Caves"

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 31, 2013 06:49 AM (t06LC)

42 We can't be done with these criminals fast enough. It is my sincere hope that Obama does do time, but he might be clean of any specific implication, and thus won't be able to be indicted. However, it is a moot point if the criminality of this administration can be used to trash the Democrats and Liberalism in extension. That is the war, this is merely a battle. --- Which is why I feel a split is coming, in that these assholes have clearly poisoned all the institutions at the center of the American way of life in furtherance of their third-world authoritarian bullshit.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 06:49 AM (zA7Zp)

43 The tree of liberty is thirsting. It can't be long now.

Posted by: mrshad at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (Xqfwb)

44 What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!"

Posted by: George Orwell what knows you never wear white shoes after Labor Day at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (xw77v)

45 Total bullshit.  Fuck them all.  But you are right, this is the law of the land and fuck them.

Posted by: Prescient11 at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (tVTLU)

46 "Shouting to an angry, near-riotous crowd "Let's go kill the mayor!" could get you prosecuted, because that would be called an incitement which has a clear and present danger of actually being followed through on."
=========

Change "Mayor" to "Infidel" and you could prosecute just about every Imam in the country.

But *I* can't say that, lest I be prosecuted.

Got it.

Once again, I have one word for Mr. Killian:

"MAPPLETHORPE"

And two other words: "Blow Me!"

Posted by: Nighthawk at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (OtQXp)

47 This is not a restriction on free speech, it's just a tax.

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (6GZ+p)

48 Count me among the paranoid. Just read the CBS story on the Texan who is a person of interest in the ricin letter case. The letter sounded like a Lib's version of what a redneck bitter clinger would write. "My guns are my Constitutional right, if you come to my house I will shoot you in the face!". Odds on false flag holding steady at 50/50.

Posted by: lincolntf at May 31, 2013 06:50 AM (ZshNr)

49

Its much like the Lerner case... one where a Lawyer really does not believe in Rights... and so does not know their actual boundaries...

 

Much like Obama...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 06:51 AM (lZBBB)

50 I WILL NOT COMPLY

Posted by: Jones in CO at May 31, 2013 06:51 AM (8sCoq)

51

"How long until Clark and Ding have a chat with the people at the White House who cut them off?"

 

We should be so lucky as to have the  smarts to use a little pain to head off a lot of blood.  We're not.

Posted by: Jaws at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (4I3Uo)

52 BTW, the clear and present danger test has been superseded by the imminent lawless action test. (Brandenberg vs Ohio)

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (lZvxr)

53 Wow, its like Mark Steyn is prophetic.

Posted by: blaster at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (W6bkf)

54 47 This is not a restriction on free speech, it's just a tax. Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (6GZ+p) Well played.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows you never wear white shoes after Labor Day at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (xw77v)

55 And to think, there is a substantial percentage of the population that has no idea about their constitutional rights being marginalized or obscured, a percentage that doesn't care cause that doesn't effect them, and a percentage that is ok with it cause it's their side doing the meddling.

At what point does this cross the line?  I mean, this is kinda depressing really.  Freaking Democrats...  been ruining this country my entire life... I hoped when Ted Kennedy and his ilk started dying off things would get better... wrong

Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (/jHWN)

56 So often asked is why leftists cozy up to muslims who not only oppose so much of what the left holds sacred, but would cut off their heads and laugh about it?

It's because the Left doesn't view muslims as a threat to their power and the established order of things

That's why leftists only use the term "enemy" in reference to conservatives

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (mCvL4)

57 Lincolntf, apparently his wife turned him in. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't turn in my husband if I caught him doing the same thing, but that detail makes it seem like a false flag plan that they both cooked up.

Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (wsGWu)

58 Is there a link I'm missing, here? Re: Tennessee.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 31, 2013 06:52 AM (XYSwB)

59 When a lawyer said something *may happen it carries exactly the same weight as when I say monkeys may fly out my butt. Circle file remarks like that, but it does tell you the speaker is trying to bully and intimidate.

Posted by: Major major major major at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (FbDCr)

60

Yet another example of bad management by the SCOAMF, cuz NASA should be doing this. What a dumbass!

Posted by: Said no dim ever at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (yn6XZ)

61 Is there a link I'm missing, here?

Re: Tennessee.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (XYSwB)

 

See the post immediately preceding this one.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (4df7R)

62 Damn Ace, you're expecting the shithead in the WH to know a little history and law.  That's pretty brazen.

Posted by: dogfish at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (nsOJa)

63 S. Ct. interprets the law and has on this issue with the 'clear and present danger' standard.  An Executive branch attempt to alter the S. Ct. established standard is a violation of Separation of Powers, an action outside the sphere of Executive branch authority.. 

Posted by: viking at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (AaIjD)

64 59 When a lawyer said something *may happen it carries exactly the same weight as when I say monkeys may fly out my butt. Circle file remarks like that, but it does tell you the speaker is trying to bully and intimidate. --- When a lawyer's lips move, it usually means they're lying about something.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (zA7Zp)

65 Actually the relevant precedent here is not Schenck v. United States, but Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444. The relevant test is not Clear and Present Danger, but Imminent Lawless Action, as articulated in the Brandenburg decision. In short, if advocacy of violence is a matter of abstract principle, it is permissible. Bill Killian needs to be fired.

Posted by: Mr Estrada at May 31, 2013 06:53 AM (aLyv3)

66 Shouting to an angry, near-riotous crowd "Let's go kill the mayor!" could get you prosecuted, On the other hand, "First, kill all the lawyers"? Classic.

Posted by: Bill Shakespeare at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (FcR7P)

67 Mark Steyn has already been prosecuted for hate speech in a column where said hate speech was a quote from a Muslim. That's right, all he did was publish their own words and those darn Canadians freaked out.

Posted by: Lizzy at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (NDNbv)

68 Once, in a crowded airlock, I yelled "Fart!"

Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (xw77v)

69 How the fuck is anyone's civil rights violated by a fucking Facebook posting? Actual in your face civil rights violations like what happened at the IRS go unpunished.

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (TThYE)

70 It's not being paranoid if you're right... Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Posted by: shredded chi at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (2UrMT)

71

What amazes me is that they give Islam the 'Religious Freedom' and Free Speech shields when they talk about killing Christians and Jews... or talk about beating women... or stoning Gays...

 

Yet are now going to go after a guy posting something on the internet??

 

Would that picture, with the shotgun, not ALSO be protected under both Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion?

 

And they apparently don't see a problem?

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (lZBBB)

72 The problem is that we have a politically correct culture in which it is considered impossible that there could ever actually be a fire in a crowded theater.

Posted by: infovore at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (0llFJ)

73 We established in 1998 that impeachment of a President is a dead letter, at least if that President is a Democrat because for them party is more important than country.

However, does the House of Representatives have the power to impeach a US Attorney?  If the House does have that power is it politically realistic to do it?

The important thing to remember is that Obama is safe but his underlings are not.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (31Nrp)

74 And another thing, the selective enforcement of law is not a federal problem, it is a general problem for all of our governance. Traffic law is notorious for being selectively enforced to meet a goal outside of the stated goal of said law. Probably it is an issue of more-or-less unenforcible laws either because there are too many or the laws themselves are unrealistic. The other side of the coin is that you have a willingness to create and maintain such laws, which reveals a culture of corruption from top to bottom of our government(s). If you're okay with having laws you don't intend to enforce, and don't see any need to have them amended to reflect reality, then s**t is broken, hard.

But, natch, cynics - *of course this is the case.*

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (El+h4)

75 Ace,

We are different than the Brits precisely because of these rights.

The destruction of our clear and unambiguous right to free speech will be the most significant step toward a European style socialist state.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 06:54 AM (O6Tmi)

76

Killian is talking out of his a**. I hate to blast all US attorneys, because so many are extremely hard-working dedicated men and women. But others (and it appears to be an evergrowing set) love bringing down the power of government on people doing things they don't agree with politically. Which, by the way, is another reason why we need to reduce the role of government in our lives. If there are less things that are criminal law violations, there are less things the Justice Dept and US attorneys can use as a means to flex their power.

 

I would love to see Killian test his theory. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011) the Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Westboro Church crowd to insult the family of a dead marine at the Marine's funeral. In pretty clear language, the Supreme Court took a different view than Mr. Killian -- "in public debate we must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."

Posted by: nc at May 31, 2013 06:55 AM (fkBVg)

77 The moon bats and the moon god idolators have the same enemy, US. Once through with us, they'll turn on each other, I just hope I make it long enough to enjoy the show. My money is on the goat-fucker pedophiles (By which I mean the Muslims)

Posted by: mugiwara at May 31, 2013 06:55 AM (hpYnL)

78 Well this pretty much defines "fatal overreach" as far as I am concerned. We need to ask every Democrat if they support this, yes / no, and what are they going to do about this gang of crooks they got elected with their dirty tricks and pandering to the LoFos?

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at May 31, 2013 06:55 AM (PAKAE)

79

"We are free in such speech."  Hahahahahahahaha....

 

LI has a great article on the practice of the IRS to harass and intimidate groups based on their polictical and religious beliefs beyond the Tea Party.

 

"As Holmes argued almost a hundred years ago, we must be pretty free in our speech, or else we'll always be looking over our shoulders and censoring ourselves for fear of the Government Prosecutors putting us in jail for exercising our inalienable rights as Americans."

 

We are witnessing the climax of the fundamental transformation of the United States from a free republican government to a facist government and apparently no one in congress has the spine or the fortitude to challenge it, let alone impede it.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (PsfVm)

80 When a lawyer's lips move, it usually means they're lying about something.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (zA7Zp)

Or fellating the judge.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (O6Tmi)

81 Wow, its like Mark Steyn is prophetic. Knowing history will do that to a person.

Posted by: t-bird at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (FcR7P)

82 Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

 

 

Posted by: shredded chi at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (2UrMT)

 

 

Paranoia is defined as an IRRATIONAL Fear... what do you call it when its a Well Thought Out, RATIONAL Fear...

 

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (lZBBB)

83 And treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like toilet paper to boot. God help us.

I treat my toilet paper with far more respect than O'Bumbles treats the Constitution. (That screed of negative liberties!)

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (ndlFj)

84 But, you can't touch this.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe Arpaio at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (XYSwB)

85 S. Ct. interprets the law and has on this issue with the 'clear and present danger' standard. An Executive branch attempt to alter the S. Ct. established standard is a violation of Separation of Powers, an action outside the sphere of Executive branch authority..

Posted by: viking at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (AaIjD)

 

The Exec Branch does not give two shits about Separation of Powers, as evidenced by Bammy's willingness to circumnavigate an    "obstructionist" Congress through Executive Orders, and to ignore SCOTUS rulings that he doesn't like.    Far as I know, those off-shore drilling permits SCOTUS told them to quit delaying?  Still delayed.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (4df7R)

86 However, does the House of Representatives have the power to impeach a US Attorney? If the House does have that power is it politically realistic to do it? --- The House has the ability to impeach any federal official, such as a judge, US attorney, or cabinet official. The chances of a conviction are pretty damn slim, though, as one of the only people to actually get removed via impeachment is the current Rep. Alcee Hastings (Dumbass, FL), who was taking bribes from drug dealers in the early 80s.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 06:56 AM (zA7Zp)

87 the left is unable to process any thought more complex than fire in a movie theater. I'm sure we've gotten our panties in a bunch over some lefty on MSNCB using that phrase over moderate criticism of other lefties many times. wow, isn't amazing how these trojan horse leftists always end up doing and wanting the same things. Oh sure sure, free speech to protect commies but as soon as they get power, errrrmmmm, not so much. speech is bad.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (QxSug)

88 However, in a lot of cases, these incitements were largely (it was contended) rhetorical. You sure about that? There seems to have been plenty of bomb throwing and assassinations by anarchists world wide. And like our present day anarchists, commies, and terrorists, they committed armed robbery and murdered people to fund the cause. Everytime I hear that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent I could hurl. That the boston prick declared they were innocent was ridiculous.

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (dHIHO)

89 The long march through the institutions has succeeded. American society as a whole no longer cares about freedom of speech or liberty. They care far more about "fairness" and "tolerance."

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (xw77v)

90 Of course the Muslima will win against the libs. Libs can only force a willing population into their utopian camps. Muslims will just continue to chop off heads.

Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (wsGWu)

91 Paranoia is defined as an IRRATIONAL Fear... what do you call it when its a Well Thought Out, RATIONAL Fear... --- Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you.

Posted by: Zombie Kurt Cobain at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (zA7Zp)

92 >>>> What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!"

You either get your head cut off or you get stoned.

Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (AkdCZ)

93

IANAL,

But seems given the background on Brandenberg v. Ohio (i.e. what actually happened) that the case in question is really no worse than that (if it even reaches that, it's unclear, but moot really.)

 

"I'm offended" and "it's offensive!" are two entirely different things (as the guy who writes SMBC is wont to say.)  This is clearly the case of the former being pushed into the latter.

Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 06:57 AM (GaqMa)

94 Mr. Obama nor Holder or Killian for that matter can repeal anything relating to the First Amendment. They are, as intended by the people who wrote our Constitution simply accoutrements of a democratic process.

However what they can do, and as is their history, is use the auspices of our state, a state of which we are the rightful owners. to intimidate, harass and wrongly prosecute those who disagree with their whimsical fiats and tyrannical actions.

We see these diabolical act's come to life in the IRS Scandal, James Rosen and the AP's prosecution, the New Black Panther Incident and even Benghazi.

It is the misuse of our government for nefarious ends, ends which do not comport with Constitutional boundaries, undertaken by despots and enforced or supported by a treasonous liege of underlings, like-minded citizens, the fawning press and other anti-democratic cast-offs.

It is the tyranny of a majority which lives and breaths amongst us and breeds like a cancer.

Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 06:58 AM (GGCsk)

95 See the post immediately preceding this one. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (4df7R) Thanks MWR. Just popped in.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe Arpaio at May 31, 2013 06:58 AM (XYSwB)

96 Gutless has a price.

Posted by: nip at May 31, 2013 06:58 AM (lGVXf)

97 So instead of a universal "Draw Mohammed Day", we should have a "Let's All Write About Killing Bill Killian Day"?

'Cause we might be approaching such points.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 31, 2013 06:58 AM (eHIJJ)

98 * me, MWR

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 31, 2013 06:58 AM (XYSwB)

99

PASADENA (CBSLA.com) — A mile-long asteroid set to pass safely by Earth on Friday

 

Hey, asteroid! You led us by too much, asshole!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (Z2Bkq)

100 What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!"

Thread-winner.  But the answer is beheading none-the-less.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (ndlFj)

101 Is this a fire-break maneuver?

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (PAKAE)

102 Everytime I hear that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent I could hurl. That the boston prick declared they were innocent was ridiculous. --- They, along with the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, were convicted for exactly what they did but have become martyrs by idiots trying to re-write history and holding "mock trials' to exonerate them.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (zA7Zp)

103 BTW, does this Killian clown have a twitter account?

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (z9HTb)

104 When I first moved to SF, they began having these, I'm not sure what they called them, Court of Something. They would retry old cases with local legal celebrities. They do it in LA, too. Of course, they always declared the defendant innocent. Now I realize that it was one more way lefties rewrite history.

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (dHIHO)

105


Obama is the source of all of this.

We're supposed to believe he de-radicalized, that he's all cool with Whitey now?

No...


Posted by: Rev dr E buzz at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (raGXo)

106 So was Shakespeare right when he said to "shoot the lawyers first"?

Posted by: EC at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (GQ8sn)

107 >>Paranoia is defined as an IRRATIONAL Fear... what do you call it when its a Well Thought Out, RATIONAL Fear... Today.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2013 06:59 AM (g1DWB)

108

If this stands, then someone needs to go to Jeremiah Wright's church, Louis Farakhan's mosque, etc., and get those bastards ON TAPE spouting off about Jews and Whiteys.

 

I'm pretty sure that some of the radical mosques preach "Death to all Americans"  five times a day.....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (ADnWI)

109 Has Obama Repealed the "Clear and Present Danger" Doctrine?

 

Just add it to the list. He recently took the White Out to  free speech and  due process at colleges.

 

http://tinyurl.com/lglygps 

 

There should  be a list.  The Internet likes lists.

Posted by: CJ at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (9KqcB)

110 97 So instead of a universal "Draw Mohammed Day", we should have a "Let's All Write About Killing Bill Killian Day"? Hey, everyone had a field day when many were defending assassination porn about George Bush as dissent, the highest form of patriotism. Good times.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (xw77v)

111 Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is only unprotected by the First Amendment under the "clear and present danger" test if there is *no* fire.

By the same token, writing about how the Islamic religion glorifies murder of the non-Muslim world and sanctions child molestation does not even require analysis under the "clear and present danger" test.

Posted by: Useless Information at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (FDGeg)

112 and the question should be raised, at what point is this obsequiousness basically the same thing as living under sharia law anyway.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (QxSug)

113 @Marcus

It's no majority. It is the tyranny of a powerful and influential minority. The White Liberal Club.

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 07:00 AM (El+h4)

114 Our Republic is gradually collapsing like a slow-boiled frog.

Posted by: USS CONSTITUTION at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (KqwSL)

115 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (/PCJa)

116 **Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is only unprotected by the First Amendment under the "clear and present danger" test if there is *no* fire.** Wow, you just blew out the protective fuses on about every liberal reading this site.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (QxSug)

117

What good are SCOTUS rulings and laws if they are not enforced? If there were ever someone who needed to be impeached and incarcerated, Eric the Red would personify that someone.

 

Feckless, cowards those Republicans. I wouldn't piss in their mouth if their teeth hwere on fire. 

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (PsfVm)

118 Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (/PCJa)

119 Now to read the post...

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (/PCJa)

120 44 What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!" Posted by: George Orwell what knows you never wear white shoes after Labor Day at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (xw77v) Awwwwww! http://goo.gl/Csqds

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 07:01 AM (dHIHO)

121 but but but fire? movie theater? bad? u shut up now! signed, xxoo every liberal when it comes to speech they don't like

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:02 AM (QxSug)

122 Hussein's standing with Islam all right.  The EEOC is fighting FOR Shariah law in (wait for it) Chicago:  http://bit.ly/18EcQHB

Posted by: RushBabe at May 31, 2013 07:03 AM (qkZxk)

123 Everytime I hear that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent I could hurl. That the boston prick declared they were innocent was ridiculous. Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM


I feel the same way about the Rosenbergs.  Guilty guilty guilty.

Posted by: huerfano at May 31, 2013 07:03 AM (bAGA/)

124 http://goo.gl/Csqds Them is some mighty sexy cutie tocks, Achmed.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 07:03 AM (xw77v)

125 The Exec Branch does not give two shits about Separation of Powers, as evidenced by Bammy's willingness to circumnavigate an "obstructionist" Congress through Executive Orders, and to ignore SCOTUS rulings that he doesn't like. Far as I know, those off-shore drilling permits SCOTUS told them to quit delaying? Still delayed. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit

Well, I agree with you they'll overreach as far as anyone will let them but the S. Ct. isn't going to go along with its fundamental power being usurped.  Executive orders are within the Exec. branches powers, so an inopposite example.  I thought the drilling permits rulings were lower fed courts, not S. Ct.?  I ask because they'd argue maintaing status quo pending appeals.. 

Posted by: viking at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (AaIjD)

126

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

Hmmmm......

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (lZBBB)

127

>>>  Burn it down.

 

 

FIRE!

Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (i5dfl)

128 Look at just about any article in the MSM about muslims and they employ the "JUST LIKE YOU" trick even with terrorists like Speedbump and Joker

"After long shifts driving his cab in Manhattan, Ahmed Nadal goes home to his wife Fatima in their modest home in Jersey City to a meticulously home cooked halal meal. At his KITCHEN TABLE, Nadal describes the anxieties felt each day by an immigrant who like those who first arrived 120 years ago, feel the sting of discrimination"

'I know how black people in the South must have felt' says Nadal, a sad look upon his gentle face ... "


Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (mCvL4)

129 I'm pretty sure that some of the radical mosques preach "Death to all Americans" five times a day.....

We've been told that Radical Mosques in America make up more than 80% of the total.  IN AMERICA.

Posted by: likemyheadtoomuch at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (ndlFj)

130 124 http://goo.gl/Csqds Them is some mighty sexy cutie tocks, Achmed. Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (xw77v) I liked the jump sticks and smoocher.

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 07:04 AM (dHIHO)

131 Random but semi-related question for DC-area Morons: is that big white thing visible from 495 when headed west into NoVa a mosque?  It's maybe a mile or 2 before the 270 interchange.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 07:05 AM (B/VB5)

132 Ok so somebody already noted that the "Clear and Present Danger" test in Schenck was pretty much replaced by the "imminent lawless action" test in Brandenburg, but I have one other minor quibble to point out ... There is no issue with yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater that can be troublesome. Another interesting bit of trivia, to my knowledge Schenck is the only (or at least the first) reference to the "fire in a theater" metaphor in any federal case. I don't believe there are truly any hard legal requirements about that specific action, it was just named as an example in the Schenck opinion.

Posted by: Matchesmalone at May 31, 2013 07:05 AM (fXAFI)

133 "After long shifts driving his cab in Manhattan, Ahmed Nadal goes home to his wife Fatima in their modest home in Jersey City to a meticulously home cooked halal meal. At his KITCHEN TABLE, Who knew that a kitchen table was the ultimate get out of jail free card?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 07:05 AM (xw77v)

134 It's a Mormon Temple.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 07:06 AM (ZPrif)

135 Pack it in, Wingnuts. Your Rights Are Inalienable No Longer.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 31, 2013 07:06 AM (tWmgi)

136 Yip: "I hoped when Ted Kennedy and his ilk started dying off things would get better... wrong"

Kennedy and ilk were liberal Democrats. But that's not who the Democrats are today. They are The New Party which is to say Statist/Fascists until they can finally attain Communist. The GOP is the new Democrat. The Tea Party would be old school Republicans.

The Overton Window leaped Left while most Americans dozed.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 31, 2013 07:06 AM (eHIJJ)

137

You could always just preface your comment with-

 

"Some have said..."

  

or end it with-

 

"...or so I've heard."

 

 

EXAMPLES:  

   Some have said,  "Let's go kill the mayor!" or so I've heard.

 

 Some have said, "Islam sucks!" or so I've heard.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at May 31, 2013 07:06 AM (pxDth)

138 That is long standing SC precedent. Neither one of these criminal assholes have the authority to override it. Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (lZvxr) Which will be cold comfort indeed to the person who has spent all the money s/he has fighting those charges. The civil rights violation gambit has been in play for awhile now. I can't remember the details, but there was a case in PA where some kids beat up some other kids allegedly based on racial grounds. The jury found the kids not guilty on the state criminal charges and the local US Attorney promptly brought them to trial on civil rights violations.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies. at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (VtjlW)

139 The big white thing on the Maryland side of the beltway? Yeah, mormon temple.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (ZPrif)

140 Why? And did we vote on this? At what point did we, as a free people which supposedly decides our own laws, decide to overturn this nearly 100 year old judicial precedent?

================
It's not nice, it's not pretty, we didn't think that was the real result but: The civil rights act and anti-discrimination laws.

Sorry.

Racism is bad. It is Evil.

But telling a man what he can and cannot do, when such acts or non-action, does not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of another, is a greater evil.

It's an ugly truth. But we are beginning to see the true fruit of those laws. And it is not making America a better place--it is giving the state more power to deem more and more as criminals.

Posted by: RoyalOil at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (VjL9S)

141 ... ... ... I'm going to say this in the nicest way I know how which still also conveys my feeling about this matter: Fuck Barack Obama and his cronies. Fuck them for making a mockery of the Liberties I hold dear. Fuck them for supporting our enemies while bashing our allies. Fuck them for usurping ever more of my power as a Sovereign citizen of the United States. Fuck them for attempting to turn an entire country against me because I have the temerity to disagree with them. Fuck John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and every other weak-kneed Republican. Fuck them for not telling the truth about the Stuttering clusterfuck of a malignant tyrant. Fuck them for running for political cover instead of doing what's right. Fuck them for not having the God-damned balls necessary to call out this Administration for every evil and tyrannical thing they do. Fuck them all. Fuck them in the fucking fuck wholes. The fuckers.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (/PCJa)

142

They, along with the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, were convicted for exactly what they did but have become martyrs by idiots trying to re-write history and holding "mock trials' to exonerate them.

 

The people trying to exonerate assorted historical assholes are not idiots. Quite the contrary. They know perfectly well that all of said assholes were guilty as sin, but that's what makes them perfect for their purpose, which is agitation.

 

Find some clown who is obviously guilty, and support him as if he were the Baby Jesus. That mobilizes a lot of useful idiots, and provokes scorn and resistance from the grown-ups, radicalizing the useful idiots - which was the purpose of the whole exercise.

 

Now either the clown is convicted and punished - and becomes another martyr for The Cause - or he's acquitted, which they spin as The Man backing down in the face of The People. Win either way.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (Z2Bkq)

143 That thing on 495 is actually an alien mothership. The invisibility cloak has been malfunctioning recently. You know, it's filled with what people assume the jooos do. Our overlords, lizards, that sort of thing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:07 AM (QxSug)

144 AllenG - that's beautiful, man. /sniff

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (Z2Bkq)

145 Exactly when did The Nation Below Canada decide that a Star Chamber was a fine idea?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (xw77v)

146 I've never heard a liberal challenging this doctrine -- until now. They really liked the doctrine when it was protecting elements of the left from prosecution.
=======

Evil always preaches tolerance until it gains power . . . .

Posted by: RoyalOil at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (VjL9S)

147

For whats it worth, the only recent case that remotely could be held to support Killian's view of the world is Virginia v. Black (2003), where the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute prohibiting cross burning as a means to intimidate. But that case was really a unique outlier that had more to do (I think) with the fact that the case involved a former Confederate state, the South's past history of racial oppression (and don't flame me, I am just noting the court's logic), the Klan was the perpretator of one of the cross burnings at issue in the case,  and  one  of  the   cross  burnings  occurred  right  next  to  an  African American's  yard  during  the  night.

The case is kind of a mess since there were multiple opinions and shifting groups of justices on different rulings in the case. Honestly, outside of the unique facts of that case, I am not sure if Virgnia v. Black has any real precedential value.

Posted by: nc at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (fkBVg)

148

It's no majority. It is the tyranny of a powerful and influential minority. The White Liberal Club.

 


 

Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (El+h4)

 

 

Yep... hit me a couple weeks ago.... I was asking how could the supposedly small minority of Militant Jihadi types highjack the entire 1 Billion Islamic people?

 

Then it hit me.... something like 1% of people are Gay... Yet we are allowing the Gay agenda to dictate a large portion of how our society Acts...

 

I'm thinking its the same dynamic.... now just have to figure out how to combat it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (lZBBB)

149 don't care, cause lena dunham's sister might want to have a wedding. signed, xxoo enough white people with boutique white people voting issues so as to turn the election for obama

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:08 AM (QxSug)

150 >>You could always just preface your comment with- Nope. Not going to give up my rights because of some half assed Obama appointee.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2013 07:09 AM (g1DWB)

151 So wait...

My edgy but tasteful series of Mohammad portraits can't go on display this weekend? 

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 31, 2013 07:09 AM (tWmgi)

152 Diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" until you can find a big enough rock. Liberal happy talk about being "open-minded" and for free speech and tolerance -- was just diplomatic happy talk. They found their rock and they intend to use it.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 07:10 AM (ZPrif)

153 Why? And did we vote on this?

When the soap box and the ballot box cease to be recognized by the government, we're headed into dangerous waters.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at May 31, 2013 07:10 AM (fwARV)

154

AllenG - that's beautiful, man. /sniff

 

 

**Overly Dramatic Clap**

 

A guy that writes like that deserves his own blog.

Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 07:10 AM (i5dfl)

155 The big white thing on the Maryland side of the beltway? Yeah, mormon temple.

Thanks!  Was driving down that way recently and wasn't sure what to make of it.  Thought it might be Scientology, but then it looks vaguely like a crescent moon on top of one of the spires.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 07:10 AM (B/VB5)

156

The civil rights violation gambit has been in play for awhile now. I can't remember the details, but there was a case in PA where some kids beat up some other kids allegedly based on racial grounds. The jury found the kids not guilty on the state criminal charges and the local US Attorney promptly brought them to trial on civil rights violations.

 

It's not double jeopardy. It's ... uh ... 1.5 jeopardy. We'll just keep trying someone on the same fact pattern until we get the result we want, that's all.

 

And don't get me started on "hate crime." What's the antonym? Is there a "love crime?" Presumably killing or beating someone is a tipoff that you're crazy about them, right?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:10 AM (Z2Bkq)

157 Why? And did we vote on this? ******* Um, behold the Trojan Horse Liberal

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 07:11 AM (QxSug)

158 Fuck the fucking fuckers.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 31, 2013 07:11 AM (NcPjb)

159 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 12:07 PM (/PCJa)

Enjoy the Prosecution with a side of Audit.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 31, 2013 07:11 AM (tWmgi)

160 I've never been there, just that's what I've been told. There's a chance I'm wrong, but I've been told that repeatedly.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 07:12 AM (ZPrif)

161 And don't get me started on "hate crime." What's the antonym? Is there a "love crime?" Presumably killing or beating someone is a tipoff that you're crazy about them, right? Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (Z2Bkq) Off the top of my head I can't think of the last hate crime (legitimate, not a hoax)

Posted by: RWC at May 31, 2013 07:12 AM (fWAjv)

162 Did Bill Killian decide to overturn this precedent himself, or was this directive crafted by his boss, Eric Holder? For the record: US Attorneys are appointed by the President (and, I think, require Senate confirmation). His boss is not Eric Holder. Holder is (at most) his "supervisor." His boss is the President.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:13 AM (/PCJa)

163 >>The civil rights violation gambit has been in play for awhile now. Once the hate crime bullshit started I knew we were opening the door to all this bullshit. Hate crime laws are only brought against protected minorities despite the fact that if somebody shoots me in the face I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest he probably hates me. So stupid and so predictable.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2013 07:13 AM (g1DWB)

164 @136....   My point about Teddy passing was he and his were more than liberal democrats.  Teddy lied and cajoled and got away with waaayyy too much that has had a direct effect on us since he got in the Senate... not to mention Mary Jo..

The new-hard left has arisen in the vacuum and the most of the mainline donks are ok but unsettled, but for now their riding that alligator because they're happy to be in power... and to donks, it's always been about being in power and patronage.  Giving away citizens money to donk constituencies to maintain a voting block and more power.

I can't stand democrats.... and that is a problem in my family because the entire generation older than me is BLUE democrat as far as the eye can see, and they're loving the fall of BushHitler and the rise of the Bronco... 

Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (/jHWN)

165 And don't get me started on "hate crime." What's the antonym? Is there a "love crime?" Presumably killing or beating someone is a tipoff that you're crazy about them, right?

 

 

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (Z2Bkq)

 

 

Yes.... filming Sex in California without a Condom....

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (lZBBB)

166 Yeah, the preach hate in the mosques yet the feds will not go after them. I remember when they raised a stink about even having fbi agents present in the mosques (undercover) to listen to their shite. And of course, the fbi complied.

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (dHIHO)

167 You know what we need now?

You know what we really need now?

You know what we morons really need a shit load of right fucking now?





The wisdom of a Latina woman.

Posted by: I take back all the shitty things I've said about this shitty blog at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (qxcKC)

168

Stop calling them liberals.

I hate that. It is so Orwellian.

Posted by: The Media at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (JSetw)

169 What is happening is that government officials have learned how to game the system in their favor. They know that no matter how questionable their edicts may be, it is such a huge burden on the public to challenge them. That's all it takes for our country to change from de jure to de facto government. The courts are useless in these cases because the burden to bring suit requires standing and enough resources to make an effective challenge. It also requires time. Resolution at the national level only happens after many intermediate challenges in more localized jurisdictions. Congress does not do its job here because it has become a political mine field for them. The frog has been boiled, my friends. Now it will be consumed.

Posted by: WrathOfGod at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (ddb4x)

170

But that case was really a unique outlier that had more to do (I think) with the fact that the case involved a former Confederate state, the South's past history of racial oppression (and don't flame me, I am just noting the court's logic),the Klan was the perpetrator of one of the cross burnings at issue in the case, and one of the cross burnings occurred right next to an African American's yard during the night.

 

So, much like gun control, a cleaner way to effect protection without harming law-abiding citizens would be to prohibit cross-burning (or gun ownership) by Democrats. Problem solved.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:14 AM (Z2Bkq)

171 What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!"

Posted by: George Orwell what knows you never wear white shoes after Labor Day at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (xw77v)

 

If false?  Multiple cases of blue balls.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 31, 2013 07:15 AM (DrWcr)

172 Here's the statist goon lying right off the bat when he got the job ...

U.S. attorney appointee Bill C. Killian promises fairness

'There won't be political considerations in this office,' he says


http://tinyurl.com/kyy8seo

"I can assure you, I am no political figurehead," the 61-year-old Killian said in an interview last week. "I don't think politics solely get you the job. It's a very political process, but once you get confirmed by the (U.S.) Senate and sworn in, you check your politics at the door.

"I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I will do so," he continued. "There won't be political considerations in this office."


Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2013 07:15 AM (mCvL4)

173

And don't get me started on "hate crime." What's the antonym? Is there a "love crime?"

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (Z2Bkq)

 

Just you waite.   Soon we'll hear about "honor killings" and "pedophilic incest" being prosecuted as "love crimes." 

 

"I just loved him/her so much, judge!  I couldn't bear to let anyone else have them!"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 07:15 AM (4df7R)

174

Stop calling them liberals.
I hate that. It is so Orwellian.

/sock off

Posted by: Cluebat formerly from Exodar at May 31, 2013 07:15 AM (Mv/2X)

175

Posted by: WrathOfGod at May 31, 2013 12:14 PM (ddb4x)

 

Been saying for years... When the ONLY Check on Federal Power, is the Federal Government, you have a serious problem.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 07:16 AM (lZBBB)

176 You know what we morons really need a shit load of right fucking now? The wisdom of a Latina woman. Posted by: I take back all the shitty things I've said about this shitty blog at May 31, 2013 12:14 PM (qxcKC) I agree! Sofía Vergara!

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 07:16 AM (dHIHO)

177

For the record: US Attorneys are appointed by the President (and, I think, require Senate confirmation). His boss is not Eric Holder. Holder is (at most) his "supervisor."

His boss is the President.

 

So US Attorneys now report ultimately to George Soros?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:16 AM (Z2Bkq)

178 >>> Enjoy the Prosecution with a side of Audit. I'm sure AllenG is already on some sort of list. I, myself, have frequently noted that Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a malignant tyrant a few times, so I may also be under scrutiny. If need be, I shall be Spartacus.

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2013 07:16 AM (z9HTb)

179 I can't stand democrats.... and that is a problem in my family because the entire generation older than me is BLUE democrat as far as the eye can see

That reminds me of an interesting data point from the MSNBC ratings: about 1/4 of their audience is ages 18-49, the rest are older.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 07:16 AM (B/VB5)

180 167 You know what we need now?

You know what we really need now?

You know what we morons really need a shit load of right fucking now?


The bouncing boobehs of a Latina woman.

Posted by: Yessssssssssssss at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (EGPJQ)

181 So US Attorneys now report ultimately to George Soros? For the last 4 years, at least.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (/PCJa)

182

As soon as my years-in-the-making painting series is (finally) finished and the children's book illustrations I'm working on are out of the way, I'm going forward with a new, single painting project entitled 'In Which The Prophet Mohammed Enjoys Carnal Knowledge Of A Pig'.

 

I intend to employ Islamic art conventions: the face of the Prophet (pbuh) will be obscured, either with a veil or a suitably glowy transcendent haze similar to the softly focused and heavily filtered effects used on Elizabeth Taylor's television appearances in the sad, alcohol-saturated years prior to her death. Out of respect for his already outraged dignity, I might also obscure the face of the pig.

Posted by: troyriser at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (vtiE6)

183

There  is a  clear and  present danger in hurting the Muzzies feelings.

 

Feelings trump everything for the Left.   

Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (m2CN7)

184 But hey, I'm sure if we continue to play nice with people who are assaulting us from every single direction conceivable, we'll win converts, right? Right? After all, protecting barbarians, bums and criminals while knee-capping the productive and law-abiding is a position that can simply be overcome with reason and civility. Fact: We had a revolution for less than this.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (NcPjb)

185 If need be, I shall be Spartacus. --- I'm Spartacus and so is my wife!

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (zA7Zp)

186 So US Attorneys now report ultimately to George Soros?

HEY!  Respect my authority!

Posted by: Valerie Jarett at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (B/VB5)

187 is that big white thing visible from 495 when headed west into NoVa a mosque? It's maybe a mile or 2 before the 270 interchange.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (B/VB5)

Mormon Temple

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (fwARV)

188

"I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I will do so," he continued. "There won't be political considerations in this office."

 

Was he laughing when he said that?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (Z2Bkq)

189 "I just loved him/her so much, judge! I couldn't bear to let anyone else have them!" Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 12:15 PM (4df7R) Judge?? Why would they be in front of a judge? Multi Culti H8er!!

Posted by: RWC at May 31, 2013 07:17 AM (fWAjv)

190 We needs more of thee Limon Pledge, Mr. Ace.

Posted by: Justicia Sotomator at May 31, 2013 07:18 AM (i5dfl)

191

179 I can't stand democrats.... and that is a problem in my family because
the entire generation older than me is BLUE democrat as far as the eye
can see


That reminds me of an interesting data point from the MSNBC ratings: about 1/4 of their audience is ages 18-49, the rest are older.

----

Old farts watch for it the Depends commercials.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at May 31, 2013 07:18 AM (EGPJQ)

192

Great post.   The Islamic attack on free speech has been a particular interest of mine for about a decade now. 

 

The  Western  press, oddly enough, has been leading the charge. 

 

I note again the White House  blamed  the  Benghazi  (Libya)  attack  on an 'Internet' video which was _televised_ on Al-Nas  (Egypt).   Then the government-media complex blamed the video on Pam Geller and Robert Spencer.

 

When you begin to understand how all that happened and who is advising the president, I think it  would help.   Not saying I have all the facts, but my speculation jar is full.     

 

    

  

Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 07:18 AM (sOtz/)

193 OT on the friday morning news dump there were alot of comments on why they want to do biometric data on students. Bing or google InBloom. Nine states have already submitted data and are participating in a data collection to follow the students (in great detail including missed assignments, family specifics, etc) throughout their school and presumably after. Best perk for the company? They get to sell the data. Oh and thank Bill and Melinda Gates for pushing this!

Posted by: FCF at May 31, 2013 07:18 AM (Khja4)

194 Walid Shoebat says Barry's half bro, Malik, hangs with groups on the US's terror watchlist.  As an added treat, Lois "Stonewall" Lerner is implicated in funding terrorism:  http://bit.ly/12m8Uws

Posted by: RushBabe at May 31, 2013 07:19 AM (qkZxk)

195 They should be very worried about the "Right" electing someone with a set of stones since turnabout is fair play.  A person with moxie and uncaring to the liberal press could return this government pretty quickly to a proper course. In fact, that's probably why they fear strong conservatives. This type of strategy can work both ways and people have become pretty attuned to their hypocritical howling.

Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 07:19 AM (GGCsk)

196 Most masājid are like the cultural centre where the Tsarnaevs went. The salat ul jumaa (weekly rant) won't be overtly anti American, but there will be social justice (wink) or prayers for Kashmir (wink wink). The hardcore shit is preached offsite. So the imam can say, oh we never had any extremism in this nice peaceful majlis, it's probably zionists and Pam Geller oops, I mean "those with a vested interest in dividing us".

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 07:20 AM (MUZDl)

197 What happens if, in a cave full of apes, I yell "Crunchy figs!"

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at May 31, 2013 07:20 AM (xw77v)

198 Great post. The Islamic attack on free speech has been a particular interest of mine for about a decade now. The Western press, oddly enough, has been leading the charge. Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 12:18 PM (sOtz/) Yeah, they are a fucking embarrassment.

Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 07:20 AM (dHIHO)

199

187 is that big white thing visible from 495 when headed west into NoVa a mosque? It's maybe a mile or 2 before the 270 interchange.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (B/VB5)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's big and white, it ain't you-know-who's you-know-what.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at May 31, 2013 07:20 AM (EGPJQ)

200

They should be very worried about the "Right" electing someone with a set of stones since turnabout is fair play.

 

The statists appear to have an attitude of "game, set, match" these days.  They're probably right.

Posted by: RushBabe at May 31, 2013 07:21 AM (qkZxk)

201

Feelings trump everything for the Left.

 

Thanks, 19th Amendment! That sure worked out swell. You'd think that 18th and 19th Amendments, which were so closely linked, would have been a tipoff that we were heading down the wrong path, one that would lead ultimately to The View and Coexist bumper stickers.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2013 07:21 AM (Z2Bkq)

202 Ace on twitter: DepressiveBlogger69 ‏@AceofSpadesHQ I seriously demand to know if Eric Holder/Bill Killian plan to prosecute Muslims for hate speech made online. Let's say, e.g., about Jews. Good on Ace! Also, under the Killian doctrine, would certain quotations from the Koran be criminal to post in social media?

Posted by: USA at May 31, 2013 07:21 AM (VIaw0)

203 >It's no majority. It is the tyranny of a powerful and influential minority. The White Liberal Club.
Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (El+h4)<

They were elected. That still makes them a majority no matter how you slice it.

We can whine all day long about how people didn't show up. But notwithstanding the anti-democratic use of our IRS and other government agencies to intimidate and suppress our vote, people still need to show up and vote.

This is what they voted for; an out of control government who ignores the Constitution, fiscal restraint/reality and tramples a free market and individual liberty.

Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 07:23 AM (GGCsk)

204 They should be very worried about the "Right" electing someone with a set of stones since turnabout is fair play. But, of course, they aren't. And they aren't because they know that Conservatives don't work that way. A strong Conservative wouldn't use the power of the Government- he would work to reduce that power. Now, a sufficiently ruthless Republican (which is not the same as a Conservative) might concern them- but I don't see a whole lot of those on the bench.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 07:24 AM (/PCJa)

205 12 Will they replace Eric Holder with Jamie Gorelick? Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2013 11:43 AM (ndlFj) I don't think Jamie Gorelicker could really replace Eric "the dick" Holder, and don't forget Reggie Love's boyfriend would have to approve it too.

Posted by: Killerdog at May 31, 2013 07:25 AM (qAUap)

206 criticism of Islam = prohibited language and Federal Hate crime

criticism of the ghey = prohibited language and Federal Hate crime

criticism of Christianity = free speech and about time too

soon...... criticism of our dear leader, the IRS, DHS, EPS, teacher unions, democrat organizations, NPR, global warming, solar and wind power...   all will be monitored and investigated and probably deemed illegal.  It's just not acceptable any more. 


Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 07:25 AM (/jHWN)

207 test

Posted by: Jones in CO at May 31, 2013 07:27 AM (8sCoq)

208 That case of cross burning in VA the supremes ruled in favor of the KKK. (Virginia vs Black)

The supremes have ruled consistently in modern times to allow any form of speech that met the imminent lawless action test.


However, that is not the case with the "hate crimes" law.  They upheld it/

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2013 07:28 AM (lZvxr)

209 150 >>You could always just preface your comment with-

Nope. Not going to give up my rights because of some half assed Obama appointee.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2013 12:09 PM (g1DWB)

 

*****

 

Some have said, "Suit yourself."

 

 

 

...or so I've heard.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at May 31, 2013 07:28 AM (pxDth)

210 nother test

Posted by: Jones in CO at May 31, 2013 07:28 AM (8sCoq)

211 ping ping

Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 07:30 AM (/jHWN)

212

Since nobody in this regime seems to understand the Constitution or the principles upon which it is  based, I'll just have to depend on the words  as they were written.

 

I really don't, at this point, give one shit what they say. I know what it says and what it means. And I will defend it.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at May 31, 2013 07:32 AM (0HooB)

213 Bill Killian is a great friend of the Constitution and he will bring down the full force of the law that makes America great on any Wacko Bird who talks shit about my friends in the moderate and peaceful Islamic community!!

Posted by: John al-McCain at May 31, 2013 07:32 AM (mCvL4)

214 Now, a sufficiently ruthless Republican (which is not the same as a Conservative) might concern them- but I don't see a whole lot of those on the bench. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 12:24 PM


Yeah? Put me in charge and watch what happens.

Posted by: Berserker at May 31, 2013 07:33 AM (FMbng)

215

We can whine all day long about how people didn't show up. But notwithstanding the anti-democratic use of our IRS and other government agencies to intimidate and suppress our vote, people still need to show up and vote.

 

I did my part.

Posted by: Melowese Richardson at May 31, 2013 07:35 AM (qkZxk)

216 You think criticizing Muslims is bad, just wait to see what I have cooked up for you IRS-deniers.

Posted by: Barack at May 31, 2013 07:35 AM (7cUr9)

217 So what would it take to provoke the government into persecuting--er, sorry--prosecuting someone for violating the new hate-speech rules? We need a test case. My painting idea posted at 182, for example. Would publicizing a (very well executed) painting of the Prophet of Islam having his way with a barnyard animal do the job?

Posted by: troyriser at May 31, 2013 07:37 AM (vtiE6)

218 Wouldn't that be Yahya Ibn Cain?

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 07:38 AM (MUZDl)

219 soon...... criticism of our dear leader, the IRS, DHS, EPS, teacher unions, democrat organizations, NPR, global warming, solar and wind power... all will be monitored and investigated and probably deemed illegal. It's just not acceptable any more.


Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 12:25 PM (/jHWN)

 

Ah....   Hate to break it to you.       Soon is optimistic.   

Posted by: DHS counterterror guidelines at May 31, 2013 07:39 AM (sOtz/)

220 ------->Why? And did we vote on this? At what point did we, as a free people which supposedly decides our own laws, decide to overturn this nearly 100 year old judicial precedent?



We now find ourselves in the unenviable position the Europeans found themselves in at the onset of the EU. With vote after vote against joining the Governments signed on to membership. Though supposedly at the service of their people, an EU polity simple knew better and did what they wanted.



Posted by: typo dynamofo at May 31, 2013 07:40 AM (WVMUQ)

221 Mark Steyn has already been prosecuted for hate speech in a column where said hate speech was a quote from a Muslim. That's right, all he did was publish their own words and those darn Canadians freaked out. Posted by: Lizzy at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (NDNbv) -------------- No, he was accused of hate speech by of the provincial Human Rights Commissions. It's not a criminal prosecution, where he's at risk of going to jail. And he shoved it up their asses so hard that he almost singlehandedly broke their power and now the momentum is swinging towards abolishing them. This is WORSE. We've leapfrogged Canada's half-assed stupidity and landed square on U.K.-style criminal prosecutions for crimethink. I can't wait for this to hit SCOTUS.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 07:41 AM (JDIKC)

222

As always when I hear one of these stories, the only response I can come up with is: Fuck every single one of those leftist bastards.

 

My only consolation is knowing that those assholes will be the first against the wall if a revolution comes.

Posted by: OSUsux at May 31, 2013 07:44 AM (DFXmi)

223 This is WORSE. We've leapfrogged Canada's half-assed stupidity and landed square on U.K.-style criminal prosecutions for crimethink.

I can't wait for this to hit SCOTUS. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 12:41 PM

Well, the government calls it a tax so I guess it's OK

Posted by: John Roberts at May 31, 2013 07:47 AM (mCvL4)

224 Any Moron's or 'Nettes have any experience with surgery? Like, scheduling? He is totally AWESOME and the best at this, but what if he gets bored, sometimes? Obviously, the DR.scheduled 15 like surgeries for one day and one of them went WRONG, very early. Okayy...

Posted by: Deety at May 31, 2013 07:49 AM (Y4Lwq)

225 >> Corrected: I originally suggested this case came down in the 30s. It's older than that -- it came down in 1919.

Of course, in those days, I was only a tea boy...

Posted by: Sir Edward "Eddie Baby" Ross at May 31, 2013 07:50 AM (7xeJQ)

226

Blasphemy laws, right around the corner.

Posted by: rockmom at May 31, 2013 07:56 AM (Ea7Up)

227 Barry has replaced the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine with the Queer and Pussified Doctrine

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 31, 2013 07:59 AM (1Jaio)

228 Everything needs to be looked through the lens of the following possibility--not a certainty, not a prediction, but a possibility-- That Barack Obama, after a conveniently long enough period of time out of office, will announce his return to the faith, and I don't mean going back Jeremiah Wright's joint. So that he might be a moderating influence on that faith, all accomplished through this world-historic figure, this great man of our times. And therefore, things must be done with that possibility always in the background, so as to not foreclose it. After all, it is not like socialist-like thought hasn't achieved serious footholds before in that portion of the globe. Like I said, just something to keep in mind, not saying it is the plan. But....Very little Obama has done prevents the exercising of the option, many facilitate it, and many of the blatantly king-like narcissistic things that have been objected to (in particular the White House website at times) would play well elsewhere, where strongmen are admired. As far as motivations of others in the United States--they aren't Christian, and feel they need to discredit that faith or knock it down to a more manageable size in order to achieve political goals, whereas they don't feel U.S. Islam is ever going to challenge them for control. Thus, there will be unequal enforcement of de facto blasphemy laws, as exactly as happens in the U.K., and for the exact same reason. It's time to get serious, folks, and time to back strong horses, not weak ones.

Posted by: "Kirkmount" at May 31, 2013 08:00 AM (qam6F)

229 What happens if, in a crowded mosque, I yell "goats!"

If you yell "fat bottomed boys" the response is the same...

Posted by: Imam Hasssan the Goatherder at May 31, 2013 08:18 AM (Jls4P)

230 You know, opposing attempts by this fucking adminsitration to quash free speech is only driving moderates from the GOP.  When will we realize that today's GOP is so far to the right that we wouldn't even um nominate Reagan?  Get with the times and realize that this is not the hill to fight for.

Posted by: joeindc44 will never be convinced at May 31, 2013 08:23 AM (QxSug)

231 islam is a religion that violates the human rights of half the people on the planet while it doubles as a political ideology that is indistinguishable from nazism is that anti islam enough

Posted by: sound awake at May 31, 2013 08:41 AM (pk/NG)

232 Sept 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam..." Just another set of marching orders.

Posted by: CryptoDuck at May 31, 2013 09:45 AM (vtKcn)

233 MRE /clear and present danger sarc... no cooks, no pressure cookers Marine Leatherneck Afghan Base After June 1, the menu drops to three daily meals and, eventually, there will be only two hot meals served, Gilmore revealed in an email to the impacted Marines, adding: “Any time a dining hall meal is eliminated it will be replaced from a plentiful stock of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat — or any one of several creative acronyms our Marines have come up with.)” Meanwhile, the CinC, family and massive entourage vacation on and on and on...with their chefs in tow.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (MhA4j)

234 As mentioned in a post above they are going to test the precedent, here is the scenario:
Arrest Joe Smoe for posting anti-islam post on his facebook page, prosecute him and let it make its way through the courts to see if they can get the current precedent reversed by all the liberal judges they have stacked the courts with.
This is what they are planning, these autocratic tyrants plan for the long haul.

Posted by: Oldcrow at May 31, 2013 04:51 PM (iWsVI)

235 #233, it's because they're disassembling the base.

Posted by: SGT Dan's Cat at May 31, 2013 06:51 PM (Cj1+K)

236 This is DOA at SCOTUS.  The Lib Justices are well aware of the dangers of limiting political speech, and have themselves extended that protection to performances (flag burning, porn, etc). 

Posted by: CAPT Mike at May 31, 2013 11:16 PM (DiQnH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
194kb generated in CPU 0.22, elapsed 1.4188 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2453 seconds, 472 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.