Category Archives: Free Speech

UPDATED: The Republican Tart Trust (Mercer Mainstream?)

Feminism, Free Speech, Ilana Mercer, Law, Media, Republicans, Sex

Where do the Republicans find their woman commentators? A fulminating female named Jedediah Bila, who bills herself as a conservative, called Julian Assange of the WikiLeaks notoriety a rapist. (Bobbing head S.E. Cupp, also a “conservative,” backed her up with vigorous … nods.) The two dim bulbs appeared on David Asman’s “America’s Nightly Scorecard.” As I mentioned in “Condomned by Law,” Swedish sexual harassment law is more diabolical than anything the radical American feminist jurist Catharine Mackinnon could dream up in her sweetest dreams—Mackinnon’s baleful influence on American and Canadian jurisprudence cannot be underestimated.

But if Bila and her conservative cohort agree that having consensual sex without a condom is tantamount to rape—Mackinnon’s work is done.

I do not wish to hear these imbeciles’ views on Assange’s free press and due process rights, do you?

UPDATE: What makes a reader of this site imagine that I decide on which TV news programs I will appear (none, so far, except one PBS program)? Guess what? The producers and writers of the cable news programs decide who to ask on their more-or-less conformist shows. That this is so unintuitive to readers implies an optimistic faith in the cognoscenti to whom they look up; they really believe that the chicks whose words they lap up are indeed cutting-edge thinkers, and that by mere chance ilana mercer is not among them.

“WE ARE [indeed] DOOMED.”

The reader should let the producers and anchors of his favorite shows know about his preferences. Telling this marginalized writer to free up her busy schedule and, presumably, stop rejecting invites to join mainstream TV Talkers is worse than ridiculous.

Again: I’m floored to find-out that readers of this space believe an-out-of-the-mainstream writer, who has never echoed the mob, can pick and choose the forums she frequents to showcase her work. That someone holds such a naive, optimistic impression about the mainstream media (and Fox is a bastion of banality, for the most), and the power of the ousted individual in American society knocks my socks off.

If readers entertain the notion that I’ve been shunning all those invitations I get to appear on Fox Business and News—I’ll repeat the gloomy mantra with which I’ve been sealing each post these days:

“WE ARE DOOMED.”

This is, however, a good opportunity to ask you to fully comprehend the degree to which truth-tellers and original thinkers are sidelined in your society and to support this site. My new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa, is currently under consideration, but I fear that promoting it will ultimately fall to me alone (as has been the case for almost a decade). The work is simply too explosive. So kindly spare a thought, first, to the degree to which this writer’s voice is marginalized. And, second, to the need to support her mission.













As for S. E. Cupp: there is no accounting for aesthetic taste. Other than youth, however, I see no aesthetic merit in little Lolita’s vacant visage. As for this Fox-panel staple’s smarts: She is a studiously dumb chick, whose contribution to ideas is to gesture wildly and grimace, while portentously parroting mind-numbing banalities.

UPDATED: Assange is us

Free Speech, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Military, Republicans, Technology, The State

This is from my new, WND.COM column, “Assange is us”:

” … What is top-secret to some, however, is open-source for others. First-Amendment jurisprudence is … clear-cut with respect to the great guerrilla journalism of WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks operators have committed no crime in publishing what is undeniably true, newsworthy information. Antsy America has no jurisdiction over a foreign entity (WikiLeaks) and its proprietor (Julian Assange). The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog confirmed that U.S. law looks upon WikiLeaks as ‘a passive recipient of the material.’ ‘Most First Amendment lawyers would say that preventing the publication of material is justified only where absolutely necessary to prevent almost immediate and imminent disaster. It’s an extremely high standard,’ Jack Balkin, a First Amendment expert at Yale Law, told the WSJ. …

… Why has this individual become the enemy? Should Americans not have an inkling, by now, of what it’s like to live at the mercy of the federal government’s imperially imposed edicts? Aren’t we all being treated as potential terrorists at the nation’s federally controlled airports, by the TSA, an arm of the government now stalking Assange?”

The complete column is “Assange is us.”

The Second Edition of Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society (the print edition may be purchased here) is now also available on Kindle.

UPDATE (Dec. 10): The reader below (see Comments Section) says Assange provided the identities of “pro-freedom, pro-democracy activists in places like Afghanistan, Iran, Venezu.” First, provide proof of such online Wikileaks.

Second: Let me get this. The minions in the military may freely ad-lib about the subjects they’ve “liberated” (and sicced upon one another) in far-flung places. Conversely, the publisher of this stuff—which was forsaken for every military tom, dick and harry to read—must be extra careful in its publication. The statist will always apply a different standard to his cherished government. Frederick Bastiat the statist is not.

But then the reader conflates, 1) democracy and freedom. 2) The wrecking ball we applied to Afghanistan and Iraq with freedom. When you hold 1 & 2 to be true, your premises are shaky from the start.

UPDATE VIII: Lessons About Wicked TSA Appied To WikiLeaks (Patriotism Or Statism?)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Free Speech, Intelligence, Journalism, Just War, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Military, Propaganda, Republicans, The State, War

You’ve already been designated a terrorist at the nation’s federally controlled airports. As you go about your business, trying to make a living, and pursuing familial and professional contacts around the world—you ought to have an inkling, by now, of what being at the mercy of this accreting evil is all about. I hope you are able to extend these lessons and sensibilities to the persecution of an admittedly far more courageous opponent of the Federal Frankenstein than you and I: Julian Assange, proprietor of WikiLeaks.

First up, here are my reservations about hailing Assange as a folk hero: I suspect that Assange’s opposition to the oppressive impetus of the American state is reserved for causes dear to the Left. Witness the posting by Assange’s WikiLeaks, on 18 November of 2008, the name, address, age and occupation of many of the 13,500 members of the rightist British National Party. This is a wee bit of a give-away. Does he not respect this small group’s rights to live unmolested? Apparently not.

UPDATE II: WikiLeaks was, likewise, nowhere to be found when the Climagedon emails were exposed.

The fascist Fox News is leading its reports on the latest leaks with headlines calling to “designate WikiLeaks a ‘foreign terrorist organization.'”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seconded the sentiment: “Leaks ‘tear at fabric’ of government,'” she lamented. Good.

Let me focus the story for you. Far more serious than the gossipy prattle among diplomats about Iran, revealed in the 250,000 classified State Department documents, leaked on Monday, are the exhortations issued at Foggy Bottom to SPY ON THE WORLD:

The leaks cited American memos encouraging U.S. diplomats at the United Nations to collect detailed data about the U.N. secretary-general, his team and foreign diplomats — going beyond what is considered the normal run of information-gathering expected in diplomatic circles.
Le Monde said a memo asked U.S. diplomats to collect basic contact information about U.N. officials that included Internet passwords, credit card numbers and frequent flyer numbers. They were also asked to obtain fingerprints, ID photos, DNA and iris scans of people of interest to the United States, Le Monde said.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley played down the diplomatic spying allegations. “Our diplomats are just that, diplomats,” he said. “They collect information that shapes our policies and actions. This is what diplomats, from our country and other countries, have done for hundreds of years.”

The fabric of such a government must be torn and shorn; it’s the stuff of society that needs rebuilding.

UPDATE I: I repeat the observation made in “Warbot Wants to Kill WikiLeaker” (08.07.10):

“The politicos, and now even the generals, preach the practice of left-liberalism at its most extreme in every structure of the military and the government. And then, when it appears that their affirmative recruits are crappy—they can’t abide by a code of secrecy (or by a contract); or are unable to refrain from killing their colleagues—then their bosses suddenly turn bigoted and want to kill them.

“These are the same generals and politicians who campaign for free and open sex for hets and homos in the military. What do they expect? Disciplined buttoned-up soldiers?!”

“You can’t run a liberal organization—structurally and philosophically—and expect your members to behave themselves. Left-liberalism is about license and lenience.”

UPDATE III: TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN. Julian Assange’s, that is. The Australian who heads the secret-sharing Web site” said that “the documents will skewer ‘lying, corrupt and murderous leadership from Bahrain to Brazil.'”

UPDATE IV (Nov. 30): CLIMAGEDON. Although WikiLeaks’ proprietor did not break the climagedon story, he did “host the full 120MB archive.” I’m not quite sure what this cryptic, Wikipedia statement means. Is Assange committed to exposing power irrespective of ideology? I still don’t know. There is no doubt that he has done liberty a tremendous service so far by pulling back the curtain to reveal the affairs of state we fund.

UPDATE V: Via Fjordman, of the Brussels Journal: “… in 2001, … two out of Norway’s three largest newspapers, Aftenposten and Dagbladet, reported that most … rape charges involve an immigrant perp, which again mostly means Muslims. Both newspapers have since then conveniently ‘forgotten’ about this, and have never connected the issue to Muslim immigration although the number of rape charges has continued to rise to historic levels. They are thus at best guilty of extreme incompetence, since their former articles about this issue are still available online. Norway’s Minister of Justice from 2001 to 2005, Odd Einar Dørum, mentioned the problem in 2001 but has later gone quiet about the issue. The reported number of rapes in Oslo is now six – 6! – times as high per capita as in New York City, yet the media keeps warning against Islamophobia.”

Swedish women, at least, can at last feel safe. The Swedish government is finally getting serious about their rape problem.?!!

“Interpol, at the request of a Swedish court looking into alleged sex crimes from earlier this year, has put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on its most-wanted list.
The Stockholm Criminal Court two weeks ago issued an international arrest warrant for Assange on probable cause, saying he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in August incidents.”

Now what a coincidence this trumped up charge is, don’t you think?

UPDATE VI (Dec. 1): It is interesting how the collectivist impulse has kicked in among so many so-called defenders of freedom. A single man exposes the wicked workings of the US empire—an arm of which is the terrorist TSA—and that individual has become the enemy of the good.

The use of the term “anti-American,” vis-a-vis Assange, moreover, is so childish and utterly inaccurate. Assange is anti-American only if one equates America with her government. Proceeding from this error, the people who can-can for the criminalization of Assange’s speech draw the conclusion that by opposing state criminality, Assange is anti-American. So far, the one Assange action to qualify as unpatriotic and awful is his exposing of the home addresses of members of the rightist British National Party. That was a bully-boy tactic; it certainly qualifies as an ideological stand; a show of hatred to rordinary, peaceful citizens.

This is not a neoconservative site. Yes, we despise the Obama regime, but we despised the rule of Genghis Bush just as much—and almost from its inception.

People confuse statism with patriotism. This is how this classical liberal writer has defined patriotism (which is why Bad Eagle is wrong: American Indians can be patriotic):

“Patriotism in my view is a very modest thing. I feel patriotism when I encounter many people in my immediate community, or among my readers. The arborist who came to trim my trees the other day told me he was not a Republican or a Democrat. He said he hated the war in Iraq and loved his guns as well as keeping what he earned. This independence of mind is quintessentially American. I feel patriotic when I encounter such an American. Ditto the gentleman who installed my alarm system recently. He too expressed his disdain for politics, and moved on to discuss his gun collection. The sight of the Jeffersonian arborist swinging heroically at the top of my giant cedars, giving them a trim, and the cowboy-clad alarm installer makes me patriotic. People like Dr. Yeagley make me patriotic. There are quite a few Americans such as these around. Not enough, but enough to make me want to fight the good fight for them. …”

So what is patriotism? Here’s what it’s not: It’s not an allegiance to the government of the day, or to its invariably wicked, un-American policies. It’s an affinity for your community; it’s an understanding of the great principles upon which this country was founded—which have been excised by successive governments, Republican and Democratic alike. And it’s a commitment to restoring the republic of private-property rights, individual freedoms, and radical decentralization.”

UPDATE VII:

“I miss the old WND,” writes Clay Smith, at the Letters section on WND:

I was sadden to read Mr. Farah’s article, “Nobody asked, nobody told.” I remember under President Clinton, WND would be a beacon of liberty, questioning government on everything. Back then WND even honored the “informer” by naming its magazine “Whistleblower.” I really miss that old WND.
Who cares if Pfc. Bradley Manning is a deviant, godless homosexual? The message is what I’m looking at, not the messenger. An individual tells me my house is on fire … I don’t stop and ask him whether he is a godless homosexual. I check his sincerity and validity of the information. In the case of WikiLeaks, the information has showed us numerous forms of government abuse.
There are no secrets in a free and open society – only with governments that keep their citizens in the dark, dictatorships, empires and those who engage in black ops. This is the root cause of terrorism in the first place. Ron Paul was right when he said, “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

I read Joseph’s column. I did not take away that he opposed whistle-blowing. What I deduce is that he thought the military appointed the wrong people, a point I made earlier in this post: “You can’t run a liberal organization—structurally and philosophically—and expect your members to behave themselves. Left-liberalism is about license and lenience.”

UPDATE VIII: Vox day writes this on On the heroics of WikiLeaks:

“If WikiLeaks meets the legal criteria of a “U.S.-designated terrorist organization” then so does Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Governments always want to operate in the dark and keep their subjects in ignorance, which is why Julian Assange should not be assailed by the American people, he should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, regardless of whatever his motivations in making all of this information available to the public might be.

WikiLeaks is nothing more or less than a technological blow for American freedom. Assange is no traitor; the accusation doesn’t even make sense considering that he has absolutely no connection with the United States. But it should come as no surprise to the readers of this blog that the verbal attack against the organization is being led by one of those freedom-loving Republicans.”

Naughty Laura

Free Speech, Journalism, Media, Political Correctness, Race

The difference between the racial transgressions of broadcasters Don Imus and Dr. Laura Schlessinger is that Imus’s “nappy-headed hos” utterance was used to describe the black Rutgers women’s basketball team that he was admiring at the time. Dr. Laura was not describing or addressing blacks when she rattled off the “N” word yesterday on her radio show; she was merely describing the way other blacks use the word liberally. Evidently, you are not even allowed to use the words in reporting on another’s use of it.

Given the level of language policing under which we all labor, it took me some time to locate Dr. Laura’s verbatim words. News reports must have redacted even the indirect use of the word. Here’s the account via ABC.com. Note the childish blanks in “n****r”:

“Schlessinger ignited a firestorm of criticism after Media Matters posted audio from a Tuesday conversation she had with a black female caller. The caller was complaining about her white husband’s friends and their use of the N-word. In response, Schlessinger said:

‘lack guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO and listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n****r, n****r, n****r. I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing.

When the caller said she was appalled by Schlessinger’s use of the N-word, the radio host demurred, ‘Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to any black comedians. My dear, the point I am trying to make … we’ve got a black man as president and we’ve got more complaining about racism than ever. I think that’s hilarious.'”

“She then criticized the caller, saying ‘Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me.'”

[SNIP]

Laura has decided to “end her radio show.” If she wishes to “come back,” she’ll need to commence her Via Dolorosa. “It [could be] time for page two of the white-celebrity-struggling-with-racism playbook: sitting down with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.”