The Left's War on the 1st Amendment, Part 2

(Editor's note: This is the last of a two-part series)

Having failed to curtail First Amendment protections by use of government powers and in the courts, the militant radical left (rad-left) now seeks to do it in the streets.

Radical leftist thugs now mob the streets wearing hoods/masks, calling for the death of cops, destroying property of their choice and beating people with whom they disagree.

For years, "Huckleberry Finn" has been on the rad-left's hit list. In December 2016, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was accorded similar honor -- notwithstanding the unequivocal words and actions of Atticus Finch.

On Feb. 1, at Berkeley, to prevent a conservative "nobody" from speaking on campus, about 150 rad-left rioters, including "Antifa" and "By Any Means Necessary" set fires, damaged property, attacked members of the crowd and threw rocks at the police.

Masked Antifa rioters, who claim to be anti-fascists, instead gave every appearance of being 21st century fascists. Claiming to hate the Klan, they adopt the very tactics utilized by the Klan for 100 years.

In April, the New Orleans city council declared statues of Jefferson Davis, P.G.T Beauregard and Robert E. Lee to be "public nuisances" and ordered their removal.

On Aug. 14 at Durham, N.C., rioters pulled down and destroyed the statue of a Confederate soldier.

On Aug. 17, a plaque honoring Confederate soldiers was removed from a cemetery in Madison, Wis.

The same day, Sen. Corey Booker, D-N.J., announced he would introduce a bill to remove all Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol.

On Aug.18, a statue of former Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was removed from in front of the Annapolis, Md., statehouse. (Taney had authored the Dred Scott opinion).

On Aug. 19, a statue of Robert E. Lee was defaced in front of the Duke University Chapel. The university president then removed the statue to "protect worshippers."

In an Aug. 19 interview with Charlie Rose, Al Sharpton demanded an end to federal funding for maintenance of the Jefferson Memorial. (We are to ignore Jefferson's greatness. All that matters is Jefferson owned slaves!): “You’re asking me to subsidize the insult of my family. ... The public should not be paying to uphold somebody who has had that kind of background ”

Not to be outdone, Angela Rye, Congressional Black Caucus Director, on CNN said, "George Washington was a slaveowner. Whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn't protecting my freedom.

"This country was built on ... the raping and the killing of my ancestors. I'm not going to allow it ... it's OK for Robert E. Lee but not George Washington."

On Aug. 21, a 225 year-old Baltimore statue of Christopher Columbus was vandalized. The justification: "Christopher Columbus symbolizes the initial invasion of European capitalism into the Western Hemisphere. Columbus initiated a centuries of wave of terrorism, murder, genocide, rape, slavery, ecological degradation and capitalist exploitation of labor in the Americas."

On Aug. 27, the Orpheum Theatre in Memphis removed "Gone with the Wind" from its lineup, claiming it was racially "insensitive."

Since the 1990 Supreme Court holding in U.S. v. Eichman, flag burning/desecration is a protected form of political speech. The left now wants to extend that holding to smashing statues, burning books and censoring movies. But Eichman had an important caveat -- you can burn your own flag, but burning your neighbor's is criminal damage to property. Worse, its barbarism and fascism.

The rad-left rejects the hallowed First Amendment tenet that their "enlightened" ideas must compete with conservative ideas in the "marketplace of ideas." New vs. old. The left, instead, prefers to suppress and silence all opposition speech. After all, that's what good fascist and communists always do.

Today, the rad-left attacks statues, books and movies because they honor men who held slaves or who fought for the Confederacy. Reminiscent of President Barack Obama's Justice Department in Alvarez, the rad-left believes anything tainted by slavery has no value and hence no First Amendment protection. And worse, anyone who disagrees with their fascist notions is a racist and has no right to honor great, albeit tainted, political figures.

By the same logic, their next step is to trash the U.S. Constitution. Was it not born of a compromise that allowed the slave states to maintain slavery within their borders? Does it not contain a provision to count slaves as "3/5ths" for purposes of apportionment?

Provision for the return of fugitive slaves?


Posted: QCOline.com September 18, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

The Left's War on the First Amendment - Part I

The Left's War on the 1st Amendment, Part 1

During President Obama's eight years, his left-leaning administration made at least three serious efforts to undermine the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Two were unsuccessful. The third, for a critical time, succeeded.

In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," about

Mrs. Clinton, who then was a candidate in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary. The film featured interviews -- mostly critical -- with political commentators and others.

It was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making it available through video on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. Fearing it would be prosecuted for violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, it sued to have the act declared unconstitutional.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for the majority, wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

In Citizens United, the court overruled or distinguished its earlier decision which prohibited "corporations from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."

The BCRA had allowed such speech only out of "special funds" raised by "political action committees," and not within 30 days before a primary election.

President Obama denounced Citizens United, asserting that it:

A. Allowed corporations to make unlimited donations to candidates or political parties, and

B. Allowed foreign corporations the same rights as domestic corporations.

Mr. Obama knew better. 

In the court's own words, the only issue before the court was whether a corporation could use its "general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."

And as regards "foreign corporations," the court specifically wrote, "We need not reach the question whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

In Citizens United, none of the parties were "foreign corporations."

Two years later, in 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez , the Obama administration prosecuted a liar for falsely saying, "I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times." The government made no claim the liar lied for material gain, or to harm any person. The Obama administration prosecuted the liar for simply lying -- nothing more.

President Obama's Justice Department argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection." The court disagreed:

"Were the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.

"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home.

Had the court upheld the Obama administration's contention, Congress would have been green-lighted to criminalize parental lies to their children -- in the privacy of their own home: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus," could carry a fine or jail time.

Then, of course, the third effort was the Obama administration's misuse of the IRS was to destroy the political effectiveness of the tea party groups. This was done by slow-walking or denying the requests of the groups for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Without the ability to receive tax-free donations, and without their donors receiving deductions for their donations, some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, were gagged for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The refusal to grant the tea party groups tax-free status also meant they had to pay taxes on any moneys they raised. The tactic worked. Tea Party groups were a non-factor in the 2012 presidential election.

President Trump's 2016 electoral victory removed power from the hands of the Democrats power to use the machinery of government to limit the speech of the conservative opposition. Now the battle to over free speech has moved from the White House, the IRS and the courts to the streets.

Posted: QCOline.com September 13, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

This Is What Passes for Leadership in Illinois?

On Friday, August 11, 2017, Bret Baier - Fox News - attempted to substantively interview Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. The "Gov."made sure it didn't happen.

By interview's end, all I could think of was Charles Durning, who played the "Governor" in the "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" singing "The Sidestep!"

                      "Fellow Texans, I'm proudly standing her to humbly say ...
                       I'm for progress and the flag ....
                       I'm for goodness and for profit and for living clean ...

                       "Ooo, I love to dance the little sidestep
                        Now they see me, now they don't, I've come and gone ...
                        I love to cut a wide swath ... and lead the people on."


BAIER: Chicago’s a sanctuary city. Who are you with on this one, President Trump or Mayor Emanuel?

RAUNER: Well, I can tell you this .. one in seven people in Illinois are immigrants. So this is a very, very big issue. ... Our system is broken. We need ... reform. ... thoughtful rational discussion ....

Did the Governor answer? Or "sidestep?"

BAIER: So why shouldn’t Chicago follow federal law?

RAUNER: Well, I tell you this, the system is broken.

Answer? Or sidestep?

BAIER: You have SB-31 on your desk. According to the Chicago Tribute, the bill would prohibit police from searching, arresting, or detaining a person because of their immigration status, absent a federal criminal warrant. It would also create so-called safe zones in state-funded schools, [and] healthcare centers, ... and block state and local enforcement agencies from creating registries based ... national origin. Are you going to sign that bill?

RAUNER: So, our staff is evaluating that bill right now. ... We are meeting with law enforcement agencies and ... leaders in the state to get their views on it.

BAIER: There are some families who say they’ve lost loved ones because of sanctuary policy and they’re trying to meet with you. Do you want to hear that point of view?

RAUNER: I want to hear everybody’s point of view. ... Our immigration system is broken and we need to have a system that keeps the people of Illinois safe ....

BAIER: ... Do you agree with the president or not that sanctuary cities are a problem – yes or no?

RAUNER: Well, I’d tell you this; what I’d say is immigration in America is broken.

Answers? Or sidesteps?

Baier then replayed an interview with Tom Homan, Acting ICE Director.

HOMAN: Sanctuary cities are a criminal’s biggest friend. ... Sanctuary cities not only endanger public safety, they endanger my law enforcement officers.

BAIER: So do you agree with him?

RAUNER: ... If we have criminals who are in this country and committing crimes, we’ve got to get them out and we’ve got to get them prosecuted. ... We’ve got to keep the people if Illinois safe....

So, did Rauner ever answer any of Baier's questions? Who did Rauner say he was with? President Trump or Mayor Emmanuel? Could he even agree that "Chicago should follow federal law!"


Wearying of Rauner's Immigration "sidestep," Bret Baier looked for a straight answer on "Obamacare."

BAIER: President Trump wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, do you agree?

RAUNER: I can tell you so much of our Affordable Healthcare Act is broken, it needs to be repaired. I’ve expressed concerns about what it might do to some of our most vulnerable residents in Illinois ... The insurance exchanges ... are they broken. Look at the rates ... Insurance companies that are dropping out, we need some big changes in the system.

So did the Governor answer any question or reprise the "Sidestep?" Does he support Mr. Trump's call to "repeal and replace?" What specifically did Rauner mean by "repair?"

BAIER: Is President Trump a good president?

RAUNER: I could tell you this, my job as Governor is to work with every President ....

"Now they see me, now they don't, I've come and gone ...."

Rauner, however, was delighted to take partisan shots at Speaker Madigan has "been in office 35 years," during which time Illinois has "had massive job losses, deficits, biggest unfunded pension liabilities in America, ramped corruption (inaudible) patronage, and that Madigan's recent Income Tax hike "will not fix anything."


To be clear, Madigan has been an utter disaster for Illinois. Now after, listening to Gov. Rauner, I am nauseated - nauseated by a smug, pompous politician who thinks it's clever to "sidestep" the interviewer's question. The voters deserve straight answers. Saying it's "broken" repeatedly, isn't a straight answer. Madigan? Rainer? Phooey! A plague on both their houses!

And if Gov. Rauner thinks he get re-elected by pandering to liberals and eschewing his base, he's nuts. How'd it work for Sen. Kirk?


Posted: QCOline.com September 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea