Euro protests: France, Greece, Ireland…Latvia
In addition to the protests against government cutbacks in France, Greece, and Ireland, you can add Mrs. Marathon Pundit’s Latvia to the league of the angry.
According to the Baltic Times, protesters waived signs reading “No to austerity!”, “Yes to growth!”, and “Will the banks also pay for the crisis?”
Just 200 people attended the rally, but it was held outside the cabinet minister’s building in Riga in a driving snowstorm.
Technorati tags: 
Latvia europeeuropa Latvija economy news
Pakistan: Muslims threaten jihad, protests, anarchy if Christian woman accused of blasphemy is pardoned
Righteous anger?Friday afternoon post-khutbah rage. “Pakistan Muslims warn of anarchy over Christian,” by Waqar Hussain for AFP, November 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
LAHORE, Pakistan — Pakistani Muslims threatened protests and anarchy if the government pardons a Christian mother sentenced to death for blasphemy, calling hundreds of demonstrators onto the streets on Friday.
Demonstrators marched in the eastern city of Lahore after the most influential Sunni Muslim alliance in Pakistan urged the government not to grant mother-of-five Aasia Bibi clemency.
A crowd of several hundred called for “Jihad” and pledged to sacrifice their lives to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, an AFP reporter said.
Once again the mainstream media assumes all its readers are Muslim, naming Muhammad a “prophet” without qualification.
The rally was organised by a subsidiary of banned charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which the United Nations has blacklisted as a terrorist organisation.
“We will hold nationwide protests if the government pardons the Christian woman,” the subsidiary’s chief coordinator, Qari Yaqub, told participants.
Politicians and conservative clerics have been at loggerheads over whether President Asif Ali Zardari should pardon Bibi, who was sentenced on November 8 to hang under controversial blasphemy laws for defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
“The pardon would lead to anarchy in the country,” the head of the Sunni Ittehad Council, Sahibzada Fazal Kareem, told AFP.
“Our stand is very clear that this punishment cannot be waived.” […]
Bibi was arrested in June 2009 after Muslim women labourers refused to drink from a bowl of water she was asked to fetch while out working in the fields.
Days later, the women complained that she made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed. Bibi was set upon by a mob, arrested by police and sentenced on November 8….
Two prominent Pakistani Muslim leaders threaten nationwide protests if Christian woman facing death for blasphemy is pardoned
If Zardari gets it into his head to be merciful to this persecuted woman, other heads will roll. “Pakistan president urged not to pardon Christian woman,” by Reza Sayah for CNN, November 24:
Islambad [sic!], Pakistan (CNN) — Two prominent Pakistani Muslim leaders threatened Wednesday to call for nationwide protests if the president pardons a Christian woman sentenced to death for insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
“If the president pardons Asia Bibi, we will raise our voices across the country until he is forced to take his decision back,” nationally known mufti Muneer Ur Rehman said.
Hafiz Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, a leading cleric in Lahore, said pardoning the woman would be “criminal negligence” and would cause inter-religious tension.
Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer told CNN Tuesday that President Asif Ali Zardari would pardon Bibi if the High Court did not grant her request for mercy.
Bibi, who has been jailed for nearly 15 months, was convicted in a Pakistani court earlier this month of breaking the country’s controversial blasphemy law by insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, a crime punishable with death or life imprisonment, according to Pakistan’s penal code. She was sentenced to death. […]
Prosecutors say Bibi, a 45-year-old field worker, insulted the Prophet Mohammed after she got into a heated argument with Muslim co-workers who refused to drink from a bucket of water she had touched because she is not Muslim.
In a brief news conference at the prison where she’s being held, Bibi said last weekend that the allegations against her are lies fabricated by a group of women who don’t like her.
“We had some differences and this was their way of taking revenge,” she said….
Two prominent Pakistani Muslim leaders threaten nationwide protests if Christian woman facing death for blasphemy is pardoned
If Zardari gets it into his head to be merciful to this persecuted woman, other heads will roll. “Pakistan president urged not to pardon Christian woman,” by Reza Sayah for CNN, November 24:
Islambad [sic!], Pakistan (CNN) — Two prominent Pakistani Muslim leaders threatened Wednesday to call for nationwide protests if the president pardons a Christian woman sentenced to death for insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
“If the president pardons Asia Bibi, we will raise our voices across the country until he is forced to take his decision back,” nationally known mufti Muneer Ur Rehman said.
Hafiz Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, a leading cleric in Lahore, said pardoning the woman would be “criminal negligence” and would cause inter-religious tension.
Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer told CNN Tuesday that President Asif Ali Zardari would pardon Bibi if the High Court did not grant her request for mercy.
Bibi, who has been jailed for nearly 15 months, was convicted in a Pakistani court earlier this month of breaking the country’s controversial blasphemy law by insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, a crime punishable with death or life imprisonment, according to Pakistan’s penal code. She was sentenced to death. […]
Prosecutors say Bibi, a 45-year-old field worker, insulted the Prophet Mohammed after she got into a heated argument with Muslim co-workers who refused to drink from a bucket of water she had touched because she is not Muslim.
In a brief news conference at the prison where she’s being held, Bibi said last weekend that the allegations against her are lies fabricated by a group of women who don’t like her.
“We had some differences and this was their way of taking revenge,” she said….
SEIU Protests Hospital for Defending Employees’ Freedom
It’s one of the most beautiful times of the year in the lovely Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania, when the trees are gorgeous hues of crimson and gold, and the sweet smell of hot apple cider is in the brisk autumn air. As you walk in and out of little village colonials and saltbox houses donning fall mums and pumpkins on their porches, you’re hit with that waft of burning fireplace aroma – the sort of scene that gives you that comfy feeling of peace and contentment.
But turn the corner and that picturesque scene is disrupted by a tiny sea of purple t-shirts and angry faces. Yep, you got it – it’s the SEIU! And they’re not in the holiday spirit, apparently.
Pocono Medical Center, a mid-sized, not-for-profit community hospital nestled in the Pocono Mountains near East Stroudsburg University, has been in SEIU’s crosshairs for months. The union has been demanding a closed shop at the hospital, despite the desires of other workers, and has since made it the crux of its contract negotiations. They were out protesting last week, making their demands known. (Not many from Pocono Medical Center participated in the protest, so they resorted to recruiting some nearby friends to join them).
For those not familiar with what a “closed shop” is in union terms, this means that all of those employees would be required to be a member of the union and to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
But Pocono Medical Center isn’t caving in to the SEIU, which represents 560 non-professional service and maintenance workers, such as technicians, administrative workers, hospital cafeteria workers, janitors, and housekeepers at the facility. The hospital, which employs about 1,850 in total, has had a closed shop for its service workers for the last three years, the result of an initial vote that barely squeaked through, according to employee accounts. Three years later, a closed shop just isn’t working for their employees anymore. Some workers at Pocono Medical Center are unhappy with the SEIU and want the ability to opt out if they so choose.
From WBRE:
“We happen to have good managers, good supervisors and we don’t feel we need a union to represent us. That’s what national labor laws are for,” said Sally Schermerhorn, a phlebotomist at Pocono Medical Center.
From the Pocono Record:
“They negotiated the contract and told us they could get certain things, but we didn’t get them — raises and bonuses, better health care — none of that ever happened,” dietary worker Steven VonCrep said. “It’s a matter of free choice, our freedom to choose to belong to the union or not.”
Earlier this year, in June, hospital employees filed a petition on their own accord to de-authorize the union, removing SEIU’s provision that requires employees to pay dues or lose their jobs. This of course prompted intervention from union organizers and even a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, a typical tactic of SEIU to stall a de-certification/de-authorization effort. Union organizers began speaking to workers while other employees were in the cafeteria on their lunch breaks. (Keep in mind, many of the union’s employees at this facility are themselves cafeteria workers). A December 13th hearing is scheduled with an administrative judge in Philadelphia to hear the case.
From the Pocono Record:
In a statement, PMC wrote: “The hospital’s actions with the outside, paid union organizers were only intended to protect our employees from the union representatives, who have complained that they are being harassed during their lunch breaks or when they attempted to report for work or leave for home.”
PMC suggested the complaint was part of a strategy to stop a vote by employees to have an open union shop. That’s where employees aren’t required to join the union or pay dues.
The December hearing is more like a full-blown trial, with documentary evidence and witnesses giving testimony.
“The hospital looks forward to its day in court,” PMC stated. “We are confident that when all witnesses are presented and legal arguments are made, the ALJ (judge) will agree that the hospital has not violated the law in any way.”
Instead of agreeing to a closed shop, the hospital has offered to accommodate an “open shop”, in which employees could make their own choice, and would not be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. The hospital knows that offering a choice to its employees will not only keep their workforce motivated, it’s the right thing to do. Management has said that they are willing to offer raises and additional benefits, but they’ve insisted that the closed shop must go. An open shop, in their view, is a fair compromise.
In addition to the compromise of an open shop, Pocono Medical Center has also proposed the following terms in a new 3-year contract with the SEIU:
- free health care at Pocono Medical Center
- 90 % of workers’ health insurance premiums paid
- $ 250 annual credit for those participating in a wellness program
- 3 % wage increase annually
- $ 9.50-per-hour minimum pay rate, to increase to over $ 10 per hour
- benefit pension plan fully paid by PMC
- plus other “current differentials,” which are paid in addition to base pay
The SEIU says that’s nice, but it’s not good enough. They refuse to negotiate without the hospital’s agreement to renew a closed shop.
How does the SEIU justify such demands? Well aside from their usual backwards rhetoric that if you force employees to pay dues, it makes the union stronger and therefore means job security, the SEIU insists that the hospital owes it to the union – because it’s wealthy.
Not so, says Pocono Medical Center. According to the Pocono Record,
The hospital rejected the union’s claim that its financial performance indicated prosperity for the institution.
“For the second year in a row, many hospitals struggled to maintain a positive bottom line due to tough economic conditions felt throughout the nation,” Roche said. “Last year, most hospitals did not give annual increases and even held layoffs and froze vacant positions.”
Pocono Health System earned $ 17 million in excess revenue over expenses this past fiscal year, ending June 30, 2010, the hospital said.
But as a nonprofit organization, that money must be re-invested into the medical center. The money is used to buy new medical equipment, create information systems and pay off loans for new buildings. That debt stands at $ 107.5 million.
So far, Pocono Medical Center is holding up against the SEIU propaganda machine, and they are protecting their employees’ wishes to choose whether or not to join the union. The hospital says it will continue to try and negotiate with the SEIU. Until then, it looks as though the area can expect to keep seeing a lot of purple mucking up that beautiful autumn landscape.
By the way, if you’re a union member who is unhappy with the actions of your union, there is plenty that you can do – start by reading this post. Take it from two of us who know. I used to be a closed shop union member of the Communication Workers of America (CWA) for several years and tried desperately to escape the grips of the AFL-CIO member union, until I was rescued by some clever folks. And Peter List, the author of the recommended post and proprietor of LaborUnionReport, has been involved in labor relations for more than 25 years and spent eight years in the labor movement as a kneecap breaker young activist. Thankfully, he’s come over to the light, away from the dark side.
Budget cuts in Britain lead to violent protests
Trust the people. They’re never as dumb as you think they are,
American Thinker Blog
Amazon Pulls E-Book Promoting Pedophilia After Protests
Controversy erupted yesterday when it was discovered that Amazon.com was selling an e-book that purported to offer advice to pedophiles:
Amazon.com Inc. is selling a self-published guide that offers advice to pedophiles, and that has generated outrage on the Internet and threats to boycott the retailer.
The availability of “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct” calls into question whether Amazon has any procedures — or even an obligation — to vet books before they are sold in its online stores. Amazon did not respond to multiple e-mail and phone messages.
The title is an electronic book available for Amazon’s Kindle e-reader and the company’s software for reading Kindle books on mobile phones and computers. Amazon allows authors to submit their own works and shares revenue with them.
Amazon issues guidelines banning certain materials, including those deemed offensive. However, the company doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes offensive content, saying simply that it is “probably what you would expect.” Amazon also doesn’t promise to remove or protect any one category of books.
After initially saying that it would not remove the book from it’s catalog due to concerns about ‘freedom of expression,’ the company decided to pull the book yesterday after a firestorm had erupted on the internet:
Amazon.com appears to have pulled “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” a day after the Kindle e-book’s listing on the shopping website ignited anger from hundreds of customers.
The controversial book was available for purchase Wednesday through the Seattle-based online retailer, but a click on any link to the book’s listing on Amazon directs to a page that says “We’re sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.”
Amazon officials were not available to comment about the book Thursday morning.
The book, described on Amazon by its author, Phillip R. Greaves, is an “attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles … by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow.”
The listing said the book was published for the Kindle, Amazon’s popular e-reader device, on Oct. 28.
Greaves’ book garnered more than 3,000 comments while it was available for sale, and commenters gave the book an average rating of one star.
For those who aren’t avid users of Amazon’s site, one star is the lowest rating one can give to any product.
This is about the outcome that I expected would happen when I first heard about this story yesterday. While its initial statement that it “believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable,” the fact remains that Amazon is a business that thrives on attracting mainstream users, including parents. Once this story that a book about pedophilia was available for sale on the site (and it’s still unclear how it got there) became an internet firestorm, simple corporate public relations mandated that the publication be sacrificed for the sake of the public image of Amazon.com.
As is usually the case with these types of situations, though, most of the comments about the case reveal widespread misconceptions about the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Amazon’s decision not to sell the book would not be censorship. Amazon is a private company and therefore isn’t bound by the First Amendment in any respect. For that reason it’s unfortunate that the first public statement they issued made reference to “censorship” struck me as not only wrong, but also completely missing the point of the objections that people were raising to the publication. Clearly, Amazon doesn’t sell every publication or movie available. If it did, you’d be able to buy hardcore pornography there. The fact that you can’t is a result of a business decision that Amazon has obviously made. It isn’t censorship, and Amazon was wrong to try to cast the calls for them to take a second look at this product in such a way.
At the same time, though, it’s not entirely clear that the publication itself, although it’s subject matter is offensive, is illegal in any respect:
The fact that a book advocates criminal behavior — however vile — does not mean it falls outside the First Amendment. Consider, for instance, Brandenburg v. Ohio, standing for the general proposition that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
However, the First Amendment status of a book that explains how to get away with criminal behavior is more complex. A full discussion of that is beyond the scope of this post. Eugene Volokh’s exceptional article Crime-Facilitating Speech discusses it at length. It appears from some reports that the book includes at least some advice about getting away with pedophile conduct; I haven’t bought the book and am not going to, though.
Which leads us to the second lesson that can be drawn from this story.
As Ken over at Popehat (who I quote and link above) points out, before this story went viral yesterday morning, this e-book had sold one copy since it had been listed for sale. By the time Amazon had deleted the page from its site, it had made it onto the Top 100 list for the day. Granted, many of these sales were probably to media outlets and the like, but it’s still the case that thanks to the Outrage-of -day viral mentality, hundreds or maybe even thousands of copies were sold at $ 4.00 copy. Obviously, the author had a very good day yesterday. As Ken says:
In other words, assuming for the moment that the book actually contains non-obvious suggestions on how to get away with molesting children, the OUTRAGE mob has just lifted the author from complete obscurity, given him a chunk of money, and ensured that his previously obscure child molestation suggestions are now known, widespread, and widely available.
Oh, well done.
So, what lessons can we learn from this ? Well, nobody understands the First Amendment, Amazon has a fairly bad crisis response team, and catapulting a creep to internet fame usually just ends up being to his benefit.
All in a day’s work, I suppose.
The Blitz spirit reigned at CCHQ during this afternoon’s protests
Protests in India, from ACORN
The American group ACORN filed for liquidation last week, but ACORN International apparently lives on — and isn’t thrilled, according to ACORN founder Wade Rathke, with President Obama’s visit to India.
It would have been nice if Obama’s visit to India had not been so blatantly about “what’s in it for us,” and more subtly where we stand and how we are prepared to lead – yes, lead! – in poverty reduction. But, that’s just me, I’m sure. This trip is about business.
Some of that is fine, I’m sure, but there has to be a limit.
The Indian press has been filled with speculation that Prime Minister Singh may offer an olive branch to Obama by offering to accelerate modifications to foreign direct investment in finance, insurance, and multi-brand retail (see: www.indiafdiwatch.org to keep up with this longstanding coalition and campaign). Surely, Obama is not going to limp out of the US to India and come calling for Wal-Mart and Wall Street?
Larry “Punch Me in the Face” Summers was in Mumbai several weeks ahead at the Embassy as an advance man touting India as a “new economic model” for the future, but “punch me in the face,” Larry, if any of us understand exactly your argument yet, except with pom-poms and a cheerleading skirt. Vinod Shetty of ACORN India reports that in a meeting about 6 weeks ago a US trade representative met us extensively about our issues with FDI modification, but seemed to both be nodding his head in agreement and clueless about the entire process.
The group is, in fact, backing a protest around Obama’s visit:
Dharmendra Kumar, ACORN International’s director in Delhi and the campaign director for the India FDI Watch Campaign, reports that traders and others are joining together to rally outside of the Parliament in Delhi on Monday for Obama’s speech so he understands that there are still places the US should not go when it impacts citizen wealth and livelihood so clearing in India. Allowing big box retail in without regulations, community, and labor protections puts the livelihood of 20,000,000 workers at risk who are currently employed in this work.
Flashback: Houston New Black Panther Party Protests with Machine Guns
The Houston chapter of the New Black Panther Party has announced that it will be sending members to the polls in Harris County on Tuesday, November 2nd. The mobilization has caused some concern for members of the King Street Patriots, a group of citizens who have been monitoring polls in Harris County. The group claims they have been the victims of harassment from County election workers and members of the Democrat Party. They believe the Black Panthers have one goal: intimidate their members.
The paramilitary organization came under fire in 2008 after Election Journal broke the videoof King Samir Shabaz and Jerry Jackson intimidating voters with a nightstick outside of a poll in Philadelphia. But that may pale in comparison to the Houston chapter, which appears to have an arsenal of assault weapons. In the video below, shot in June 2000, the Houston Black Panthers marched on the Texas Republican convention with “machine guns.”
Further raising tensions, several months ago Shabaz, now the National Field Director of the group, surfaced in a video calling for members to “kill crackers and their babies.” It is unknown if Shabaz plans to be in Houston.
Citizens in Houston are encouraged to contact us with any reports of intimidation at the polls on election day. If you have an iPhone, you can download our free voter fraud reporting app in the App Store (Note: Texas law does not allow video or photos to be taken within 100′ of the polls)
Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran protests State Department’s sending lobbyist for Islamic Republic on taxpayer-funded jaunt to Saudi Arabia
The genuine pro-democracy movement of free Iranians is on to NIAC. By way of contrast, Islamic supremacist metrosexual Reza Aslan, who fools many into thinking he is “moderate,” is a Board member of the Islamic Republic-linked organization NIAC. An update on this story. “Open Letter to Secretary of State-Hillary Rodham Clinton on decision to send Trita Parsi to Saudi Arabia,” from the Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI), October 26 (thanks to Amil Imani):
The Honorable Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
On behalf of the Iranian-American community, I would like to express our outrage and disappointment on your decision to sponsor, Trita Parsi, President of National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a known lobbyist for the Islamic Republic of Iran and currently under investigation for alleged embezzlement of federal funds, to speak and share his expertise on US-Iranian relations and Iranian politics in Saudi Arabia.
Trita Parsi is not even a U.S. Citizen who is sent by your department to represent America’s interests using tax payers’ money. Mr. Parsi is disliked by the majority of Iranian-American community and general consensus is that he is a “non-registered foreign agent” representing the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is shunned in Iranian-American circles. Mr. Parsi represents an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda cloaked in dialogue and diplomacy.
Law enforcement experts who have reviewed some of NIAC’s internal document released as a result of a lawsuit, offer evidence that the NIAC has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.
Parsi has been the leading lobbyist in America for the Islamic (non)Republic regime and, at least until last year’s election, was also an apologist for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He has been opposed to US sanctions against the Islamic Republic and by such definition is an outspoken opponent of your own foreign policy toward Iran. This is yet another example of many duplicitous and short-sighted policies of the State Department under your leadership and President Obama’s administration. We urgently demand an explanation for the wisdom behind sending such a questionable character with known affiliations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime which your own State Department has classified as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and a threat to America’s national security.
Despite His Protests, Alan Grayson’s Vote IS For Sale
Always the first to hop onto the most negative campaigning possible, Congressman Alan Grayson decided to hop on that “outside source” conspiracy theory being pushed by the White House. In an OpEd posted on the Hill and the Huffington Post the incumbent from the 8th district of Florida made the case that unlike the Republicans, his vote is not for sale.
(A) “Conservative outside groups” have now spent more than $ 9 million “slamming vulnerable House Democrats,” and (B) the total against me will reach “at least $ 1.7 million by the end of next week.”
….This is my first term in Congress. I have no seniority. I don’t sit on the most powerful committees, like the Appropriations Committee or the Ways and Means Committee. I’m not a member of the Democratic Leadership. So why would these right-wing groups spend nearly 20 percent of their entire national budget to try to defeat me?
Because I can’t be bought. I won’t do what they tell me to do. And I won’t back down.
There are 12,000 registered federal lobbyists. That’s more than 20 for every member of Congress. From Election Night onward, they try to buy you. And if they can’t buy you, then they try to bury you. Which is what is happening now.
My vote is not for sale….
There is only one problem with Grayson’s little blog post….its a lie. Grayson is purchased and owned by special interests. For example, Open Secrets.com has compiled the source of all of Grayson’s political donations through August. Almost $ 852 thousand of those donations came from organizations in specific industries, 23% of those dollars come from labor unions.
Not included in those Union dollars is the AFL-CIO effort recently exposed by Politico.
The AFL-CIO is dropping 3.5 million mail pieces into 66 races this week, including 15 Senate contests, 11 gubernatorial campaigns and 40 congressional campaigns. Every mailer will be sandwiched with two calls, one before the mail piece hits and one after, for a total of seven million phone calls. Key hits include the Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Connecticut Senate races (“Don’t let Linda McMahon put the smack down on Connecticut workers”), as well as the swiftly emerging West Virginia Senate race (“After the deadliest mining disaster in 40 years, one candidate wants to ‘unshackle’ management from safety regulations”). Mailers will also hit the California and Ohio gubernatorial races, among others, and Florida Rep. Alan Grayson’s district.
Grayson also gets lots of money (7%) from lawyers and lobbyists, which is probably why Grayson opposed Tort Reform.
Another $ 66 thousand dollars of Grayson’s donations came from Act Blue. This group bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action.” As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees. That is, ActBlue bundles and transmits earmarked contributions from individuals raised on their website to specific candidates.In other words, it is sort of political money laundering. Now, using the criteria established by President Obama and David Axelrod this past weekend while talking about the Chamber of Commerce, those dollars by definition are evil.
The mean-spirited Congressman from Florida’s 8th district, Alan Grayson can protest all he wants, but the truth is he’s owned by special interests.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Concerning Free Speech and protests at military funerals
The issue is now with SCOTUS. Is it obnoxious Free Speech? Absolutely. But it is still Free Speech. The underlying truth is this: We can handle this on our own.
I saw a report the other day where these disrespectful protesters were lined up as the motorcade went by. A motorcycle club got between the protesters and the car, and revved their Harleys with one hand and saluted the passing casket with the other hand.
See? We don’t need the government to hold our hand to solve every perceived slight. We band together as a society to ensure respect is accorded to all.
For background, here’s the Political Bulletin discussion:
Arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday over whether the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, has the right to wage offensive demonstrations at military funerals generated significant media coverage last night and this morning. NBC Nightly News reported, “This case has aroused strong passions, partly because of the setting, a military funeral, and partly because of the hateful message and several of the justices seem to be offended by it, too. Fred Phelps of the tiny Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas shows up at military funerals to claim that because the nation tolerates gay rights, US war deaths are God’s punishment.”
The CBS Evening News reported that “in an emotional test case, the Supreme Court is considering whether protestors may show up at the funeral for a marine and hold up signs that say things like, ‘Thank God for dead soldiers.’ An appeals court said they can. Inside the Supreme Court today the Justices struggled to decide who was right.” USA Today reports, “Supreme Court justices expressed empathy Wednesday for a father whose Marine Corps son was killed in Iraq and whose funeral was protested,” but “the scope of the justices’ questions during the hour-long session revealed the difficulty of the case and the reality that the court’s previous rulings on free speech make it hard for individuals to claim they have been harmed by even horrific statements regarding public issues.”
The AP reports that the justices, “in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine’s father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son’s funeral — but aren’t sure they can.” Bloomberg News reports that the justices “gave no clear indication which way they would rule.”
Concerning Free Speech and protests at military funerals
The issue is now with SCOTUS. Is it obnoxious Free Speech? Absolutely. But it is still Free Speech. The underlying truth is this: We can handle this on our own.
I saw a report the other day where these disrespectful protesters were lined up as the motorcade went by. A motorcycle club got between the protesters and the car, and revved their Harleys with one hand and saluted the passing casket with the other hand.
See? We don’t need the government to hold our hand to solve every perceived slight. We band together as a society to ensure respect is accorded to all.
For background, here’s the Political Bulletin discussion:
Arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday over whether the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, has the right to wage offensive demonstrations at military funerals generated significant media coverage last night and this morning. NBC Nightly News reported, “This case has aroused strong passions, partly because of the setting, a military funeral, and partly because of the hateful message and several of the justices seem to be offended by it, too. Fred Phelps of the tiny Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas shows up at military funerals to claim that because the nation tolerates gay rights, US war deaths are God’s punishment.”
The CBS Evening News reported that “in an emotional test case, the Supreme Court is considering whether protestors may show up at the funeral for a marine and hold up signs that say things like, ‘Thank God for dead soldiers.’ An appeals court said they can. Inside the Supreme Court today the Justices struggled to decide who was right.” USA Today reports, “Supreme Court justices expressed empathy Wednesday for a father whose Marine Corps son was killed in Iraq and whose funeral was protested,” but “the scope of the justices’ questions during the hour-long session revealed the difficulty of the case and the reality that the court’s previous rulings on free speech make it hard for individuals to claim they have been harmed by even horrific statements regarding public issues.”
The AP reports that the justices, “in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine’s father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son’s funeral — but aren’t sure they can.” Bloomberg News reports that the justices “gave no clear indication which way they would rule.”
Suddenly, Offensive Nazi Signs at Protests Aren’t Big News — If the Target is the Right, the MSM Gives Them a Pass
Signs depicting an American politician with an Adolph Hitler mustache are prominently displayed at a political protest and the organizers and participants continue with their demonstration making no attempt to remove the signs or disavow the message.
This exact scenario was the dominant news story for weeks in the main stream media and was a prominent part of the NAACP’s infamous condemnation of the Tea Party movement and the launch of TeaPartyTracker.org designed to stalk individuals at Tea Party rallies trying to catch them in embarrassing or offensive positions.
However, the latest incident described above has not made headlines anywhere but in the under media blogosphere. And, the fact that the target of the Hitler sign was Sarah Palin can’t just be a coincidence.
It has been four days since the first reports of this political rally in Joliet, Ill., that included the offensive signs that also showed talk show host Glenn Beck with the same moustache. Blogs were buzzing all weekend with the story but no traditional media outlets have touched it. As Newsbusters points out, even the local Joliet paper has yet to mention the story.
There is something in this story that is more surprising than the obvious double-standard in play which allows a the “correct” party to not be implicated by offensive signs at one of their rallies while the Tea Party has had to spend months under fire for the same manufactured offense. What is truly scandalous about the traditional media’s apparent obliviousness is the fact that unlike the Tea Parties — which are often spontaneous, unorganized events with no direct affiliation to a politician or a political party — this protest has been directly liked to Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson, and her campaign has been caught in a series of misleading statements regarding that involvement.
A video of the protest has been linked all over the internet. The video shows the protesters chanting and participating side-by-side with the offensive signs. The video then shows protesters walking back to the Halvorson campaign headquarters. Individuals in the protest have been identified by name and tracked back to the Halvorson campaign, Obama’s Organizing for America, and the Democratic National Committee.
Given the opportunity to disavow the signs, a spokesman Friday morning said the campaign had nothing to do with the protest, but they condemned the sign anyway. When confronted with the video showing protesters hanging out in the campaign office, the next statement claimed that protesters were just stopping by for some water.
Then on Sunday, Media Matters attempted to spin the story as a lone nut with a sign (the same argument the Tea Party is never allowed to use) and Julie Merz, the Halvorson campaign manager admitted that the protest had, in fact, been organized by the Illinois Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign Committee, a committee that Rep. Halvorson is a part of.
Now, this morning, the Halvorson campaign has come out with their fourth statement on their website’s blog:
Upon word that these signs were used, the Halvorson for Congress campaign condemned the actions of Mr. Preston and stated that the Congresswoman’s campaign was not affiliated with Mr. Preston’s individual and inexcusable protest.
Upon word that the signs were used? Halvorson campaign operatives were standing right there next to the guy with the signs! Why did they have to wait for the video to hit the internet before they condemned the signs? And now they are asking for kudos for issuing a press release once they were in trouble? And they still have not taken ownership of the rally or the individuals from their staff who were participating in the rally.
Isn’t it time for the traditional media to start asking some real questions here?
It’s no longer just a story about the obvious double-standard the media have for Tea Party signs vs. these signs at a left-wing rally. Now it’s about a cover-up and very real connection between this rally, the Halvorson campaign and the Democratic National Committee. And it’s getting bigger every day.
Will the traditional media continue to allow themselves to be scooped solely for the sake of carrying water for another losing campaign?
Silly question.
