Uniting Citizens

The discussion about funding political campaigns and the recent Citizen's United case contains a couple of important myths.

Myth 1:  The Citizen's United case invalidated the reporting requirement for political contributions.

Those requirements are still in place.

Myth 2:  The Citizen's United case unleased wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of money to political groups/campaigns.

Truth:  The Citizen's United case let corporations give unlimited amounts of money to political causes.  That is new.  And I'm not convinced that it is good.

But we ought to have a national discussion that is based on the facts.  Not the myths.

Incivility

The talking heads are all agog over James Hoffa Jr.'s Labor Day pronouncement where he offered the services of organized labor to 'take these son of bitches out.'  The 'son of bitches' being the Tea Party and other fiscally responsible people.

This is Jimmy Hoffa's son!  Is anyone really surprised that he would threaten violence to those that hinder his agenda?

What is disappointing this lack....thus far....of comment from Mr. Obama's administration.  It wasn't terribly long ago when a terrible rampage that resulted in several deaths and serious harm to U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords prompted the same people to lecture the nation...and the right in specific...on the idea of civility and rhetorical restraint.  A simple image using a set of crosshairs within a partisan exhortation to organize voters to vote was deemed too 'extreme' for civil discourse.

One wonders what they think of 'take these son of bitches out.'

Or is this more of the 'do as I say, but not as I do' that has long been the rage among the political class.

More via the Blogfather.

This response from Sarah Palin is spot on:

When big government, big business, and big union bosses collude together, they get government to maximize their own interests against those of the rest of the country.

...

This collusion is at the heart of Obama’s economic vision for America. In practice it is socialism for the very rich and the very poor, but a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us. It is socialism for the very poor who are reduced to a degrading perpetual dependence on a near-bankrupt centralized government to provide their every need, while at the same time robbing them of that which brings fulfillment and success - the life-affirming pride that comes from taking responsibility for your own destiny and building a better life through self-initiative and work ethic. And Obama’s vision is socialism via crony capitalism for the very rich who continue to get bailouts, debt-ridden "stimulus" funds, and special favors that allow them to waive off or help draft the burdensome regulations that act as a boot on the neck to small business owners who don’t have the same friends in high places. And where does this collusion leave working class Americans and the small business owners who create 70% of the jobs in this country? Out in the cold. It’s you and your children who are left paying for the cronyism of Obama and our permanent political class in DC.

When she talks about small business owners that create 70% of our jobs, I can't help but think about Mitt Romney's attempt at socialized medicine in Massachusetts.   They allowed big business to opt out of the statewide plan.  Big businesses get huge healthcare discounts.  Small businesses need not apply.

Government continually works on behalf of big business while expecting small businesses to foot the bill.  It is all about using political power in support of large....nowhere near 'majority' large....groups at the expense of the individual.

Freedom Of Speech Or Religious Intolerance

From the National Review comes this report about a United Nations initiative to create a framework for limiting any criticism of Islam.

An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.

...

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.

Will there be any reciprocity?  Will Muslim majority countries stop persecuting those of other faiths?  Will those countries pass laws to protect those that exercise their right to leave Islam, or even convert to another faith, instead of the current practice of prison...or worse?

Will the synagogues that used to exist before the re-creation of Isreal be rebuilt?  Will there the Saudis reform their education curriculum that teaches that polytheists are to be killed, that Christians are enemies, and that Islam should be spread via 'jihad'?

I'm not holding my breath.

This initiative is shaping up to be one-sided. As Akram said, “The Resolution 16/18 was driven more by the kind of discrimination in Europe and the West in general against Muslims.” He added: “I don’t think any country in the Muslim world is deliberately discriminating against minorities.” Ihsanoglu took a similar tack, writing that “the Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, color, or faith.”

To be clear, my position is that every person retains the individual right to be criticize every religion that exists, has existed, or ever will exist.  That right greatly supersedes the sensitivities of any religious community.

The UN is no friend of liberty.  It places freedom of speech in second place to the "purposes and principles" of global governance.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Burn That Qu'ran - Iranian Edition

I think I could come to like these guys. 

The biggest difference between these guys and the nutjob in Florida that did the same thing?  The nutjob lives in a free country where free speech is prized more highly than religious sensitivities.  As a result, the likelihood that he will ever pay anything more than a modest "price" for his "offense is quite low.

Conversely, the two guys in the video face a variety of pretty horrific deaths if their identities ever become know.  They are courageous heroes in every sense.

Confused

I do not endorse the theatrics of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I do not endorse the slashing of tires on vehicles owned by WBC members while they are out protesting some soldier's funeral.

But this seems an opportune moment for schadenfreude.  I am so confused.

Tar, Feathers, Railroad......Premature

I haven't spent any time delving into the firing of Shirley Sherrod; formerly with the USDA.  She was fired when video surfaced of her speech to the NAACP in which she said she had not provided all of the service to a white farmer that she was obligated to supply.  The audience of the NAACP apparently applauded that particular line in her speech quite enthusiastically.

I am still not going to spend much time on it, except to note this post from Eric Scheie over at Classical Values.  In it Eric suggests that Ms. Sherrod's speech included the suggestion that she was wrong to withhold her valuable services and that she has a different view of her job.  The one from which she was fired.  Give the larger context of the speech, it seems appropriate to suggest that her dismissal was unjust.

His other comments regarding the commitment to free speech and pointing out racism among the NAACP audience are also worthy of your time.