More First Amendment regulatory threats

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

52 dead, 527 injured

If Stephen Craig Paddock wanted to make a name for himself, he certainly accomplished that goal. He is now America’s most deadly mass murderer, topping the Muslim shooter at an Orlando gay nightclub in 2016 who killed 49 persons and wounded 58 in the name of Allah.

Killing 52 people and at last count having injured at least 527, Paddock himself is an enigma. A tempest that no one yet appeared to see brewing. He cannot be consulted because he killed himself just prior to police breaching the suite. The coward’s way out. Emphasizing that there is no defense against a firearm save that of others with firearms.

Paddock decided to, late Sunday night around 10 PM (October 1st), break out two windows in his large 32nd floor suite at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and fire hundreds of rounds at 22,000 attendees of the Route 91 Harvest Country Music festival below. The shooting went on for about 10 minutes.

He had 23 firearms in his room and 19 more at his home. He checked into the Mandalay Bay on Thursday, September 28th, with more than ten suitcases. He had three days for planning in the suite itself. He clearly planned to target that specific concert from the Mandalay as it had the advantage of superior elevation and the least occluded field of fire, while offering a distance that would be initially confusing. People would expect the Luxor to be the obvious sniper’s perch that night. It wasn’t. Paddock instead chose an expansive corner suite at the Mandalay Bay.

They were easy targets as Paddock utilized some of the classic “positions of advantage” in military combat and special forces tactics, that of elevation, speed, surprise and violence of action. The distance involved was roughly 400 to 500 yards.

Military concepts utilized by a man who was never military-trained.

Theories are wide ranging.

Is this guy even remotely correct? Keep reading.

Paddock had no military record. He had no criminal arrest record save that of a traffic ticket. He was not a member of a militia, hate group or most any other group. His social media was negligible. The 64-year old Paddock was a resident of Mesquite, Nevada and lived in a quiet retirement community. He was a gambler and would take junkets to Las Vegas. He won big and he lost big. He was a multi-millionaire who had property and profited from real estate and investments. He did not have close ties to his family. He was twice-divorced. His live-in girlfriend was not home when the event occurred. He had no mental illness history. He was a retiree. A former aerospace industry worker. A former accountant.

“He was just a guy,” Eric Paddock said of his brother. “He lives in Mesquite, he went to the hotels, he gambled, he went to shows.”

Also, from former FBI hostage negotiator and BSU (Behavioral Science Unit) unit supervisor Cliff Van Zandt.

“My challenge is, I don’t see any of the classic indicators, so far, that would suggest, ‘OK, he’s on the road either to suicide or homicide or both.”

One odd note.

While Stephen Paddock appeared to have no criminal history, his father was a notorious bank robber, Eric Paddock said. Benjamin Hoskins Paddock tried to run down an FBI agent with his car in Las Vegas in 1960 and wound up on the agency’s most wanted list after escaping from a federal prison in Texas in 1968, when Stephen Paddock was a teen.

The oldest of four children, Paddock was 7 when his father was arrested for the robberies.

We know what the initial responses were and will be from the Demorats and Leftists. “It’s all about the guns” they will bleat, using politics even before the bodies began to cool in the streets of Las Vegas. So typical. Hillary Clinton Tweeted “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get,” and “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.”

Let’s not forget the above. Politics as bodies cooled.

And the expected, from the New Republic. At least they had the guts to write it.

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

by Phoebe Maltz Bovy

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.  

That’s rather succinct. More laws. More bans. Targeted at whom? Oh, right. Law abiding Americans who aren’t involved in actions like this. More laws would not have “prevented” this shooting as Leftists bleat.

And trust me, make absolutely no mistake, gun confiscation and removal is precisely what Leftists and Demorats want as their end goal. Have no doubt of that.

Another high-powered Leftist thinker.

Yet, Stephen Paddock is mostly a cypher as of this writing.

Let’s note this, however.

Why do I get the feeling there is much, much more to this story?

BZ

One new win for the 2nd Amendment

At a time when we in the United States find the Second Amendment challenged on any number of levels, most certainly in blue states like Fornicalia, and when any number of citizens in Europe wish they had their own version of the Second Amendment, there comes the occasional federal ruling chalked up into the “win” column.

Such was a recent opinion this past week.

From TheHill.com:

Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law

by Josh Delk

A federal appeals court reportedly ruled on Tuesday that a Washington, D.C., law requiring people to prove they have “proper reason” for a concealed-carry gun permit is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the law, which requires people to show “proper reason to fear injury” in order to carry a firearm, is unconstitutional and a violation of D.C. residents’ Second Amendment rights. 

Let’s remember this, shall we? The DC Court of Appeals is the second most powerful court in the nation, directly behind SCOTUS.

According to the law, acceptable reasons to get a permit included jobs that required employees to protect valuables or if an individual had been threatened. 

Hello? Earth to Common Sense? For once we appear to be communicating.

Nothing succeeds like success.

BZ

 

US Kabuki Theater Pt VIII:

This is the continuation of a series of posts dealing with issues where some individuals in the United States government are attempting to hold at least a portion of the rest of the federal government accountable and responsible for its actions and inactions. The public displays we find, however, are not unlike the most bizarre of Kabuki Theater or Theater of the Absurd.

Here, the late Justice Antonin Scalia speaks with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday regarding originalism, textualism, purposivism and gun control.

This is just 1/9th of 1/3rd of our government confirming and upholding our basic freedoms. Further, let me state: this is the best of our government in action. Our government at work. What we pay it to do.

Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, these are your federal tax dollars either

  1. At work, or
  2. Pissed away with abandon

More to come.

BZ

 

Seattle gun tax = less crime

Right?

Wrong.

From FoxNews.com:

Seattle gun tax failure? Firearm sales plummet, violence spikes after law passes

by Dan Springer

When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence.

But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would.

“How much data do you need?” asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”

Oh come on. Let’s be honest because the Leftists certainly won’t. First and foremost, this is another Leftist assault on the Second Amendment, which Leftists despise along with other aspects of the Bill of Rights — to include the First Amendment.

This was how it was portrayed in 2015, with Tucker Carlson responding to Abby Huntsman (ironic?).

You have but to look at and examine a host of violent events in American universities this year and last where speakers were threatened, actually struck, and either physically removed or had their presentations canceled because of Leftist violence and protests.

Leftists and Demorats know that when you have effectively eliminated the Second Amendment you are quite well on your way to eliminating the First Amendment and that is one of their ultimate goals: control of every aspect of your life, including your speech and, literally, your thoughts. When you cannot fight back you cannot stem their tide of monolithic policy, philosophy, suppression and control.

Let me again state the obvious. Those conservative or Republicans who insist the Second Amendment exists to allow good Americans to hunt or sport shoot couldn’t be more wrong. The Second Amendment exists so that good Americans are sufficiently armed in order to stave off attempts by the government to corrupt, arrest, enslave, oppress or subjugate the people of the United States. No more, no less.

Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016. Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of shots fired are up 13 percent, the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent and gun deaths doubled, according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

Tucker Carlson spoke last week about the so-called “unforeseen consequences” of the Seattle gun tax with anti-gun activist Mark Glaze which were, of course, entirely foreseeable.

Here’s what Leftists really want to take effect, up to and until they can literally remove your firearms and ammunition from your homes. Don’t think there isn’t already a $1,000 gun tax per firearm in effect. From ATR.org:

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as ‘Role Model’ for States

by John Kartch

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month (2016). An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.

As reported by the Saipan Tribune:

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.

The threat of such a tax serving as a role model for other politicians to impose is not an idle one.

Idle? Hell, it’s admired, embraced and salivated-over. Though a few years old, here is another greatly-admired idea from Demorats and Leftists. You can thank your lucky stars that another President Clinton isn’t occupying the Oval Office.

The government and local entities cannot yet physically confiscate your weapons. But they can certainly tax their sales and restrict and/or limit and tax ammunition as well.

Dave Workman doesn’t criticize the study, but he does think the city council should have predicted the results of the gun tax, such as gun dealers leaving with no drop in gun ownership. As for the gun violence, he says that too should not surprise anyone.

“All these gun control laws affect the wrong people,” Workman said. “The gang bangers don’t go in and buy ammunition at retail, at least not around here. It certainly hasn’t stopped them from getting their hands on firearms.”

Tales from Captain Obvious fail to be read by Demorats and Leftists. They continue to double down on laws oppressing the wrong people. Criminals, on the other hand, by definitions printed in their job descriptions, don’t give a shit about your puny laws.

Finally, Colion Noir dares to speak truth to power and truth to you and me.

Gun control is about one thing only. Removing your freedoms. Ask yourselves: just why is it that even Europeans are wishing they had their own Second Amendment these days?

You know the answer.

BZ