10 hours, 53 minutes ago JohnGateway Pundit, via Glenn Reynolds, presents another story of suppression of free speech by liberals:
School officials at Palm Beach State College kicked members of the Young America's Foundation off campus after they saw anti-Obama literature at their table.
There is much more to the story, as reported by the Orlando Political Press:
On Tuesday September 7, 2010 at around 11:00am one Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student and two Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the College. The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on campus via telephone and email communication.
On the day of club rush, officials approached the group and after seeing information about the organization and its ideals criticizing Barack Obama's economic policy. Ms. Ford-Morris was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the Heritage Foundation, criticizing President Obama's administration. College officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus. Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush.
This reminds me of an episode years ago, when Scott and I were just becoming politically active. There was a freshman orientation at the University of Minnesota, and campus organizations were invited to set up booths and pass out literature to solicit incoming freshmen to join. The Young Republicans had a booth and passed out anti-Clinton literature--it seems like only yesterday! Students who were running the event disapproved of the presence of conservatives, ordered the Republicans out and confiscated their literature. Their obviously illegal action was backed up by the then-Dean of Students, who wrote a rather astonishing letter to the effect that because the University of Minnesota is devoted to diversity, there is no room there for Republicans. Seriously. (BTW, it is a reasonable guess that most of the tax money that supports the University of Minnesota is paid by Republicans.)
Our friend Peter Swanson, at that time the President of the Republican group at the U of M, came to Scott and me, and we represented the college Republicans in pursuing claims arising out of the obvious infringement of their First Amendment rights. We won hands down, and one of the remedies we negotiated was that the head of the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota was required to attend First Amendment sensitivity training at the hands of a law school professor.
We have fond memories of that occasion, but the underlying reality is chilling. I really don't think most liberals have any respect for free speech as such, and if they had the opportunity, they would shut us all up or throw us in jail.
11 hours, 28 minutes ago PaulI wrote here about Robert O'Neill, President Obama's nominee to be U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. I pointed to the strong criticism O'Neill received from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia over his conduct in the prosecution of Deborah Gore Dean.
I also noted, based on the reporting of my friend Jim Scanlan, that O'Neill appears to have provided inaccurate and misleading statements on his application for the U.S. Attorney job regarding complaints arising from the prosecution of Ms. Dean. O'Neill stated: "After her conviction on all counts, Ms. Dean filed a bar complaint alleging a number of instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the trial."
But according to Jim, Dean did not file a bar complaint and, in fact, there was already an ongoing investigation by Bar Counsel prior to the time when Jim and counsel for Dean filed their complaint. Jim thus raises the question of whether "O'Neill deliberately misstated the origin of the investigation because he believed that a complaint filed by a convicted defendant would raise fewer concerns with the Florida Nominating Commission than an investigation initiated by the person or entity that actually initiated it." Jim has more to say about this issue here.
Jim has also raised another concern. It seems that O'Neill is embroiled in a nasty dispute with former Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Del Fuoco, who was once his colleague. Del Fuoco has sued O'Neill on a number of matters, including defamation for statements O'Neill made about him in the Nominating Commission application.
One of Del Fuoco's allegations is that O'Neill threatened bodily injury to Del Fuoco in statements made in the U.S. Attorney's office to three AUSA's. According to Jim, Del Fuoco identifies all three by name.
Del Fuoco has set forth deposition testimony in which O'Neill acknowledges that he may have made statements along the lines described by Del Fuoco, but denies that he made such statements in the workplace. Del Fuoco maintains that this denial constitutes perjury by O'Neill.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here - O'Neill or Del Fuoco. But since Del Fuoco says he has three witnesses, this would not appear to be a case of "he says, he says." And since perjury by a nominee for a U.S. Attorney position should clearly be disqualifying, this matter (as well as the matter of O'Neill's misstatement about who filed the bar complaint regarding his handling of the Dean case) calls for a full investigation. Yet Jim says that, neither in the vetting process for the U.S. Attorney nomination nor at any other time, has a Department representative asked the AUSAs whether Del Fuoco's allegations concerning O'Neill's perjury in the earlier case are true.
It seems to me that there are questions that need to be explored before O'Neill is confirmed (or not).
12 hours, 59 minutes ago PaulAs Scott noted this morning, Feisal Abdul Rauf has taken to the opinion pages of the New York Times to reiterate his intent to build the Ground Zero mosque. Rauf is no stranger to those pages. On February 27, 1979, the Times published Rauf's letter to the editor in which he criticized American for failing to apologize to Iran for past misdeeds. Rauf added that "the revolution in Iran was inspired by the very principles of individual rights and freedom that Americans ardently believe in."
When it reported on this letter, the Wall Street Journal, trying to be fair to Rauf, wrote that at the time of his letter, "Iran's revolution hadn't revealed all of its violent, messianic character." But a closer analysis of the timing of Rauf's letter undercuts this excuse and casts the imam in a worse light than the Journal supposes.
For, as Barry Rubin, has pointed out, Rauf's public cheering of the revolution came just weeks after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned triumphantly to Iran. To be precise, the Ayatollah returned on February 1, 1979. Welcomed back by a crowd of several million, he immediately became the undisputed leader of the revolution. On the very day of his return, Khomeini appointed a new prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan, and told his followers it was their duty to God to obey him. Here are his words:
I hereby pronounce Bazargan as the Ruler, and since I have appointed him, he must be obeyed. The nation must obey him. This is not an ordinary government. It is a government based on the sharia. Opposing this government means opposing the sharia of Islam ... Revolt against God's government is a revolt against God. Revolt against God is blasphemy.
Rubin is thus correct in observing that Rauf's expression of support came at the precise moment when the revolution's extremism had become clear. Read in this context, Rauf "wasn't endorsing the overthrow of the shah or the emergence of democracy but the triumph of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and everything that entailed."
The distinction here, as Rubin has also said, is like the difference between extolling the Russian Revolution while Kerensky was in power and endorsing it after Lenin had taken over. Rauf wasn't moved to defend the Iranian Revolution in the pages of the Times until its Lenin was in control.
To be sure, Rauf's letter in praise of Khomeini's revolution was written more than 30 years ago. But even today, he will not say, as he might have, that while he endorsed the Iranian revolution at first, he has come to realize that it is far too extreme and repressive, and that he does not favor an Islamist theocratic form of government. Instead he stands by what he wrote in 1979, claiming that the letter expresses his longstanding and ongoing concern for the humane treatment of Iran. But anyone concerned about humane treatment of Iranians would long ago have denounced Khomeini and his successors.
Therefore, let us not be under any illusions as to whose side Rauf is on, or what the real meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque is. Rauf may be urbane, but he is not moderate. One cannot be both an apologist for Iran's theocratic regime and a proponent of interfaith understanding.
13 hours, 4 minutes ago JohnGateway Pundit, via Glenn Reynolds, presents another story of suppression of free speech by liberals:
School officials at Palm Beach State College kicked members of the Young America's Foundation off campus after they saw anti-Obama literature at their table.
There is much more to the story, as reported by the Orlando Political Press:
On Tuesday September 7, 2010 at around 11:00am one Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student and two Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the College. The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on campus via telephone and email communication.
On the day of club rush, officials approached the group and after seeing information about the organization and its ideals criticizing Barack Obama's economic policy. Ms. Ford-Morris was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the Heritage Foundation, criticizing President Obama's administration. College officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus. Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush.
This reminds me of an episode years ago, when Scott and I were just becoming politically active. There was a freshman orientation at the University of Minnesota, and campus organizations were invited to set up booths and pass out literature to solicit incoming freshmen to join. The Young Republicans had a booth and passed out anti-Clinton literature--it seems like only yesterday! Students who were running the event disapproved of the presence of conservatives, ordered the Republicans out and confiscated their literature. Their obviously illegal action was backed up by the then-Dean of Students, who wrote a rather astonishing letter to the effect that because the University of Minnesota is devoted to diversity, there is no room there for Republicans. Seriously.
Our friend Peter Swanson, at that time the President of the Republican group at the U of M, came to Scott and me, and we represented the college Republicans in pursuing claims arising out of the obvious infringement of their First Amendment rights. We won hands down, and one of the remedies we negotiated was that the head of the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota was required to attend First Amendment sensitivity training at the hands of a law school professor.
We have fond memories of that occasion, but the underlying reality is chilling. I really don't think most liberals have any respect for free speech as such, and if they had the opportunity, they would shut us all up or throw us in jail.
14 hours, 12 minutes ago JohnDemocrats are panicking over their prospects in November, but don't generally seem to understand why the bottom has fallen out for them so quickly. Michael Ramirez, cartoonist of genius, explains at least one of their problems. Click to enlarge:
14 hours, 32 minutes ago JohnJeffrey Goldberg is in Cuba, and has filed a series of fascinating reports. Most recently, Fidel Castro told him that the Cuban economic model doesn't work, even in Cuba.
Ponder that for a moment: Castro has ruled Cuba for more than 51 years. He imposed on that country a cruel tyranny, jailed or murdered those who dared disagree with him, and installed a Communist economic system that has reduced Cuba to abject poverty. The last 50 years have been great for Fidel, however. Along with bedding many of the island's most beautiful women, he has been a thief of epic proportions, having possibly made off with a higher percentage of his country's wealth than any tyrant in history, and having thereby landed on Forbes' list of the world's richest people (unearned income category). But all of that was justified by American and European liberals, not to mention Fidel and his Cuban courtiers, on the ground that he was bringing a wonderful socialist system to Cuba. Free medical care!
Goldberg writes:
Even more striking was something he said at lunch on the day of our first meeting. We were seated around a smallish table; Castro, his wife, Dalia, his son; Antonio; Randy Alonso, a major figure in the government-run media; and Julia Sweig, the friend I brought with me to make sure, among other things, that I didn't say anything too stupid (Julia is a leading Latin American scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations). ... [D]uring the generally lighthearted conversation (we had just spent three hours talking about Iran and the Middle East), I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.
"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.
So, on the verge of death, Fidel is now willing to say, never mind--it was all a mistake. But not for him, of course.
17 hours, 10 minutes ago ScottThe holiday of Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown tonight. For Jews it marks the beginning of the year 5771. Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year to all our Jewish readers.
President Obama has noted the holiday. The White House has posted a video of President Obama's Rosh Hashanah message (transcript here; compare with Obama's 2010 Ramadan message here). In his inimitable style, Obama provides instruction to us, or "us," as "we begin this New Year[.]" Obama admonishes us:
At a time when too many of our friends and neighbors are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, it is up to us to do what we can to help those less fortunate.
At a time when prejudice and oppression still exist in the shadows of our society, it is up to us to stand as a beacon of freedom and tolerance and embrace the diversity that has always made us stronger as a people.
And at a time when Israelis and Palestinians have returned to direct dialogue, it is up to us to encourage and support those who are willing to move beyond their differences and work towards security and peace in the Holy Land. Progress will not come easy, it will not come quick. But today we had an opportunity to move forward, toward the goal we share--two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
Obama's "we" and "us" reminds me of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Reader Josh Levy comments:
How about just "Happy Rosh Hashanah"? Or how about not saying anything? The Jews of all people don't need your preaching -- certainly not from someone who attended an anti-Jewish "church" for 20 years. Don't tell us to "help the poor" and "embrace diversity" and "move beyond differences." We have been commanded to help the poor, to have one law for the stranger as for the Jew, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If you can't control your preachy impulse (and it's clear you cannot), go tell it to someone who needs to hear your message. Go talk to Hamas, go talk to the Saudi-sponsored imams in mosques across America, go talk to the hate-filled leftists on university campuses.
26 hours, 30 minutes ago ScottFeisal Abdul Rauf returns to the United States, with a reiteration of his intent to build the Ground Zero mosque. What better place to peddle his goods than the op-ed page of the New York Times?
Rauf presents his planned edifice as a sort of crossroads among Islam, Christianity and Judaism. And he's a sensitive kind of guy: "I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing."
But in Rauf's absence we have largely unified around the proposition that the mosque doesn't belong there. And the healing will begin when Rauf abandons the project. Looking on the bright side, Daniel Pipes thinks that Rauf may have roused us from our slumbers, and Andrew McCarthy thinks that this is where we begin to say no.
26 hours, 35 minutes ago ScottJohn Miller writes: "Please allow me to introduce the Student Free Press Association -- my new organization devoted to campus journalism. Our website officially launches today. We feature a mix of original and aggregated content on higher-ed news, virtually all of it produced by college students. We also provide advice and support to college journalists." John adds: "If you have readers who are student journalists, they really ought to join SFPA."
26 hours, 44 minutes ago ScottWe noted Fareed Zakaria's deeply weird Newsweek column arguing that the United States has overreacted to 9/11, but we only touched the surface. Pajamas Media has posted N.N Guariglia's detailed response to Zakaria. I was hoping that Guariglia might speculate on what accounts for the deep weirdness of Zakaria's column, but that is about the only element of it that Guariglia does not touch on.
