Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

August 3, 2012

Unhinged Leftist Radio Host Melts Down Over Chick-fil-A Support

by lewwaters

Mike Malloy, so unhinged that Air America dumped him before they collapsed, went on a childish rant on a recent program over Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, where citizens of all walks poured into the restaurants to show support for the chain presidents free speech.

FOUL LANGUAGE WARNING!

Read more at Radio Equalizer

read more »

October 27, 2011

Mayor Leavitt gets Testy

by lewwaters

My opposition to C-Trans’ Proposition 1 is well known in town to any who read the Columbian or this blog. I have never hidden the fact from anyone. I frequently express that opposition in comments at the Columbian and elsewhere.

But, I was surprised to see the following reply left today on a comment I made weeks ago from Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt.

Click on image to enlarge

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/oct/12/vote-yes-for-c-tran/

One of the reasons I fought for this country in an armed conflict was so that we little people retained the right to speak out on what we see as wrong. Whether I agree with others or not, I do not try to silence them, as is seen in several comments on this blog.

But, that’s the best argument the Mayor can muster to promote a measure, telling a citizen “blah, blah, blah” and to “give it a rest?”

August 5, 2011

John Kerry: “Media Has Responsibility to Not Give Equal Time to the Tea Party”

by lewwaters

Straight from the mouth of one those who have gotten us mired in this problem

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto says it best,

It’s rather galling for somebody who has never apologized for kicking off his career with such extravagant slanders to be lecturing anybody about ‘who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t’.”

In case any have forgotten Kerry’s infamous lies,

They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Thank you Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for exposing this guy in 2004 and keeping him from moving into the Oval Office.

Massachusetts, wake up!

May 24, 2011

Free Speech for All, Except Conservatives

by lewwaters
March 1, 2011

Who’s Intimidating Who, Ms Rulli?

by lewwaters

I was really glad to have been present at last evenings City Council meeting in Vancouver, Washington. It wasn’t the first time I was present at council meeting nor will it be the last. But, last night I was there to witness some interesting comments, both from a citizen and from council. After seeing council members fix blame for an egregious outburst of council member Jeanne Harris last September, here and here, I sat and listened as Tonya Rulli, a “friend” of Mayor Leavitt, knowingly rose before public TV cameras and stated the following;

CVTV footage, obtained pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act, in no way is intended by CVTV, the City of Vancouver, or Clark County to either promote or oppose any candidate for public office or any ballot proposition

read more »

February 19, 2011

What Next at Council Meetings, Jack Booted Thugs?

by lewwaters

The ongoing efforts to silence citizen opposition to extending Portland, Oregon’s Loot Rail into Vancouver, Washington, part of an overly expensive planned project to replace the aging I-5 bridge between the 2 states, is being elevated to a new level, publicly berating citizen’s who exercise their first amendment rights to speak out in opposition.

Saturday’s Columbian contains a front page article, Mayor Leavitt ready to cut open mic at city council meetings featuring the names and photographs of those who have spoken out in opposition to Loot Rail and Tolls at past meetings, including how often they speak.

Previously mentioned HERE, the effort now seems centered around a plan to continue rewriting Guidelines for Citizen Communications, that has been “under review” for several months now and modify or do away with the portion still published that says, “Citizens Communications is the place on the agenda when the public is invited to speak for approximately three minutes about an issue of concern or interest not already scheduled for public hearing during the meeting, or otherwise addressed on the agenda.”

read more »

January 22, 2011

Soros Funded Group Calls for Investigation of Supreme Court Justices

by lewwaters

For some time now we have sat back and seen when liberals don’t get their way through favorable legislation, they turn to the federal courts for favorable rulings from mostly sympathetic justices that end up issuing rulings that in essence “legislate from the bench.”

We can now see what the new tactic is when they fail to gain the desired legislation from the bench that they are used to getting, call upon a liberal Justice Department to “investigate” Supreme Court Justices they target for failing to recuse themselves from proceedings in order to have that decision vacated and gain their favorable ruling.

Our constitution is little more than toilet paper to these people on the left.

At issue here is the well-known liberal group, Common Cause, heavily funded by liberal Billionaire George Soros group Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation doesn’t like that they lost the case last year that stripped some elements of McCain-Feingold, allowing corporations to become more involved in political campaigns.

read more »

July 8, 2010

Who Is The Conservative Voice on the Vancouver City Council?

by lewwaters

Vancouver, Washington and our surrounding areas is truly a diverse community comprised of several ethnicities and political persuasions. Throughout the years officials have been elected from nearly all trains of thought at one time or another and sent up to Olympia, back to Washington D.C. or to fill local offices.

But, a recent ordinance barely passed by the Vancouver City Council gave me pause to think, where and who is the conservative voice for Vancouver citizens on the council?

If you will recall, a few weeks ago I wrote Free Speech Gains a Short Reprieve from the Vancouver City Council, explaining how a proposed ordinance that held the potential to regulate free speech gatherings was sent back to staff for further rewriting in order to remove that potential of regulating public speech.

At the time, 4 centrist council members saved the day while 3 more progressive council members, including newly elected mayor, Tim Leavitt, expressed they had no problem with the ordinance as written and could not see the glaring possibility of its misuse in the future.

One of those progressives was Bart Hansen, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Leavitt as he stepped over to the mayor’s chair, who now voted against the ordinance, along with Mayor Leavitt and fellow council member, Jeanne Harris, once the wording was changed to remove the potential the ordinance held to regulate free speech.

Hansen cited his opposition as he cannot support anything that is not straight across the board equal, equating our constitutional right to peaceful assembly to express support or dissent of political issues with a rock concert.

Mayor Leavitt, who strongly supported Hansen and appointed him, stated that now the city would have no involvement in such gatherings. Harris cannot see what “the big deal is.”

Our right to peaceful assembly was protected by one vote when the vote should have been unanimous. As said before, I applaud council members Pat Campbell, Jack Burkman, Jeanne Stewart and Larry Smith for the votes and foresight that seems to be lacking in Bart Hansen, who must run for election this year.

Of the 4 council members who “saved the day,” so to speak, I would place all as centrists with a very slight lean to left, some more than others. If only one had been swayed, our constitutional right to peaceful assembly and free speech might have been under regulation in the City of Vancouver. We were fortunate that did not happen this time.

This brings me back to who on the council is a strong and consistent conservative voice for Vancouver’s conservative citizens?

We have a chance to place a conservative voice on the council again this election in John Jenkins, 56 year-old Vancouver businessman running to take over the seat Bart Hansen was appointed to.

Jenkins will bring his experience from chairing the 2004 Salary Review Commission, sitting on the 2006 Vancouver/PDX Aviation Noise Advisory Committee and co-chairing the 2009 City of Vancouver Charter Review Committee to the council.

Jenkins’s had applied for the seat Hansen was appointed to last year, but with no voter input, Hansen was appointed.

At a fund raiser held on his behalf just last evening, it has been reported to me that

“When asked why should a liberal vote for him, John Jenkins conservative response was that he would be mindful of his fiduciary responsibilities, not waste tax dollars and prioritize spending. When asked about Prioritizing Spending John Jenkins advised those present that Citizen’s Safety led by adequate funding of police and fire service would be at the top of his priority list. He was candid and well spoken when he announced that he did not support Bridge Tolls and/or the extension of Portland, Oregon Light Rail into the City of Vancouver. It is too expensive and would cause taxes to increase, he said.”

Vancouver, let’s get serious this year. In spite of all the bashing that has been going on against conservatives, propelling liberals and progressives into power, our economic and personal security has slipped into a very grave situation as once again, the reality shows that conservatism is what benefits people overall the most.

We can begin turning the page to a real recovery by electing John Jenkins.

Don’t forget when it came to foresight in protecting our constitutional right to peaceful assembly and free speech in Vancouver, Hansen bailed!

January 25, 2010

Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers

by lewwaters

It’s not very often that we see our local paper, the Columbian promoting or in agreement with a Republican. Usually, if they are, the Republican is either a left-leaning Republican, a RINO or is mistakenly supporting a position that will further the countries rush to socialism.

Such is the case I see in the January 25, 2010 editorial, In Our View, Jan. 25: Identify the Signers, supporting the release of the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the petition that placed R-71, a citizen referendum to bring the Domestic Partnership law before voters, on last Novembers ballot.

Even before the election was held, gay activists were calling for releasing the names, addresses and signatures of the petition signers to them so they could place the information on searchable web pages, ostensibly to “contact and educate” people who disagree with the gay agenda.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

A clear example of the intent is displayed by disturbed gay activist, John Bisceglia at Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

Ignoring, or perhaps looking forward to, the intimidation tactics gay activists claim they will be making once they have the signers personal information, the Columbian Editorial says,

“Washingtonians have two Republicans working feverishly to protect the public’s right to know how its government works. Secretary of State Sam Reed has repeated his vow to “defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”

“And the man who will lead that defense, literally, is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue the case before the high court. We hope McKenna is as successful in this effort as he was a couple of years ago when he convinced the Supreme Court to approve (by a 7-2 vote) Washington state’s top two primary.”

It is no stretch for me to claim that these are two “Republicans” with a very shaky position in future support with many Republicans in Washington State.

Gay activists twist the intent of anonymity of the signers of petitions to facilitate their intent of intimidation and apparently Columbian editors support that tactic.

Missed by all is the recent partially dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Court ruling overturning portions of the campaign finance laws. Although Justice Thomas’ opinion isn’t directly addressing the pending R-71 case, his words have relevancy to it. In that 6-page opinion he wrote,

“Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymous speech” based on the “ ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’ ” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348(1995)).”
======================================
“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
======================================
“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”
======================================
“These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California.”
======================================
“Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—‘the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]’ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”

You needn’t be an attorney or constitutional scholar to see the farsightedness and wisdom in Justice Thomas’ words. Allowing gay activists access to such information to be made available as they wish opens the door to preventing citizen involvement in government.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, once such tactics become acceptable, as they will, what citizen will be able to feel safe exercising their “right to anonymous speech” as what group would refrain from using underhanded tactics used against them?

Whether intentionally or not, the Columbian is actually encouraging LESS citizen involvement in government at a time we see our freedoms and liberties slowly being chipped away.

Strangely silent is the Columbian on identifying legislators that pack bills with earmarks, as they were last year on investigating and revealing any documents on the Brian Baird alleged death threat story, but they wish ordinary citizens who may support an issue they oppose to be given to gay activists for purpose of intimidation.

Should they succeed in threatening citizens from participating in government by such acts of public intimidation, will it be too far away that we will see similar tactics imposed on how we vote?

The Columbian continues to face financial difficulties and such positions designed to take more rights from citizens from will not bring their finances back into the black.

Speculation around the state is that Attorney General Rob McKenna has designs on running for governor in the future.

If he does it may have to be as a Democrat as Republican support for McKenna has been drying up with such positions as this in direct opposition to Republican Party values.

Wake up, citizens. We are being sold a bill of goods in a gilded package that just moves us towards more a socialistic dictatorship.

December 15, 2008

PDC Temporarily Tables Blogger Lobbying Efforts

by lewwaters

washington-sealAs previously discussed at Bloggers, Are We Lobbyists, Washington State Bloggers were facing being labeled as lobbyists by the Public Disclosure Commission.

Mike Reitz, of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation attended the latest hearing of the PDC and has emailed me that this effort has been shelved for the time being.

As Mike states on his own site linked above, two commissioners desired more time to consider the guidelines proposed while two others present were ready to adopt them. A fifth commissioner was not present.

A December 5 Olympian article, PDC waits on blog ruling, delves a little deeper into the intent of the proposed guidelines. From that article we read,

“PDC staff lawyer Nancy Krier said the agency has taken a “follow-the-money” approach that applies a standard lobbying requirement — which allows a person or group to avoid registering or reporting as a lobbyist if an individual spends no more than four days in three consecutive months lobbying and does not spent more than $25.

The limit for grassroots lobbying is that organizations or individuals do not spend more than $500 in a month or $1,000 in three consecutive months.

But, Krier said low-cost Internet organizing changes the way lobbying is done and tracked. “In the new era, there is no money to follow,” Krier said.”

While most of us small-time bloggers spend little money on blogging, we do spend much more than 4 days in a 3-month period expressing our opinions and writing in support of favored candidates or measures. Most of us earn absolutely nothing for our efforts. We do it out of principle and as I have stated before, to bypass printed media that may or may not publish our letters to the editors and then, have them subjected to editing, sometimes changing the point of why we wrote.

I see this as nothing more than exercising our First Amendment right of Free Speech and since we are not paid, I see no reason the thought of regulating us is even thought of.

Well, no logical reason, anyway.

With all the left’s efforts at reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, actually a thinly veiled effort at stifling free speech of the right, it appears that bloggers could fall under such regulation as well in the future.

What, if any actual affect it would hold for small-time blogs, I’d just as soon not find out. I enjoy the freedom of expressing my thoughts in support or in opposition of candidates and measures. I support those blogs from the left who post in opposition to me as their expression of free speech.

So long as our printed and broadcast media continue to cover news in the slanted way they currently do, we bloggers supply the balance they refuse to.

EFF Podcast discussion on blogger lobbying.

The PDC is interested in receiving public comments on this. You can email comments to Lori Anderson at landerson@pdc.wa.gov