Sounds like another instance of ‘Freedom of Speech for me but not for thee’, all too common among the oh-so-tolerant Left.Exactly.
Also, at Film Ladd, "Did The Hahn Campaign Hire A Hacker?"
I hope the GOP candidates for President are smart and articulate enough to use this case in their argument against electing the Democratic President to a second term.Word.
And here comes the Soros-funded Think Progresss, "Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done":
Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe.And he's being subjected to a high-tech attack in a white robe.
We tried to ask him about what went down when Breitbart crashed Kos’s convention. Kos didn’t feel like commenting ...
Breitbart was accused of being a coward for not answering the Kos crowd’s questions to their satisfaction. We do not think Kos is a coward for doing the same.
I don't know.
The dude's a prick. Sometimes the polite response just seems inadequate, for a brat like that.
Yeah, well, throwing stuff is a lot easier than acknowledging your adversary’s points and countering them with well-thought out arguments.But check the whole thing. Lots more links.
WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.More at that link at top.
Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.
In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.
It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.
Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.
“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.
As Breitbart struck up a conversation with Slate blogger Dave Weigel, Ryan Clayton, who works for US Uncut and blogs on 100ProofPolitics, accosted Breitbart and began screaming questions at him: “Have you kicked your cocaine habit?”Breitbart has a crew with him, but most other hot-button conservatives I've met --- David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, for example --- travel with bodyguards.
“I have no cocaine habit,” Breitbart told him.
“Have you ever slept with a prostitute?” Clayton asked, almost physically trembling as he worked himself up.
“You prove my point,” Breitbart told him, evidently satisfied that he was again the center of attention in hostile territory.
Another person asked Breitbart if he was credentialed to be there. He admitted that he was not. He tried to walk into the exhibition hall and was turned away by conference organizers.
As he walked back toward the escalator to leave, a middle-aged African-American woman walked toward him and began yelling: “You are racist! … It’s gonna come to light who you really are!”
Former University of Montana law professor and outspoken conservative Rob Natelson has been denied his request for professor emeritus status, a decision he called "petty" and "inexplicable."Natelson was apparently one the most published professors on the faculty. Denial of emeritus status was clearly driven by ideological hatred. Progressives suck.
Natelson, who retired in May 2010 after serving 23 years as a professor in the law school to take a job as a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, was informed upon his return to Montana in June that the law school faculty had voted against granting the constitutional scholar emeritus status.
Emeritus status is granted to a retiring professor whose colleagues feel he or she is worthy of the academic recognition and prestige based on the faculty member's research, service and instruction during his teaching tenure.
"Emeritus status for retirees is pretty routine and almost always given," Natelson said. "I find the whole thing very peculiar. Even though there's a history here, this thing seems so petty, so small."
Everywhere we look we see these broken Jews who have embraced left-wing causes, or assimilationist fatuities, or the temptations of social prestige, or the fashionable bromides of the zeitgeist that promise peace and understanding with anti-Semitic killers and despots in a pluralistic New World Order that exists only in their own febrile and disarrayed minds.
CHICAGO — FBI agents took box after box of address books, family calendars, artwork and personal letters in their 10-hour raid in September of the century-old house shared by Stephanie Weiner and her husband.More at that link above.
The agents seemed keenly interested in Weiner’s home-based business, the Revolutionary Lemonade Stand, which sells silkscreened baby outfits and other clothes with socialist slogans, phrases like “Help Wanted: Revolutionaries.”
The search was part of a mysterious, ongoing nationwide terrorism investigation with an unusual target: prominent peace activists and politically active labor organizers.
The probe — involving subpoenas to 23 people and raids of seven homes last fall — has triggered a high-powered protest against the Department of Justice and, in the process, could create some political discomfort for President Obama with his union supporters as he gears up for his reelection campaign.
All along, the activists have claimed they have no ties to terrorism, despite the appearance that the investigation is into possible ties to the communist Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), “a revolutionary socialist and Marxist-Leninist organization in the United States” that is seeking to end America’s free-enterprise system.Check Red State for all the links to the activist organizations. There's a protest scheduled today in Alhambra. Kinda early though, so I don't know if I'll make it.
The Freedom Road Socialist Organization has links (literally) to both the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [background here] and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) [background here], two groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
Another of those being investigated is Hatem Abudayyeh who, according to his bio, is the Executive Director of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Coalition of African, Arab, Asian, European, and Latino Immigrants of Illinois (CAAAELII), is a founding Advisory Board member of the National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC), and sits on the National Coordinating Committee of the United States Palestine Community Network (USPCN).
Now, with possible indictments looming, some of the individuals being investigated are attempting to strike back.Several activists and their lawyers said they believe indictments could come anytime, so they have turned their organizing skills toward a counteroffensive, decrying the inquiry as a threat to their First Amendment rights. All 23 of the activists invoked their right not to testify before a grand jury, defying U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, whose office is spearheading the investigation. A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment.On May 17th, according to the Committee to Stop FBI Repression’s website, another activist’s home was raided in Los Angeles and the activist, Carlos Montes, was detained and questioned about the Midwest activists, as well as the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
The activists have formed the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, organized phone banks to flood Attorney General Eric Holder’s office and the White House with protest calls, solicited letters from unions and faith-based groups and sent delegations to Capitol Hill.
“I am so disgusted when I see that so many union people have been targeted in this,” said Phyllis Walker, president of AFSCME Local 3800, which represents clerical workers at the University of Minnesota, including four members who are possible targets.
On June 16th, the Committee is planning a “Day of Action in Solidarity with Carlos Montes.”
On the actvists’ website, there is a timeline of events that includes actions the activists have taken to counter the investigation into their activities, as well as the list of Democrat politicians the group has enlisted to support them.
By the looks of it, with indictments possibly being issued soon, there will likely be much more coming out in the coming weeks and months ahead.
Regardless of how the lower courts rule, most legal analysts believe the Boies-Olson case will eventually be decided by the United States Supreme Court. No one seems to want anything to happen outside the courtroom to prejudice judges at any level.Seems weird how long ago it's been. Polls have shifted a bit toward gay marriage, but not that much. Politics will still matter, a lot.
“We’re right at the cusp, and it is the conventional wisdom that we can’t go to the ballot to repeal and lose,” said Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. She said an electoral loss could “create a very toxic environment” for same-sex marriage and “send a message that might chill an otherwise more compassionate court.”
Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, another rights group, echoed that statement, saying the federal case has been a “tremendous boost to public understanding about how the denial of marriage really harms families,” but it’s also had a chilling effect on a California ballot push. “While the case is pending, it has made it harder to mobilize the volunteers and money and energy,” he said. “That’s really been the good and bad of it.”
In addition to the potential impact on the federal case, some worry that a 2012 ballot campaign could also galvanize conservative groups in a presidential election year, and bring more Republican voters to the polls in California in a year when initiatives on issues like immigrant rights and the death penalty may make the state’s ballot.
But the wait-and-see decision will no doubt displease some who feel that the voter-approved ban on gay marriage — in a year in which President Obama was elected — was a low-water mark in the gay rights movement.
