Tag Archives: Fascism

News

Bill H.R. 1966 would make blogging a crime, punishable by up to two years in prison

7 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome readers from Small Dead Animals! Thanks for the link, Kate! Canadian readers, this post that I wrote is an index to most of my recent posts on your free speech troubles with the Human Rights Commissions. I hope and pray that you guys can get your civil liberties restored, and be the True North Strong and Free, again!

UPDATE: If you are looking for the story on the hate crime bill that adds pedophiles to the list of “protected” groups, see here.

Wow, check out this story from OpenMarket blog.

Excerpt:

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”

I guess fascism is coming along faster than I thought.

U.C.L.A. Law Professor Eugene Volokh, the author of a First Amendment treatise, has concluded that the bill is unconstitutional. I agree, as I explain here. As a federal appeals court noted in DeJohn v. Temple University (2008), “there is no harassment exception to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” Speech that causes emotional distress can be protected,as the Supreme Court made clear in barring a lawsuit by Jerry Falwell over an offensive parody.

Wow, it’s like the left is doing everything they accused Bush of doing, which he never did. The fascist policies they imagined were all projections onto Bush of what they intended to do themselves! Now I get it. It wasn’t conservatives who were in favor of government control of private lives, it was the progressive left.

The bill is a telling example of how the American Left has turned against free speech and civil liberties. The bill’s sponsor, Linda Sanchez (D-CA), and nearly all of her 14 co-sponsors are liberals. All of them backed the federal hate-crimes bill passed by the House yesterday, which is designed to allow people who have been found innocent in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. (That bill has been criticized by four members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including law professor Gail Heriot, and by civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer. Advocates of the federal hate-crimes bill once cited the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case, who were innocent, as an example of people who should be prosecuted in federal court).

And don’t forget about the hate crimes bill: I wrote previously about the two ways in which that bill is unconstitutional.

Podcasts

Audio debate: Should Christians be coerced to act like non-Christians by the state?

10 Comments

Our next debate in the series of 4 wacky British debates is on whether Christians should be allowed to express their faith in public. In particular, should Christians be allowed to express their faith in the workplace? In the UK, it sounds like it is virtually illegal, just like it was in Stalinist Russia or North Korea today.

The way it works in the UK is like this: if you are a nurse, and you offer to pray for a patient, you’re suspended. Period. The offendedness of thin-skinned atheists cancels out the liberties of Christians. Listening to the atheist Terry Sanderson is like listening to Stalin. American Christians will be shocked to find how atheism leads naturally to fascism. Listen to him for yourself!

Note that debates on the Unbelievable radio show start at about 15 minutes into the podcast.

Unbelievable? 18 Apr 2009 – Are Christians being marginalised?
Premier is inviting Christians to sign the “I am a Christian” declaration at www.iamachristian.org.uk and stand up for their Christian faith. It’s in response to the fact that over 100,000 have downloaded the National Secular Society’s “Debaptism” certificate, renouncing childhood baptismal vows.There have been a number of stories that suggest Christians are being restricted form being open about their Christian faith in the public arena, and now the National Secular Society is urging that hospital chaplains should not be funded by the NHS.Premier’s CEO Peter Kerridge explains why he believes the campaign will encourage Christian to be bold in their faith. Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society explains why they want to take Christian influence out of the public sphere, while Andrea Williams of Christian Concern for Our Nation explains why she believes the rights of Christians are being challenged.

Sign the declaration at www.iamachristian.org.uk

For Terry Sanderson see www.secularism.org.uk

For Andrea Williams see www.ccfon.org

Atheism naturally leads to heavy-handed censorship of other views.

Human rights and liberties have no place in an atheistic, materialistic universe – it’s just survival of the fittest. And that’s what led atheist regimes to murder 100 million people in the 20th century. Violence, hatred and coercion are natural on atheism. That’s consistent atheism. There are no objective moral values, moral duties and morally significant actions in an atheistic universe. It’s all accidental.

Yes, I am exaggerating for effect, many atheists are not like that, especially the libertarians and fiscal conservatives, who do believe (inconsistently) in morality and freedom of religion. But those are rare! In a materialist universe, there is no such thing as objective human rights and human dignity, so even the fundamental right of free speech and freedom of religious expression can be removed.

UPDATE: I just want to define fascism so people understand what I am saying. Fascism is the system of government in which the values and purposes of the state are imposed on the people through state coercion. When something that someone else says makes you feel bad, and you threaten them with state coercion, you are using the state to force that person to give up their fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, and act in a state-approved manner. That’s fascism.

Atheists need to learn how to listen to those who disagree with them and tolerate other points of view.

UPDATE: Be sure and check my comparison of a famous, authentic, consistent Christian with a famous, authentic, consistent non-Christian.

News

Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors

6 Comments

UPDATE: More details about this story and related stories of government intervention and wealth redistribution are here.

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from 4Simpsons! Thanks for the link!

This bombshell comes to me from my favorite commenter ECM.

Newsbusters is reporting that the White House is making threats to Chrysler’s creditors. Obama is living that these creditors allowed Chrysler to go bankrupt, because he would prefer to throw your money at his auto union worker constituents. What does it mean when the President of the United States threatens and coerces private investors?

  • Private property is abolished
  • The free market is abolished
  • The rule of law is abolished
  • The Constitution has been abolished
  • Private contracts are abolished
  • Capitalism is abolished

It means that socialism has come to the United States, just as the rest of the world is abandoning a failed system.We are now the equivalent of Zimbabwe and North Korea! Our run of liberty and prosperity is now OVER.

The source of the story is a radio interview conducted between 760 WJR’s radio host Frank Beckmann and Tom Lauria, the attorney representing Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors. I am reproducing the full transcript, because you need to read the whole thing, especially what I’ve bolded.

Beckmann: So what’s the matter with your vulture clients who are so greedy and selfish. Why won’t they go along with this?

Lauria: Well, they bought a contract that says that they get paid before anyone else does by Chrysler. And they have been told by the government who is in complete control of Chrysler, oddly enough, that despite their contractual right, they do not get paid before everyone else.

So they are standing on their rights, standing on the law, trying to defend in effect what is the Constitution of the United States, to make sure that they get what they’re entitled to for their investors.

Beckmann: Tom, let me make the argument against you in another way. We’ve heard the President say this, “I wouldn’t want to stand on their side.” Ron Gettelfinger says “Everyone else has made concessions. These people won’t; they’re greedy.” Why not take a concession that is being asked of everybody else and is being accepted by everybody else, including other hedge funds that had bought some of these bonds in Chrysler?

Lauria: Well that’s a great question, because let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent, and that’s a moving target.

I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckmann: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

Beckmann: All right.

Lauria: Now let me just tell you, to be clear, that we do not oppose the rehabilitation of Chrysler. We think it is vitally important that a company like Chrysler be protected to the extent that it can be within the framework of the law. I want to also say that we do not oppose the government backstopping or supporting the pensioneers and retirees and workers of Chrysler.

I actually think that in a troubled economic time like we’re in, that is an appropriate role for the government to perform. What we do oppose, however, is the abuse of the bankruptcy law to coerce first-lien lenders subsidize the rehabilitation of Chrysler or the backstop of the obligations to the pensioneers and retirees beyond what they will do voluntarily.

And just to be clear, these clients of mine have agreed to compromise 50% of their first-lien position to help support the rehabilitation of Chrysler — Contrary to what the President said yesterday in his new conference that “these people will not give to support the effort,” they have agreed to compromise 50% of what they’re owed to support the rehabilitation of Chrysler, despite the fact that they’re under no obligation whatsoever to do so.

That is what we stand for, and that is what we’re going to go to court to fight for.

Beckmann: OK, so they have offered to take 50 cents on the dollar. What are they being offered in return, and how does that compare to what other stakeholders, say the UAW, are going to be receiving?

Lauria: Here’s the troubling circumstance here. My clients bought a position in the Chrysler capital structure that entitles them to be paid “first dollars out.” That is, they’re to be paid 100 cents of what they’re owed before any junior creditors get a penny.

The government has offerend them 29 cents on the dollar, in the context of a restructuring of Chrysler that will send over $10 billion of value to junior claims. And when I say $10 (billion), that’s a floor. As we’re continuing to review the papers that Chrysler has filed in the bankruptcy court, that number may actually be more like $20 billion. So in other words, my clients, who are contractually entitled to 100 cents on the dollar, are being asked to take 29 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors are being offered somewhere between $10-$20 billion of value in the Chrysler rehabilitation.

Now I ask your listeners, what would they do if they were in our position?

Beckmann: Now Tom Lauria, let me cite a New York Times piece, I believe this was yesterday’s New York Times. No, it’s today’s as a matter of fact. And it says about the creditors who are standing firm: “Many of them bought Chrysler debt for about 30 cents on the dollar.” So what they’re saying is, “Look, they got a discount to begin with. They’re getting a good deal here. If they bought it for 30 and they’re being offered 29, that’s a great deal, better percentagewise than anybody else got.”

Lauria: Well, what people need to understand, first of all, that that is only speculation. There are people who bought this debt at par in my group, there are people who bought this at 70 cents, there are people who bought it at other prices. But what people really need to understand is that the people who bought this debt are pensioneers, teachers’ credit unions, personal retiree accounts, retirement plans, college endowments. That’s who my clients act as fiduciaries for. And they make all kinds of investments. And as you can imagine in this economy, there are numerous of those investments that have gone bad.

This was an investment that people made based on their assessment of the assets of Chrysler, and the view that this was a very secure, very safe investment. And they bought a contract that said they would get a very low rate of return in exchange for that high level of security. So the argument about what they paid for their investment really is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is they bought a contract that said “you’re first in line, and in exchange for that you’re going to get a very low rate of return.” And I think everybody in this country should be concerned about the fact that the President of the United States, the executive office, is using its power to try to abrogate that contractual right. If the President will attack that contractual right, what right will it not attack?

Beckmann: You made a comment to me before we went on the air about the significance of this case as it relates to the Constitution. I’d like you to explain that to my audience.

Lauria: Well, look, there are kind of two aspects to that. The first is the right to property and the right to contract are kind of sacronsanct in this country. I think everybody understands that when you make a deal it’s supposed to be honored, and if it’s not honored you’re supposed to be able to get protection in court. And what is happening here, through the force of the United States government, and that’s what’s disturbing about this — I mean, private parties have contract disputes all the time — but for the United States Government to step in, the Executive Office of the United States Government, who under the Constitution is charged with enforcing the laws to step in and try to in effect break the laws, I think we should all be concerned about that. That is a constitutional issue.

OK, number one. Number two, realize that our Constitution is premised on the notion that there is a balance between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

And what’s going to be happening, in fact I’m going to have to go here, because I’m heading down to the bankruptcy court to start taking on this battle, which is of epic proportions. But what is going on here is you’ve got the executive branch coming into the judicial branch. And I think it is really important for the Constitution of the United States that people understand that the judicial branch can stand independent and interpret and apply the laws as it’s required to do under the Constitution in the face of intense pressure from the Executive branch to do otherwise.

Beckmann: Tom Lauria, really appreciate it. Final question, will Oppenheimer Funds and Stairway Capital, your other two clients in this, are they committed to standing firm? I’ve got to believe they’re facing the same pressure Perella Weinberg did before it changed its mind and said “Okay, we’ll go along now.”

Lauria: Well they are today, but the Executive Office hasn’t called them yet and made threats to them. So, maybe by tomorrow I won’t have any clients, and maybe this fight will be over.

Click the link below to see more commentary from National Review, Wall Street Journal and Hot Air.

Continue reading Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors →