September 04, 2011

Obama tries to criminalize political speech

Glenn Greenwald points out Reason No. 4,072 not to vote for Obama: The Department of Justice attempting to criminalize political speech.

First, the not just legal, but constitutional fact:
The Constitution -- specifically the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment -- prohibits the U.S. Government from punishing someone for the political views they express, even if those views include the advocacy of violence against the U.S. and its leaders
But, if you're a Muslim, and you've ever breathed the same air molecules as Hezbollah or a similar group, and say one word that doesn't spit on that group's grave, Obama wants to treat you like a criminal.

And no, not a metaphorical "criminal." A criminal. Obama wants to arrest you and try you for giving material support to terrorists.

Seriously, nothing, nothing, nothing Obama does, especially in foreign policy in general and above all, in the foreign-domestic policy intersection of the War on Terra, even comes close to surprising me any more.

And please, don't pull the the "fear the GOP" bogeyman on me to try to defend Obama. Once again, if Republicans did this, Democrats would be mentioning words like impeachment.

That said ....

Besides, as Glenn notes, there's a big bipartisan hypocrisy alert here:
Numerous prominent politicians from both political parties -- Michael Mukasey, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Tom Ridge, Ed Rendell, Fran Townsend, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- have not only been enthusiasticaly promoting and advocating on behalf of a designated terrorist organization (MEK of Iran), but they have been receiving substantial amounts of cash from that Terrorist group as they do so.  There is only one list of "designated Terrorist organizations" under the law, and MEK is every bit as much on that list as (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba) or Al Qaeda are. 
That's the allegedly "liberal" Howard Dean and the Obama toady Ed Rendell. Fixed it for you, Glenn.

The fact that, in comments at Glenn's blog, people try to find precedent in a previous Supreme Court decision, one based on a previous case brought by AG Eric Holder, is itself problematic.

Holder is more a toady to Obama than Colin Powell was to Bush.

No comments: