The story comes from the Arizona Daily Star via Aaron Worthing : U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will step down from Congress this week to focus on her recovery, her staff announced Sunday. “I have more work to do on my recovery, so to do what is best for Arizona, I will step down this week,” Giffords said in a video message. Giffords, a third-generation Arizonan who served five years in the state Legislature before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006, will not seek re-election this fall. Giffords vowed to return public service. So out of touch was I, that I had not even seen Rep. Giffords speak since she was shot. Here is the video in which she announces she is stepping down: The transcript from the YouTube page : Arizona is my home, always will be. A lot has happened over the past year. We cannot change that. But I know on the issues we fought for we can change things for the better. Jobs, border security, veterans. We can do so much more by working together. I don’t remember much from that horrible day, but I will never forget the trust you placed in me to be your voice. Thank you for your prayers and for giving me time to recover. I have more work to do on my recovery so to do what is best for Arizona I will step down this week. I’m getting better. Every day, my spirit is high. I will return and we will work together for Arizona and this great country. Thank you very much. I still remember watching the video when Giffords read the First Amendment on the House floor : That happened shortly before she was shot. Ever since then, people have tried to exploit the actions of her crazed would-be assassin to smear Sarah Palin and others, and portray conservatives as people who incite mentally disturbed people to commit acts of violence. Many of these critics are, in classic Alinsky fashion, making these accusations because they themselves have embarked on a campaign of inciting people based on phony accusations and dishonest rhetoric. These people know who they are and they know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to silence conservatives and make us ashamed to express our views in a forceful fashion. So on this sad day, when Rep. Giffords announces her intent to resign, it is well to remember that she is a symbol, not of the dangers of free speech, but of the dangers of trying to stamp it out. Those who seek to exploit Giffords’s tragedy are guilty of an assault on the very Constitutional protection Rep. Giffords was so proud to read on the House floor. I know that we all wish Rep. Giffords well, and are pleased to see her speaking and smiling. I hope she is correct that she will return to fight for Arizona and for our Constitution.
Read more from the original source:
Video: Gabby Giffords Resigns
Today the Wall Street Journal published a piece by SEIU president Andy Stern praising China’s economic model. Stern doesn’t come right out and say it, but he certainly implies in every way that China’s communist system works better than America’s free market one:
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here . Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.] Hey, to celebrate this day, let’s carve up a liberal turkey and give thanks to him for providing us someone to laugh at. Ken Ashford writes at the little blog known as the Seventh Sense and I have clashed with him before for his dishonesty. But I had ignored the blog for a few months and apparently when the cat was away the mouse played. First up we have a post attacking me called: Pig (And Stupid Lawyer) of the Day. In the post he alleges that I said here that if Hermain Cain approached an employee with a sexual quid pro quo (i.e. “sleep with me or you’re fired/won’t get that promotion”) that it was not sexual harassment. Then he spends the remainder of the post citing things like the EEOC to prove that in fact saying “sleep with me or your fired” is indeed classic sexual harassment. There’s only one problem. I never said it wasn’t sexual harassment. In fact, I said the opposite. And for extra hilarity, Mr. Ashford actually quoted the passage where I said that such behavior was sexual harassment but failed to understand that I had said it. Here’s the passage he quoted, just as Kenny-boy quoted it : Or did [Cain] do the full quid pro quo (“something for something”) and say, “sleep with me or you are fired/won’t get that promotion, etc.?” Now I want to be careful to say that we are not nearly there, yet, but if that is what it was, then it’s not just “sexual harassment.” Seriously what do you call it when you give something of value in exchange for sex? In most states, that’s prostitution. And then he goes on in self-righteous fashion, thinking that he as Ahab finally has the opportunity to kill his white whale, writing: No, Aaron. An employer saying to an employee[] “sleep with me or else you are fired/won’t get that promotion” is the textbook definition[*] of sexual harassment. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Go back to law school (or alternatively, get a job and read the company employee manual). And all because apparently he doesn’t know what the word “just” means in this context. Read that passage again. I said it was not just sexual harassment. If you go to Webster’s Dictionary and look it up as the adverb, definition 3 a will inform you that the term “just” can mean “only, simply .” So in context I was saying nothing more than that such conduct is not merely sexual harassment but also solicitation of prostitution as well. I was saying it was both. Pro-tip, Kenny boy. Before you accuse someone of being stupid, double check and make sure you aren’t the one being stupid. Or else that person might make you look stupid. (Sidebar: I also wonder how any of that makes me a supposed pig. Was he under the impression that when I raised the possibility that this was solicitation of prostitution, that this made Cain’s behavior okay? Is he under the impression that I approve of prostitution? No, in fact the point of my analysis was to impress on conservatives that if that was the behavior he was ultimately accused of (and he was eventually accused of that sort of thing with at least one woman), that we should not try to excuse the conduct. (But then again, maybe in Kenny boy’s mind if it is “only” solicitation of prostitution, then it is okay–but only if it is not also sexual harassment.) The second example comes from another post I wrote on sexual harassment. I wrote out a long piece stating that the law of sexual harassment was in need of reform. And Mr. Ashford decided to sum it up. This is the entirety of his post on it: Shorter Aaron Worthing The depraved idiot tries to make a deep point, but just spittles on his face: The First Amendment doesn’t prevent people from making sexual threats in the workplace, and it shouldn’t. That is in reference to this post , and first, that isn’t a quote and he’s not representing it to be one. In internet parlance a “shorter” is a (usually sarcastic) summary of what someone else said. But here’s the thing. He is placing words in my mouth that are in fact the opposite of what I did say. Now the problem here is that the term “sexual threats” is a little vague. Is he referring to threats to harm a person in a sexual manner—i.e. “I am going to rape you”? Or does he mean something more like “sleep with me or you’re fired?” (And you know that is called quid pro quo sexual harassment.) I am honestly unsure, but in either case, his characterization is actually the direct opposite of what I did say. Here’s the key passage: So I think sexual harassment law is in dire need of reform. Quid pro quo harassment can be left in place because it is conduct that is actually criminal in most states (as I keep saying, it’s solicitation of prostitution if unsuccessful, prostitution if successful). In terms of hostile environment I think the courts should draw a bright line: only conduct, and not mere words, can be harassment. Now I mean that as lawyers understand the term “conduct.” When two people form a contract, that is not considered speech, but conduct. The same is true of threats. So if you touch a person or threaten them, that is harassment that can be prohibited under the law. But not merely expressing an unpopular opinion. That is not to say I am okay with other crude comments, but we cannot ban everything that offends us—especially when that thing is merely words. So if he meant sexual threats to mean “quid pro quo harassment” you can see right at the beginning of the passage where I say that this doctrine should be left in place. And while I don’t single out threats to commit sexual assault specifically, I point out that threats in general can be banned consistent with the First Amendment and endorse that approach. Indeed, the Supreme Court has affirmed this in the Virginia cross burning case . So his “shorter” is in fact a flat out lie actually contradicted by the text of the post he is pretending to sum up. The last in our trifecta of turkey posts is where he deliberately takes a line in this post grossly out of context: And the founders clearly always contemplated corporations and similar business organizations having an outsized say in the political process. So then he goes on to write an entire post on the theory that I was saying that corporations would control the government or something, when in fact the very next line made it perfectly clear what I meant: After all, as I just pointed out, exercising freedom of the press costs money, and very often that freedom has been exercised by corporations, such as the publishers of the New York Times and [Scott Turow’s] books. Put into context the first line is downright pedestrian. First as I explained in the post the exercise of freedom of the press costs money. You have to purchase paper, ink, plates and the press itself, as well as paying for the labor involved. Indeed, many newspapers also employed people to distribute their products as well. And of course from the beginning of this Republic—indeed even when were under colonial rule—the “press” included newspapers run by corporations. So it amounts to nothing more than the fact that the founders protected an expressive right that they knew would have the result of giving newspaper and book publishing corporations more opportunity to express themselves on political matters, in the context of a larger post discussing application of freedom of expression to corporations. Now the extra funny thing is that Mr. Ashford was apparently borrowing significantly from the text of one of the comments , and well, if you follow the thread you can see where many of that commenter’s statements were proven so clearly false that the commenter ran from the fight. For instance, the commenter and Mr. Ashford writes: And most importantly, corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making [at the time of the founding]. In fact, it was a criminal offense in most states. Now, that plainly wasn’t true at all. Newspapers have always endorsed candidates, for instance. Indeed many of the early newspapers were explicitly organs for one party or candidate or another. So in fact corporations were not forbidden from “influencing” law making. Further when challenged about the claim about corporations being prohibited from making political or charitable contributions, the commenter cited a book that only spoke about Wisconsin’s law and stated that “most” states had similar laws.** Since Wisconsin didn’t become a state until considerably after the revolution was done and over (in 1848 in fact), his source emphatically did not state that this was how it was for the founders. Is there any chance that Mr. Ashford knows anything that this commenter doesn’t? So there you have it: three hatchet jobs from a liberal turkey. —————————————— * By the way, “sleep with me or you’re fired/won’t get that promotion” is not “the textbook definition of sexual harassment.” (Emphasis added.) It is in fact a textbook example of sexual harassment. With his choice of language Mr. Ashford has incorrectly implied that nothing but quid pro quo sexual harassment can be sexual harassment. ** And that is pretending that the book, Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People” and How You Can Fight Back , by Thom Hartmann had any credibility whatsoever. His description of the facts of the case in Citizens United was so one sided, with plain hostility to their claim that McCain-Feingold could not constitutionally apply to their film and its promotion that it undermines any credibility he had. What happened in that immediate case was indefensible. This wasn’t Exxon seeking to have a say in the political process. Citizens United is a media company. It is in the free speech business as much as Paramount Studios, apparently pumping out political documentaries on a constant basis. If you think Michael Moore and Disney should have been allowed to make and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 near the election in 2004, then you have to think Citizens United should have been free to make and promote Hillary: The Movie . That is why in all my years talking about the decision, I have not encountered a liberal who argued that Citizens United should have been prohibited from making and promoting this movie. They would instead argue that Citizens United should have won, but on some grounds more narrow than the one chosen by the Supreme Court and leaving McCain-Feingold in place for companies like Exxon. Or they would ignore the specific facts of that specific case entirely, because it made the law look so bad. Or I should say I have not encountered a single defender, until now . Here’s what Hartmann writes about Citizens’ United: In 2009 the right-wing advocacy group Citizens United argued before the Supreme Court that they had the First Amendment right to “free speech” and to influence elections through the production and distribution of a slasher “documentary” designed to destroy Hillary Clinton’s ability to win the Democratic nomination. (Some political observers assert that they did this in part because they believed that a Black man whose first name sounded like “Osama” and whose middle name was Hussein could never, ever, possibly win against a Republican, no matter how poor a candidate they put up.) The whole thing screams “hatchet job” and a disturbing hostility toward even the anemic understanding of freedom of the expression that Justice Stevens presented in dissent. And as for the last line, I have no doubt that some observer said it, but the author should not be indulging in that kind of unfounded accusation—unless he notes that that it in fact lacks foundation. This assertion is ludicrous because in January, 2008 (when the movie was released), it was far from obvious that if Hillary fell that Barack Obama would be the nominee. For instance, prior to the Reille Hunter scandal, John Edwards was considered a strong contender for the nomination. A more reasonable theory that fits those facts is that the creators of the documentary thought that Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate of all of the options, not just the one that frankly everyone at that point considered a long shot. [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
The rest is here:
A Trifecta of Stupid Dishonesty From Ken Ashford
You have an absolute right to free speech, as long as your speech is approved by the dominant faction. A couple of people at Occupy LA wanted to make the point that the movement was being controlled by “communists and… Visit link: “Democracy,” Occupy Style: Dissent Is Crushed In Favor of “Consensus”
Read more here:
"Democracy," Occupy Style: Dissent Is Crushed In Favor of "Consensus"
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.] This just in from the AP: Two new terrorist groups, calling themselves respectively the Sons of the First Amendment and Muslims Who Believe They Should be Treated as Adults, have issued death threats to Time Magazine and particularly Bruce Crumley. In videotaped statements, both groups stated that this was in retaliation for Mr. Crumley’s call to surrender to terrorism. The message from the Sons of the First Amendment featured three individuals, identified only as A.W., Dustin and J.D. holding machine guns before a souvenir copy of the U.S. Constitution. “Recently the holy satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, was firebombed, most likely by Islamic terrorists, because they had the nerve to insult the Prophet Mohammed (Pedophilia Be Upon Him),” said the group’s leader, “and Mr. Crumley actually suggested that Charlie Hebdo refrain from such expression specifically because it can provoke a violent reaction. So Mr. Crumley has declared that terrorism works and indeed should work. Therefore, we issue this threat to Mr. Crumley and Time Magazine as a whole. “First, Mr. Crumley and Time Magazine has exactly thirty days to insult Mohammed in some way. It can be by publishing a cartoon featuring Mohammed, or truthful reporting about Mohammed and his child bride Aisha, or even a truthful story about the cartoon controversies featuring the actual cartoons in question. Seriously, how can you report on a controversial cartoon without showing people the cartoon that is controversial, so they can make their own call about the reasonableness of the response? “Second, Time Magazine must enroll Richard Stengel in a fifth grade civics class, where he will be taught a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution. He must continue to take this course until he can score at least a B for the semester. This has nothing to do with Mr. Crumley’s servile attitude, but we just felt it was a good idea. “If these demands are not met, we will wage Jihad in favor of free speech starting with noogies and wet willies, but eventually escalating into fiery destruction. But mostly noogies.” The second group, Muslims Who Believe They Should be Treated as Adults, included this message in their video: “We believe that all of those who insult Muslims should die. And what greater insult can there be to Muslims that the suggestion that we, and we alone are not fit to live in a free society? Mr. Crumley and by extension Time Magainze promote the idea that Muslims, and Muslims alone, can’t be expected to control ourselves when we see someone putting Mohammed’s face on toilet paper. They are telling the free people of the world that they have to choose between allowing people the freedom to choose to be Muslims, and their freedom of speech. This is not only a grave insult my religion, but it encourages people of my faith to behave badly—because they know it will be effective. Therefore, if he should ever suggest that newspapers be censored, or censor themselves, due to the fear of Muslim violence again, we shall continuously suicide bomb Time Magazine’s offices and homes until an apology is issued and the suggestion is retracted.” When reached for comment, Mr. Crumley said, “I don’t know what to do. As head of the Paris Bureau, I recognize it is my sacred duty to surrender. I mean that is what the French, do, right? But I can’t surrender to both of these new groups and the Islamofascists at the same time.” Later in the same video from Muslims Who Believe They Should be Treated as Adults they also denounced President of the United States, Barack Obama: “So Mr. President you finally kill bin Laden. That is good, but then you gravely insult my faith by attempting to give him a proper Islamic burial. That animal was not a proper Muslim, you idiot! Therefore, we demand that you give us the GPS location of where you dumped his body at sea, so that we recover the body, throw some pig meat in his coffin and urinate in his eye sockets, Allah willing.” …all of which didn’t really happen. Yes, this is my attempt to satirize Mr. Crumley’s stupid blame-the-victim post, by a satire pointing out the dangers of rewarding violence with censorship and so on. Of course your first clue that this is satire should have been the word “satire” in the headline. Or so I would think. Then again, I get about three emails a day from various sites asking me to let people guest post on Patterico’s Pontifications, apparently unaware of the fact that this is not my site. Seriously, all of you who are selling crappy internet degrees and the like, do you see the word “guest post” at the beginning of the post? Please contemplate what that might mean before hitting “send.” Please. I’m begging you. Back to the topic, thanks to Hot Air for the pointer. And yes, Allahpundit, this advocacy of surrender should always be noticed and noted, especially when a journalist says it. It’s one thing to say that you don’t want to insult Muslims because you just don’t like insulting people, but to say a person shouldn’t specifically because of the threat of terrorism? That is just wrong. [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Excerpt from:
Radical New Terrorist Groups Issue Death Threats to Time Magazine (Satire)
