<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Free Speech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/free-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Video: Gabby Giffords Resigns</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/22/video-gabby-giffords-resigns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/22/video-gabby-giffords-resigns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LegacyVankampen375</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron-worthing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first-amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[giffords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/22/video-gabby-giffords-resigns/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 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. &#8220;I have more work to do on my recovery, so to do what is best for Arizona, I will step down this week,&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/22/video-gabby-giffords-resigns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Andy Stern Hearts Communism</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/andy-stern-hearts-communism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/andy-stern-hearts-communism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america-off-its]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china-relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fearmongering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onto-the-trash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orville-schell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[really-chilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street-journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/andy-stern-hearts-communism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 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:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/andy-stern-hearts-communism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Trifecta of Stupid Dishonesty From Ken Ashford</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/a-trifecta-of-stupid-dishonesty-from-ken-ashford/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/a-trifecta-of-stupid-dishonesty-from-ken-ashford/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hillary-clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/a-trifecta-of-stupid-dishonesty-from-ken-ashford/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [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[] &#8220;sleep with me or else you are fired/won&#8217;t get that promotion&#8221; 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&#8217;s mind if it is &#8220;only&#8221; solicitation of prostitution, then it is okay&#8211;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&#8217;t prevent people from making sexual threats in the workplace, and it shouldn&#8217;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. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212; * 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.] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/a-trifecta-of-stupid-dishonesty-from-ken-ashford/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&quot;Democracy,&quot; Occupy Style: Dissent Is Crushed In Favor of &quot;Consensus&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/democracy-occupy-style-dissent-is-crushed-in-favor-of-consensus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/democracy-occupy-style-dissent-is-crushed-in-favor-of-consensus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[favor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people-at-occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-movement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/democracy-occupy-style-dissent-is-crushed-in-favor-of-consensus/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 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 &#8220;communists and&#8230; Visit link: "Democracy," Occupy Style: Dissent Is Crushed In Favor of "Consensus" ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/24/democracy-occupy-style-dissent-is-crushed-in-favor-of-consensus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Radical New Terrorist Groups Issue Death Threats to Time Magazine (Satire)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/03/radical-new-terrorist-groups-issue-death-threats-to-time-magazine-satire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/03/radical-new-terrorist-groups-issue-death-threats-to-time-magazine-satire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first-amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[french]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/03/radical-new-terrorist-groups-issue-death-threats-to-time-magazine-satire/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [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.” &#8230;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.] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/03/radical-new-terrorist-groups-issue-death-threats-to-time-magazine-satire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tech at Night: I can’t spare Marsha Blackburn. She fights.  Also: wireless competition rages on, Barton and Bono Mack take on Poker</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/20/tech-at-night-i-can%e2%80%99t-spare-marsha-blackburn-she-fights-also-wireless-competition-rages-on-barton-and-bono-mack-take-on-poker/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/20/tech-at-night-i-can%e2%80%99t-spare-marsha-blackburn-she-fights-also-wireless-competition-rages-on-barton-and-bono-mack-take-on-poker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone 4s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nfl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/20/tech-at-night-i-can%e2%80%99t-spare-marsha-blackburn-she-fights-also-wireless-competition-rages-on-barton-and-bono-mack-take-on-poker/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Late start tonight for Tech at Night. Sorry, but I&#8217;ve started a plan to get myself out of California, and to be honest I&#8217;m more than a bit nervous about the whole thing. Looking for new work in the Obama economy? Yeah. But at least Marsha Blackburn wants to help the tech job situation by taking on Barack Obama&#8217;s twin regulatory nightmares of the FCC and the FTC. The EPA isn&#8217;t so hot, either. Seton Motley is still plugging away against Net Neutrality, too , referencing ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/20/tech-at-night-i-can%e2%80%99t-spare-marsha-blackburn-she-fights-also-wireless-competition-rages-on-barton-and-bono-mack-take-on-poker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Double Secret Justification for Killing American Civilians!</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/double-secret-justification-for-killing-american-civilians/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/double-secret-justification-for-killing-american-civilians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/double-secret-justification-for-killing-american-civilians/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here .  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.] So we learn over the weekend that the Obama administration had prepared a secret memo explaining why it was legal to just outright kill nominal American citizens , like Anwar al-Awlaki, and there is so much wrong here that I barely know where to begin.  But don’t worry, I am not going to go the full Ron Paul on you.  You should never go the full Ron Paul.  But there is so much stupidity on both sides of the issue it isn’t even funny. First, to the Obama administration&#8230;  um&#8230;  why is this a secret memo?  Are you under the impression that the law is now a national secret, that only people with security clearance are allowed to read the U.S. Code, and Supreme Court cases?  Perhaps in the particular case of Awlaki your memo reveals facts that are best kept secret.  I can accept that.  But why not release a generic version that makes no reference to a specific case? Of course the reason why isn’t really national security, but embarrassment.  For instance, over at Powerline , Steven Hayward writes: Gosh, who knew that John Yoo had gone back to work for the Obama Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel[?] Admittedly the embarrassment theory is just that—a theory—but seriously is there a better explanation than the hypothesis that this administration doesn’t want to sound too much like George. W. Bush, lest someone get the impression that eight years of criticism of the man was, shall we say, less than sincere?  Then the average American might get the impression that the Democrats were harming national security just for cheap political gain, so naturally that makes this memo a dangerous national secret that can’t be revealed to the public. And of course the dismaying part of it is that they still manage to sound like they are treating terrorism like a criminal matter, rather than an issue of war: The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him , because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. (Emphasis added.)  Now, I personally believe strongly in capturing terrorists alive not because I care a jot about their lives as valuable in and of themselves, but because I prefer that we then squeeze them for intel.  But there is no legal requirement in war that you only kill if you can’t capture—it may be pragmatically wise, but it is not legally required.  Instead in war, you are allowed to kill the enemy wherever he or she is found, without mercy, unless the person actually surrenders. But in law enforcement, you are supposed to capture, i.e. arrest, a “suspect” if it is possible—and only if it is not feasible to capture the person do you consider killing him or her outright. So that is the stupidity on the “pro” side in the debate over killing Awlaki.  Meanwhile for stupidity on the “con” side, we have my twitter dustup with Kirsten Powers.  It all started when I saw her post the following when we learned the good news: [The] Constitution says &#8220;No person shall be&#8230; deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.&#8221; PERIOD. [I will be editing these tweets to clean up typos and the like (including likely my own), but if you follow the link you will see my changes did not change the meaning of this.] Anyway, so I pointed out that by her logic that meant the entire Civil War was unconstitutional—not based on the theory that the South had a right to secede, but based on the theory that the Federal Government can’t actually kill the Confederates without a full trial under her reading of the Fifth Amendment.  More than a few people apparently started criticizing her stance, because she puts up a lot of posts about how she is standing up for the rule of law and the First Amendment, truth, justice and the American way&#8230;  And then she adds this : @StevenErtelt can [you] really not see the distinction [between] killing someone who is shooting [at] you and the US [government] targeting an [A]merican to kill? So now she thinks that we are not allowed to shoot people in war unless they shoot first?  Um, no. Now I don’t know if this is in response to me or someone else making the same argument, but then she writes: I&#8217;m told there is an 1861 legal opinion from the Dept to Law to Pres[ident] Lincoln saying U.S. military c[ou]ld kill ci… (cont) http://deck.ly/~o3FxO The rest of the comment was shunted off to Tweetdeck and as of now, I can’t see it, but I saw it at the time, and the essence of what she said was that this mysterious memo claimed that Lincoln could kill civilians in the South because in the act of secession they renounced their citizenship.  And folks, there is so much bad logic in that it gives me a headache. First, you’re “told” there is such a memo?  That is the best you can do, Kirsten?  I was told that Jefferson said that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” but in fact he didn’t say that , so you will have to do a little better than a rumor.  I mean, look, I was a history major and remain a history geek, but I won’t pretend I have such mastery of the material that such a memo couldn’t exist.  But I have never heard of it and I think it is more than likely that I would have. Second, Lincoln did not accept the premise that every single civilian in the Confederacy was disloyal.  For instance, his second Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a dissenting Tennessean and in a message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln wrote: It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the legally qualified voters of any State except perhaps South Carolina in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded States. Third, that language—“so-called seceded States”—presents another problem for her argument.  She claims that their secession gave him permission to kill, but Lincoln absolutely refused to recognize that any secession occurred at all.  His attitude was that secession was illegal, therefore it didn’t occur.  So how exactly can Lincoln justify an action legally based on facts he refuses to accept?  It’s like asserting a shooting was justified as self-defense, when the shooter asserts he never felt like he was in danger—it’s illogical, and invalid. And there is one final, but massive problem with this argument.  Let’s read the Fifth Amendment’s language again : No person shall&#8230; be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.] Does anyone else see the problem here when talking about the killing of citizens ?  The answer is people like Ms. Powers are making a distinction that the Constitution itself doesn’t make: between citizens and non-citizens.  The Fifth Amendment applies to “persons” and citizenship is irrelevant to its application.  As I snarked to her that day: @kirstenpowers10 Seriously[,] are you under the impression that the [government] can just kill non-citizens?  Even green card holders? So by her logic, not only would the Civil War be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, but so would pretty much every war we have engaged in since the Constitution was ratified.  Which suggests that maybe, just maybe, she is getting it wrong. Now you can debate how the founders wished this concern to be addressed.  You could argue, for instance, that they simply believed that the Fifth Amendment didn’t apply to war at all.  Or you could argue that Awlaki did receive due process: by appropriate process war was declared against al Qaeda, and as a member thereof he was eligible to be killed wherever he might be found, and that is all the due process he is entitled to.  Personally I lean toward the first theory, but please spare me the following specious arguments: He was just exercising his right of free speech! Most of what a general in an army does is speak.  Generals rarely personally pull the trigger on anyone.  And yet they are recognized as legitimate targets of war.  The same goes for presidents/dictators who also serve as commanders-in-chief of their military. He was an American Citizen! That is irrelevant to the Constitution. He might be innocent! The sad reality of friendly fire demonstrates that indeed the killing in war can be truly arbitrary. We should be appropriately wary of a too-powerful government, but the fact is that our rights can be breached by more than just government.  Yes, we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from restricting the right of freedom of speech and religion, but what good are those rights when people are afraid to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed, lest they get killed?  And while I advocated a private action solution to that problem, I always made it clear that the most ideal solution would be for the government to handle this problem, writing: In every stage of this, the government has failed to protect us.  As a generally libertarian guy, this is one of the places where I say that government positively has a role to play—to ensure our freedoms not just by avoiding a violation of our rights, but actively standing between us and anyone who would use violence and threats to take that freedom from us. Everyone remembers how the founders wrote that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But read the very next words: That to secure these rights , governments are instituted among men[.] (Emphasis added.)  Even at the moment of Revolution, the founders recognized that it was not enough for the government to avoid violating our rights, but it had a positive duty to protect them, that it was indeed the entire reason why governments existed at all—to secure those inalienable rights.  And their charges against the king were filled with examples of a failure to protect: “He has refused his assent to laws…”, “He has obstructed the administration of justice&#8230;”, and so on&#8230;  In other words, the founders found just as much cause in rebellion in what the king didn’t do as in what he did.  Our government can just as easily lose its legitimacy by failing to protect our citizens as it can by violating their rights. So what Obama did, in killing terrorists like Awlaki, or Osama bin Laden, was precisely what the government is supposed to do.  (Some people have theorized that this is why he doesn’t get much of a bump in the polls when he does things like this—because it is considered too basic to his job to earn him additional devotion.)  These terrorists have violated our citizens’ sacred right to life and that right was vindicated by sending them to the fires of Hell.  In doing so, Obama affirmed that the present government is still legitimate under the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  I will continue to be a harsh critic of this administration, but on this he did exactly the right thing—even if his lawyers&#8217; reasoning is dubious. [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/double-secret-justification-for-killing-american-civilians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit: Threatening to Assassinate Obama Is No Crime</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/21/ninth-circuit-threatening-to-assassinate-obama-is-no-crime/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/21/ninth-circuit-threatening-to-assassinate-obama-is-no-crime/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hezbollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret-service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/21/ninth-circuit-threatening-to-assassinate-obama-is-no-crime/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Well, that&#8217;s not exactly what Judge Stephen Reinhardt said, in an opinion joined by Chief Judge Kozinski. What he said, instead, is that language most of us would construe as a threat . . . isn&#8217;t a threat. I&#8217;m not a fan of the dissent by Judge Kim Wardlaw, but she at least does a better job of fully setting forth the facts: In the wee hours of the morning of October 22, 2008, Mr. Bagdasarian, under the user name “californiaradial,” joined a Yahoo! Finance — American International Group message board, an internet site on which members of the public could post messages concerning financial matters, AIG, and other hot topics of the day. Californiaradial’s first posting about candidate Obama, at 1:00 a.m., was to the “thread” headed “re: Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran favor Obama 100 to 0,” where he said “blow up all the mother fkers, please carpet bomb the middle east . . . give me the switch, no prob, thump and poof sand niggar.” Two minutes later on the same thread he posted: “I would really lose no sleep if middle morons gone . . . nuke bombing . . . .” At 1:15 a.m., under another thread with the subject header “OBAMA,” he posted the first of the two threats charged in the indictment: “fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon.” Six minutes after that, Californiaradial combined his pro-bomb and anti-Obama rhetoric in another post on the “OBAMA” thread: “yea, the honest people have NO guns and the scum bags, niggars and drug fks do, thanx obombhaaaaa.” He reiterated his racist animus on a thread referencing Obama’s Irish heritage: “full monkey, hey can you crank the music box, I wanna see the puppet monkey dance . . . .” Four minutes later, at 1:26 a.m. he added, “a lepraaaaaaniggggggggamuch? blank that one, yahoo a-holes.” At 1:35 a.m., Californiaradial created his own antiObama thread, under the subject header “shoot the nig.” There he posted the second threat charged in the indictment: “country fkd for another 4 years+, what nig has done ANYTHING right???? long term???? never in history, except sambos.” At this point, the other message board participants reacted to the serious nature of Californiaradial’s threats. “Dan757x” immediately responded on the “shoot the nig” thread: “You’ve been reported by me, a good ole’ white boy.” “Freddie226” weighed in to support Dan, who next posted: “I hope everyone reports this type of garbage.” Under the same thread, “Sniper1agent” posted: “Be advised Federal Law Enforcement is monitoring . . . ,” and “Brown.romaine” advised: “I am reporting this post to the Secret Service.” And, in fact, John Base, a retired Air Force officer who saw Californiaradial’s “shoot the nig” message did report the threats to the Los Angeles Field Office of the United States Secret Service because, as set forth in the Stipulated Facts, he was “concerned that the posting threatened harm to Barack Obama.” In response, a Secret Service agent searched the message board, located the “shoot the nig” posting, and also discovered the “50 cal in the head” posting. From Yahoo!, the Secret Service obtained the IP address for the user registered as “californiaradial,” and it used that information to get subscriber data from Cox Communications. This trail of bread crumbs led the Secret Service to La Mesa, California, and, on November 21, 2008, agents appeared at Californiaradial’s doorstep. They discovered that, in the real world, the user known as “californiaradial” in cyberspace was Mr. Bagdasarian. Mr. Bagdasarian admitted to posting the “fk the nig” and “50 cal in the head” message from his home computer. When asked, he stated that he had weapons in his home. A search warrant executed a few days later revealed that Mr. Bagdasarian possessed six firearms, including a Remington model 700 ML .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle . Agents also discovered .50 caliber ammunition in Mr. Bagdasarian’s home. The agents searched Mr. Bagdasarian’s computer, where they discovered a November 4, 2008, email message from Mr. Bagdasarian to an associate with the foreboding subject line “Re: And so it begins.” The email stated, “Pistol??? Dude, Josh needs to get us one of these, just shoot the nigga’s car and POOF!” The email then provided a link to a photograph of a rifle on a Barrett Rifles website. A second email that Mr. Bagdasarian sent the same day under the same subject line stated, “Pistol . . . plink plink plink Now when you use a 50 cal on a nigga car you get this.” The email then directed the reader to a YouTube video of a car being blown up. Now who hasn&#8217;t done that? In the exercise of their constitutional rights to free speech? So what is Reinhardt&#8217;s theory? The essence of his argument: the above language is not threatening: Neither statement constitutes a threat in the ordinary meaning of the word: “an expression of an intention to inflict . . . injury . . . on another.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1976). The “Obama fk the niggar” statement is a prediction that Obama “will have a 50 cal in the head soon.” It conveys no explicit or implicit threat on the part of Bagdasarian that he himself will kill or injure Obama. Nor does the second statement impart a threat. “[S]hoot the nig” is instead an imperative intended to encourage others to take violent action, if not simply an expression of rage or frustration. The threat statute, however, does not criminalize predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the President. So, apparently, if I say &#8220;Hey everyone! Shoot Stephen Reinhardt! I predict he is going to get a .22 slug in his head soon&#8221; &#8212; and I am found to have a .22, and have several private e-mails where I joke about the effect that .22 caliber weapons have on the heads of liberal Ninth Circuit judges &#8212; then hey! it&#8217;s no harm no foul. You have got to be kidding me. This is such an ivory tower decision, it&#8217;s stunning. Apparently, Reinhardt would look at the protection racket occurring at 1:45 of this Monty Python sketch, and see two guys genuinely concerned about the well being of the British Army: Fires happen. Things burn. N-word presidents get shot by the caliber of weapon I happen to own. Nothing threatening here. No, sir. Not at all. Sheesh. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/21/ninth-circuit-threatening-to-assassinate-obama-is-no-crime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Man’s call to shoot Obama is ruled “free speech” by federal court</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/20/man%e2%80%99s-call-to-shoot-obama-is-ruled-%e2%80%9cfree-speech%e2%80%9d-by-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/20/man%e2%80%99s-call-to-shoot-obama-is-ruled-%e2%80%9cfree-speech%e2%80%9d-by-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/20/man%e2%80%99s-call-to-shoot-obama-is-ruled-%e2%80%9cfree-speech%e2%80%9d-by-federal-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Man’s call to shoot Obama is ruled “free speech” by federal court ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/20/man%e2%80%99s-call-to-shoot-obama-is-ruled-%e2%80%9cfree-speech%e2%80%9d-by-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just a Helpful Reminder: Today’s First Amendment Victory Came Because Corporations Are Allowed to Speak Freely</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/06/27/just-a-helpful-reminder-today%e2%80%99s-first-amendment-victory-came-because-corporations-are-allowed-to-speak-freely/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/06/27/just-a-helpful-reminder-today%e2%80%99s-first-amendment-victory-came-because-corporations-are-allowed-to-speak-freely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron-worthing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens-united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first-amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law-restricting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protected-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-first]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/06/27/just-a-helpful-reminder-today%e2%80%99s-first-amendment-victory-came-because-corporations-are-allowed-to-speak-freely/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them  here .  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.] You know that decision in the Supreme Court today?  Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ?  You know, the one that struck down that law restricting sales of violent video games? That wouldn’t have been possible unless the Supreme Court held that so-called corporate speech was protected under the First Amendment, too. Now a lot people think that the Supreme Court ruled that way for the first time in Citizens United .  In fact they had been ruling that way for years.  Many of the most importance cases involving Corporations: New York Times Company v. Sullivan (landmark defamation case), and Hustler Magazine, Incorporated v. Falwell (featured in the movie, The People v. Larry Flynt , although the title is a misnomer).  Each of those decisions affirmed the vitality of freedom of speech, and each of them could have been decided much more simply if they said, “well, you’re a corporation, therefore you have no free speech rights, therefore you lose.&#8221; Likewise, I don’t believe I have played a game in the last 25 years that was made by one guy; they are always made by corporations: Activision, Rock Star, and EA Games.  So those who wanted to claim that once people associated into a corporation, that they were stripped of all speech protection, should would have allowed the court to say, in this case, “this law is unconstitutional as it applies to humans, but valid as it applies to corporations.”  And since it appears to be practically impossible for modern gaming to be created without a corporation (or at least some kind of collective action), the practical effect of such a ruling would be to make all gaming subject to the whims of the legislature. So next time a liberal complains about Citizens United giving corporations the right to speak, ask them if they like video games. [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/06/27/just-a-helpful-reminder-today%e2%80%99s-first-amendment-victory-came-because-corporations-are-allowed-to-speak-freely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

