Creeping Fascism: what are you loyal to? the country or its leader?

Judge Aquilina

A turning point in German history occurred on August 2, 1932.  That was the first day that German soldiers were required to pledge loyalty not to their country but to Adolph Hitler personally.

Flash forward to July 19, 2013 when Judge Rosemarie Aquilina rejects Detroit's bankruptcy petition, stating “It’s also not honoring the president, who took [Detroit’s auto companies] out of bankruptcy.”  The judge added: “I know he’s watching."

It is one thing for judge to rule based on findings of fact or law.  It is quite another to invoke the "honor" of the president in a legal ruling.   While this is clearly not the same thing as the German loyalty oath, it is a small but frightening step away from the rule-of-law toward the rule-of-man.

Does the left support free speech?

Two recent news items:

• 7th Year Human Rights Major and Gay Activist Rips Down Campus Free Speech Wall …It Was Offensive
• Radical Leftists Trash Pro-Life Display at DePaul University

Liberals talk support freedom of speech when it is their speech. When someone else is speaking, they are likely instead to support its opposite: freedom from offense.

PREVIOUSLY on liberal opposition to free speech:
•Justice Breyer looking to overturn the First Amendment
•Obama administration: free speech does not include the right to criticize Obamacare
•Obama sells out free speech
•Physicians' group to sue Obama administration over suppression of dissent
•Canada's liberals oppose free speech
•Free speech and its enemies
•University upset at free speech
•The Right of Free Speech, Selectively Applied
•Tolerating free speech, IV
•Tolerating free speech, III
•More on tolerating free speech
•Those who cannot tolerate free speech

Feel the hate at Occupy Oakland May Day rally

If you doubt that liberals are full of hate, watch this video from Occupy Oakland's May Day demonstrations:

Notice that many of the people chanting "we are not afraid" are wearing full face masks to obscure their identity.

This video is the product of the invaluable Steve Kemp and his team.

PREVIOUSLY on the Occupy movement in the SF Bay Area and beyond:
•Photos from Occupy San Francisco: the "general strike" that wasn't
•Occupiers trash San Francisco restaurant
•OWS: liberally anti-semitic
•Occupy movement demands banks provide free money
•OccupyFail: Corporations as people
•Occupy Oakland: the devolution

Occupiers trash San Francisco restaurant

Early reports are that the "Black Bloc" subgroup of San Francisco Occupy protesters trashed the Farina Restaurant tonight:

(Photo: MikeQTips)

This reportedly happened during an Occupy march in the Dolores Park section of San Francisco. The target of the rampage is the Farina Restaurant at 3560 18th Street in San Francisco. In better times, the highly rated restaurant looked like this:


RELATED: KCBS reports that Occupiers also "vandalized vehicles, businesses and a police station" nearby in San Francisco's Mission District tonight.

UPDATE 1: Occupy SF issued a statement claiming no affiliation with those who damaged property in the Mission District.

UPDATE 2: By the next morning, Farina was being repaired. You can see one man replacing glass while another tries to power-wash away the yellow and green paint stains left by the occupiers:

Just down the street, this bus stop was marked with the Anarchy symbol:

The Mission police station has several broken windows. You can see two of them in this photo:
Here is a close-up of one of the occupier-smashed windows:

Note how soon after the riot that the restaurant, which is privately owned, was being repaired.

WELCOME to readers of GatewayPundit, OWSexposed, and Politifreak.

IRS and the abuse of power

Our progressively more powerful government requires that all sorts of confidential details be disclosed to the IRS in tax returns. And then, when it suits someone's political agenda, that confidential information can be leaked to the co-chairman of President Obama's reelection committee for him to use as he pleases. Breitbart.com has the details.

RELATED: Pres. Obama jokes about having the IRS audit his enemies.

FLASHBACK: The IRS illegally leaked Richard Nixon's tax returns. John O. Requard Jr. denies that he was leaker. Requard, who had been a volunteer for George McGovern's presidential campaign in 1972, was working for the IRS in 1973. He does admit that IRS employees had printed out and passed around Nixon's tax returns. He just says it was someone else who sent it the media.

PREVIOUSLY on Democrats, taxes, and the IRS:
•IRS gives "refunds" based on forged W-2s submitted by illegals
•Obama selects tax cheats to run the government
•Rep. Charlie Rangel's tax problems
•Poll: Democrats more likely to approve of cheating on taxes
•Taxes and left-wing Senators Al Franken and Paul Wellstone

San Franciscans protest against the United Nations

There are those who idolize the United Nations as mankind's last best hope. Among other things, they see the United Nations as working to protect the world's environment. The affects of this work are starting to appear locally in the form of "green power" (i.e. expensive and unreliable power), and UN-advocated (via ICLEI) zoning regulations that strip home owners of rights to their private property. Today, a crowd, concerned largely with the "green" agenda, gathered in UN plaza in San Francisco, where the UN charter was signed in 1945, to protest against the UN:
It was a bi-partisan crowd: this is one of those rare issue cuts across party lines.

If you want to read more about this, see:

http://www.sfagainstagenda21.org/

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

and, for the other side:

http://www.iclei.org/

Why today? The UN declared that today is United Nations Day.

Obama Administration capitalizing on oil prices?

The Financial Times reports that oil prices are high enough now to threaten the global economy:

“Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist. “The oil import bills are becoming a threat to the economic recovery. This is a wake-up call to the oil consuming countries and to the oil producers.”

Oil prices have edged closer to $100 a barrel in recent weeks and Brent crude hit $95 a barrel for the first time in 27 months on Monday as the economic recovery has gathered pace. [Emph. added]

What has the Obama administration done about the oil shortage? It banned deep water oil exploration. Although the ban has nominally been lifted, the Financial Times reported Monday that no actual permits have been issued:

Since lifting its ban in October on drilling at depths more than 500ft, the department has yet to approve any new deepwater exploration drilling permits.

The Obama administration is considering changing that for some companies:

“We are taking into account the special circumstances of those companies whose operations were interrupted by the moratorium and ensuring that they are able to resume previously approved activities,” said Michael Bromwich, head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

What do you bet that oil companies that get permits will be the ones that first discover a sudden need to donate to Democrats?

Liberals and their sexual fetishes II

Sean Hannity interviewed (video) well known liberal attorney Gloria Allred:

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: "Did they touch your body parts?"

GLORIA ALLRED: "Yeah, they did and it was a first time anybody touched them in a long time and frankly, I liked it."

That does lead to an interesting question. Does sexual frustration lead to liberal political views? Loneliness and sexual frustration do seem to be a factor in terrorism.

RELATED: How much of a thrill did the TSA give Gloria? ABC News reports that the TSA will put their hands inside your underwear:

An ABC News employee said she was subject to a "demeaning" search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.

"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."

PREVIOUSLY on media liberals and their sexual imagination:
•Mother Jones' sexual fantasy of Sarah Palin
•Wash. Post: Obama and his "chiseled pectorals"
•SF Chronicle: Obama's "handsomeness"
•Salon imagines Sarah Palin as a dominatrix
•Obama is one of "25 fittest"
•ABC News: Obama's "white dress-shirt clinging to his body"

Obama's rhetoric sinks still lower

Pres. Obama's campaign rhetoric has become increasingly inflammatory and even racial:

• Obama: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
  


• Obama: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Hat tip: Instapundit, Ed Driscoll, and JamieWearingFool.

It seems that, when he ascended into the oval office, Obama just expected everyone in the country to realize that progressivism was the one true answer. When that didn't happen, he had no Plan B.

PREVIOUSLY on related subjects:
•Obama's violent rhetoric
•Obama and the coarsening of American culture
•Creeping fascism

Creeping fascism

Two items:

1. After reviewing the role of MediaMatters in the firing of Juan Williams from NPR, Prof. Jacobson observes (hat tip: Instapundit):
   

   No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.
   
   There is a real threat to freedom in this country, and it does not come from conservatives. Media Matters is just the symptom, not the disease. [Emph. added]



2. After reviewing Justice Department misbehavior in the New Black Panther case, John Hinderaker observes:
   

   It would be interesting to poll that question. How many Americans do you suppose think it is OK for an American to have to squeeze past billy club-wielding thugs in order to cast a ballot? Outside the Obama administration, I would guess the answer is close to zero. There is an interesting parallel to card-check, the Union Thug Empowerment Act. The Obama administration also thinks it is a great idea to abolish the secret ballot in union elections, so that thugs can threaten unwilling workers and coerce them into voting for the union. The Obama administration embraces not only the ends, but also the means of national socialism. [Emph. added]

PREVIOUSLY:
•Obama's violent rhetoric
•Obamacare: Corporatism in action
•Obama sells out free speech
•Physicians' group to sue Obama administration over suppression of dissent

Cultures rising and falling

In India, they are contemplating how to raise cultural standards as the legacy of its old 3rd world culture collides with the new India's modern ambitions. The LA Times reports:

The international embarrassment that India suffered in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games — marred by massive cost overruns, a collapsed bridge and widespread corruption allegations — has focused attention on a stubborn cultural condition that if not checked, analysts here say, could undercut India's superpower ambitions.

An attitude referred to in Hindi as "chalta hai," which translates to "it goes" but can mean "don't be bothered," "whatever," "it'll do," or "don't fret (such problems as corruption, delays, shoddy quality)." . . . .

As the hangover sets in, however, some wonder why it took prime ministerial intercession to get toilets cleaned in the athletes village, why Indian planning compared so poorly with neighboring China's hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics and whether a wing-it attitude befits a nation with such talent, potential and prospects.

"It doesn't matter if we're a growing superpower or the stock market's at record levels," said Vinod Mehta, editor in chief of the Outlook media group. "What these Games showed is that we've hit the limit on chalta hai."

While India plots self-improvement, Pres. Obama presides over the continued coarsening of American culture. As a consequence of Obama's exceptionally political State of the Union address last year in which he dishonestly attacked the Supreme Court, Justice Alito has decided to break tradition and not attend next year's SotU speech. This follows two years of increasingly violent from Pres. Obama in which he calls on his supporters to "get in [his critics'] faces," "hit back twice as hard," and even "bring a gun." It would be one thing if his supporters regarded the rhetoric as metaphorical but they don't. Yesterday morning, for example, reporter William Kelly swore "a warrant for CBS reporter Jay Levine's arrest" (hat tip: Instapundit) after Levine threatened to "deck" him for asking tough questions of Obama ally and current Chicago Mayoral candidate Rahm Emmanuel. Video of the assault is here.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

Obama's violent rhetoric

As collected by Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit:

• Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
• Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
  
• Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
  
• Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
  
• Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
• Obama says a Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years

PREVIOUSLY on the related subject of the left and violence:
•Peace protester confesses to murder
•Three peace protesters arrested for 3rd degree assault
•Round-up of left-wing terrorism
•Yet another left-wing terrorist
•Obama's humane plan for terrorists: kill rather than interrogate
•Before Al Qaeda: the socialist-terrorist alliance of the 1980s
•Peace activists turn violent
•Reuters thinks that terrorists are opposed to violence

Obama administration to punish honesty

Criticize Obama and lose your business?

Although there are several reasons why ObamaCare will raise insurance rates, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, of the Health and Human Services Dept., is threatening "zero tolerance" for insurance companies who state the obvious. She writes:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases. . . . .

[W]e will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections. [Emph. added]

For insurance companies that displease her, she plans to hold an inquisition:

Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.

For more on this, see Eugene Volokh, and Ed Morrissey.

Hat tip: Instapundit and Instapundit.

RELATED: Pres. Obama jokes about having the IRS audit his critics.

PREVIOUSLY on the issues of dissent and free speech:
•Obama sells out free speech
•Physicians' group to sue Obama administration over suppression of dissent
•Canada's liberals oppose free speech
•Free speech and its enemies
•University upset at free speech
•The Right of Free Speech, Selectively Applied
•Tolerating free speech, IV
•Tolerating free speech, III
•More on tolerating free speech
•Those who cannot tolerate free speech

More suppression of dissent

Two unrelated items illustrate how the left prefers to deal with dissent:

1. Criticism of Islam is not allowed at Princeton or Columbia. As Human Events writes:

   Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.
   
   Darwish, a soft-spoken ex-Muslim and daughter of an Islamic martyr, is a champion of the rights of women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, and leader of the group Arabs for Israel. She had been planning to speak on “Sharia Law and Perspectives on Israel.” She is one of the few courageous voices who speak out against Islamic anti-Semitism and the oppression of women under Sharia.

   Prior to 9-11, the politically correct opinion would have been that women's rights were more important than religious sensibilities. Now, that has reversed, provided that the religion is Islam.
   


2. Global warmists claim to represent the consensus despite the thousands on scientist who are on record as disagreeing with them. In "Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate," Iain Murray reviews the e-mails surrounding the dismissal of a journal editor for disagreeing with the politically-connected global warmists:

   In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a “fundamental problem w/ GRL now,” referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because “they have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so” and “it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible.” Tom Wigley responded that “we could go through official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted” (1106322460). A few months later, the editor of GRL having left his post, Mann comments, “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there” (1132094873).

PREVIOUSLY on the issues of dissent and free speech:
Obama sells out free speech
Physicians' group to sue Obama administration over suppression of dissent
Canada's liberals oppose free speech
Free speech and its enemies
University upset at free speech
The Right of Free Speech, Selectively Applied
Tolerating free speech, IV
Tolerating free speech, III
More on tolerating free speech
Those who cannot tolerate free speech

White House war on Fox News continues

As those who watch it know, Fox News attempts to present both sides. This is done in part by having Democrats and Democratic consultants on to discuss issues. The Obama White House objects to this. They want Democratic consultants to stay off Fox, apparently in the hope that that will make Fox appear biased. The LA Times reports:

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. ....

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names. ....

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself." ....

Fox's viewership is not what worries the White House, though. More troubling to White House aides is that other news organizations may uncritically follow stories that Fox has showcased. [Emph. added]

The White House denies making such threats to consultants.

Hat tip: Anonymous commenter.

PREVIOUSLY on the Democrat's war on Fox News:
Possible WH endgame in war on Fox
Obama's war on Fox, updated
Obama's war on Fox
Fox News and Obama's Nixonesque enemies list
Obama White House has time to demonize Fox but not to work on Afghanistan
Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) proposes making dissent illegal

Obama sells out free speech

Anne Bayesky reports that the Obama administration is supporting a UN Human Rights Council resolution to limit/end free speech:

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

It is pretty clear what Democrats mean when they talk about "negative racial ... stereotyping":  They are referring to any criticism of Obama or his policies.

Hat tip: Astute Blogger.

Dem has solution for lack of civility

Recently, Speaker Pelosi teared up at a press conference in an emotional call for civility in political discourse. Garrison Keillor has considered the issue and proposed a solution:

[O]ne starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without [Republicans] and if Republicans should be cut out of the healthcare system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off healthcare to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

Can we all agree that Joe Wilson should be condemned, that "bury Obamacare with Kennedy" is beyond the pale, but that Keillor is `funny'?

UPDATE: On the floor of the House, Rep. Grayson says that the Republican healthcare plan consists of asking people to "die quickly." Watch that video and then condemn Joe Wilson for his incivility.

Physicians sue over White House's enemies list

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons found itself the target of a hate-mail campaign after the White House asked supporters to report on even mere "casual conversations" Obamacare dissenters.  As US News reports, they have decided to sue:

In a complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education said the White House had attempted to "unlawfully" collect information on protected political speech when it asked Obamacare supporters to report any negative comments about the proposal to a U.S. government
email address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

The specific effort, which was launched on August 4 as part of the White House's "rapid response" Health Insurance Reform Reality Check, was quickly abandoned after members of Congress raised questions about it. Nevertheless, say the two groups filing suit, the information collection effort continues under another name and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."

"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, AAPS' Director of Policy and Public Affairs. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"

They are suing because, according to their complaint (PDF), the Privacy Act prohibits the government from collecting information on how individuals exercise their first amendment rights

Outside of "authorized law enforcement activities," the Privacy Act prohibits agencies (including EOP) from maintaining records describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the relevant individual(s). 5 U.S.C. §552a(e)(7).

We live in interesting times.

Hat tip: The Clue Meter

The population bomb: why it didn't explode

In 1977, John Holdren wrote a book detailing what should be done about the then trendy coming population bomb: (1) forced abortions, (2) sterilization via infertility drugs in the water supply, (3) sterilization of those who "contribute to social deterioration," and (4) the formation of a trans-national armed police to enforce these policies. A person of such extreme views should have remained on the fringes except that Pres. Obama has just appointed Holgren to be his science czar.

For the skeptical, Zombietime has the details including scans of pages from Holdren's book.

Population trends were well understood by economists even when Holgren was writing his book: populations follow an S-curve. In undeveloped societies, even though the reproduction rates are typically near the biological maximum, population is constant due to limits of the food supply. (Under such conditions, many births are needed to ensure that one of your children survives to work the farm and provide for you in your old age.) As a society begins economic development, its population grows. This is the rising part of the S-curve. Developing societies start with the same birth rate as undeveloped societies but, since more children survive due to improved health and food production, the population grows rapidly. In developed countries, even though most children survive, population levels off or even declines (this is the top of the S) because, as people move away from the farm and also come to understand that most of their children will survive, they choose to have fewer children. Those who didn't understand these dynamics, such as Paul Ehrlich and Holgren, however, imagined that population would grow forever until disaster struck and therefore extreme policies were required. One can just hope that, as 'science czar,' Holgren will have little influence on actual policies.

Michelle Malkin has more on liberal advocacy of eugenics for racial improvement.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll points to this AP story which shows Holdren still advocating irresponsible policies, this time in the service of the "global warming" crisis:

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

In liberal paradise, dissent will be a crime

Do disagreeable political opinions cause you "emotional distress"? Do you think people who publish such opinions on the web are engaging in "hostile behavior"? If so, then Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) has the answer. She has introduced a bill, H.R. 1966, to enable prosecution of such miscreants. Full text is here. The key section reads:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

I know many liberals who believe Fox News to be "hostile" and a source of "emotional distress." Can prosecutions be far behind? If Fox has the "intent" of broadcasting "fair and balanced" news, is that the same thing as having the "intent" to cause "distress" among liberals? There are many potential jurors who would say yes.

Note the impressively wide scope: this bill would apply to all communications "dependent on electrical power." This obviously includes TV, radio, websites, and blogs. Even modern newspaper publishing depends on electricity.

The nominal purpose of the bill is to prevent "cyberbullying" of children. I am not a lawyer but I see nothing in the text that in any way limits this to that purpose.

Eugene Volokh has more.

RELATED:
When co-workers behave like junior brown-shirts.
Obama vs. the rule of law.
DailyKos opposes fairness for Hillary.
Is it fascist to oppose fascism?
Fascists and atheists
To rise to power, 20th century fascists depended on liberal do-gooders.