'Joker Obama' Poster Hits Los Angeles, Goes Viral

I don't know who's responsible for this, but it is brilliant.

I've checked several web sites today, and no one seems to know anything about the origins of the "artwork," although several writers are clearly in the Obamaphile camp, as they lament that such a thing could happen.

Lament? Not here.

This is still America where we can mock our elected leaders mercilessly if they give us reason to do so.

In fact, when our elected representatives in Congress fail to heed our voices and foist unconstitutional programs upon us in massive spending bills that they don't even bother to read, because friends of the president have put these things together, and the president himself acts as cheerleader for this reckless abandonment of common sense, then it is high time that voices are raised.

Even weird voices. Sometimes weird gets more attention than reasoned. Here at Oklahomily we try to use the reasoned approach, and are often disappointed at how few people notice.

The reason the poster is appropriate is because the joke is on the American people. President Obama has been very clear in most of his statements about what he was planning to do to this country. Transformation is one word that he used frequently.

And transformation is what we are seeing. America is being transformed from what is left of a constitutional Republic to a socialist "democracy" in which public passions are inflamed to justify new encroachments upon the powers reserved to the states, or to the people.

The Left spent much of the last eight years vilifying George W. Bush and supporting Hollywood movies that treated him as an idiot, an international criminal, a stooge of special interests; there were films that indulged themselves in assassination fiction. This was considered fair game under the First Amendment.

And it was, I suppose.

This poster is mild by comparison. But watch for the voices of repression on the Left to be raised. If they are, I hope there are 100 million of these posters plastered across America by the end of next week.

One Christian Group Fights Back in Court

At last, a Christian group with courage.

El Cajon, Calif., Jun 6, 2009 / 07:58 am (CNA).- The apologetics organization Catholic Answers has filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service claiming the federal tax collection agency has “intimidated” churches and non-profit groups into silence on politically controversial moral issues.

In an announcement posted at the organization’s web site, Catholic Answers president Karl Keating explained that the IRS fined the group for a 2004 e-letter it wrote saying that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Keating charged that Francis Kissling, then-leader of the pro-abortion front group “Catholics for a Free Choice,” had instigated the IRS action with a complaint.

He said Kissling “hated” Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics,” which aimed to educate Catholics on issues such as abortion. However, the guide did not mention any candidates or political parties and was cleared of any violations by the IRS.

According to Keating, the IRS did rule that the e-letter’s remark about Sen. Kerry was “intervening” in the election, a charge Keating called “preposterous.”

He said the IRS has been using “very vague criteria” to “intimidate” churches, non-profits and ministries into “silence” on controversial moral issues.

“The intimidation has become so bad that nowadays, most churches and non-profits in America are scared to death even to talk about moral issues that are deemed ‘political' (such as abortion).”

“If you’re wondering why you don’t hear more about abortion in your parish, especially during election time, this is why. It’s IRS intimidation,” Keating wrote.

“All of this tail-between-the-legs cowering comes from the IRS’ ability to intimidate churches and non-profits into silence on political issues.

“And it’s simply wrong."

Of course Christians "intervene" in elections. That's what free people with opinions on major political and moral issues do.

We are praying for their success in court.

Britain's Brain-Dead Ban on Michael Savage

I probably wouldn't invite him to dinner -- but only because I'm not sure how happy Mrs. Oklahomilist would be about it -- but the British ban on Michael Savage should be seen as a national insult.

This news broke Wednesday.

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

[SNIP]

"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

At the risk of falling prey to Ms. Smith's "name and shame" tool, she must be one of the dimmest bulbs of British history, and that's saying something. Michael Savage isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he's not the evil hatemonger his critics like to paint. His stock in trade is the constitutionally protected (in America anyway) right of free and direct speech about those things he says as dragging this nation into the dust bin of history.

I don't listen to him a lot because his radio signal at Oklahomily HQ is faint and Cardinal baseball trumps politics in the evenings, but I have never heard him say anything that could be construed as advocating violence. Tension, maybe. A lot of liberals get their panties in a twist over Savage's comments, but I think they secretly enjoy it.

Also named are American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and claimed the deaths of US soldiers are a punishment for US tolerance of homosexuality.

I find the Phelps reprehensible, and it's probably a good thing they can't go to England now. Doing so might inflame war fever against us that has only begun to calm now as Brits get over Obama's DVD snub to Gordon Brown and the Queen's iPod.

My other question to Ms. Smith is this: Did any of these Americans actually say they wanted to go to England in the first place, or is your "Name & Shame List" purely pre-emptive?

If so, you are a shameless, as well as a brainless, twit. Are you running for something?

The True Cost of Free Speech, Part Deux

Public Service Announcement.

I post this ...

... because you should know just what kind of person holds such old-fashioned views on marriage ...

... and because this blog is not above pandering to the masses.

That is all.

The True Cost of Free Speech

Just what part of "free speech" do you not understand?

Apparently a lot, if what I'm reading and hearing in the various national and state media is any indication.

It's a bit ironic, and unfortunate, that people who ply their words, spoken or written, can be so easily led into dead-end arguments over what does and does not constitute free speech.

Let's examine the actual words of the First Amendment that are applicable: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

That's it. Short and sweet. Unfortunately Congress has made all sorts of laws that abridge freedom of speech, including but not limited to the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign contributions, but we won't open that can of worms today. The main point is that the prohibition is on Congress trying to shut up citizens through its control of the lawmaking process. The Founding Fathers knew that it would be a great temptation of the national government to silence dissent because, well, that's what governments generally try to do, sooner or later.

The most important speech, it has been held by the courts, is political speech, for it is the most troublesome and therefore the speech most in need of protection.

Most of us understand this well enough.

Where we began to get into trouble is thinking that the First Amendment prohibition against infringing upon speech applies to everyone, every institution, and every situation. It doesn't.

There's been a lot of discussion, including here, of Janeane Garofalo's denunciations of the tax day tea parties as "racist." Most of those who objected to her comments did so on the grounds that her facts were untrue -- not whether she had the right to utter them. There are a few who would like to instigate a boycott of her acting job on Fox's "24" in retribution. I say, "Go for it, if that's what'll make you feel better." Personally, Garofalo is a small minnow in the ocean of opinion and I've got bigger fish to fry. But I think two things must be clear:

1) Garofalo exercised her right of "free" speech on the MSNBC megaphone, and I have no problem with that. It was their right to invite her, her right to speak, and my right to think she's crazy as a loon.

2) Speaking freely isn't exactly like saying there is no cost. If enough people pressure Fox, and they decide to write her out of the show (they will not, by the way), then Garofalo has only herself to blame. The price tag for one's free speech is often very expensive.

Case in point, Miss California Carrie Prejean probably cost herself the Miss USA title on Sunday night when, in response to a question from (gay) judge Perez Hilton, she declared that in her opinion, marriage should be between a man and a woman, period. She came in second.

Hilton, on his blog Monday, called her "a dumb bitch."

He went on to describe her as having 'half a brain' and said he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.

I think we can assume he didn't vote for her.

Miss Prejean, in contrast, said she did not regret her answer because she believes God was testing her faith.

"I have no regrets about answering honestly. He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people, and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer.''

She told Fox News:

"By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself."

Both Prejean and Hilton were exercising their right to speak freely, but you cannot say that there were no costs associated with the outcome.

Mr. Hilton, who had every right to vote against her, will pay no price for his gutter language and personal disparagement of Miss Prejean. He will be fawned over and comforted by the sycophantic cultural elite for having to endure such an awful thing as a beautiful woman expressing her opinion. For this she must certainly deserve his opprobrium!

Miss Prejean will undoubtedly be comforted by some, but she will also face the wrath and potential ostracism of the entertainment and media establishment for her cultural sin. Plus she lost the contest, so you cannot say she is not paying a price for her "free" speech.

Notice that the federal government is not involved in this "speech" controversy. It has no role to play. There is no "rights" issue. This is as it should be. However, it may not always be thus.

Without a doubt there will be calls for greater screening of Miss USA contestants, and perhaps even howling demands for legislative codes against "hate speech," which in reality are crimes against thought. This is what happens when a culture decides that "group rights" (or social rights) trump those of the individual. We have fallen a long way from the time when most agreed with Voltaire's statement: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And because we are a nation of intellectual lightweights who do not understand the nature of the freedoms we enjoy as the legacy of our brilliant Founding Fathers, and the constitutional protections against such monstrosities called "hate speech laws," we will be forced to defend principles which were once self-evident.

But Did He Get a Passing Grade?

If you believe in the First and Second amendments to the U.S. Constitution, this story will make your blood boil:

Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.

Free speech advocates are raising their voices because Professor Paula was the one who called the cops and reported her student. She told the campus newspaper

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she told The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

If this were the only such incident, one could file it away as another nutty professor. But it isn't.

Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said Anderson's actions appeared to be out of line.

“If all he did was discuss reasons for allowing guns on campus, it seems a bit much to call the police and grill him about it,” Shibley said. “If you go after students for just discussing an idea, that goes against everything a university is supposed to stand for.”

Shibley said FIRE has seen many more cases of hair-trigger responses by administrators over anything gun-related since the Virginia Tech shooting.

In 2007, Shibley noted, a student at Hamline University in Minnesota was suspended after writing a letter to an administrator arguing that carrying concealed weapons on campus may help prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. The student was allowed to return only after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he said.

The psych evaluation should be of the university personnel who are so afraid of firearms that they probably wet their beds at night.

That Sign of Trouble in OKC

The motorist who was detained in Oklahoma City for displaying a sign that read: "Abort Obama, Not the Unborn" has garnered national attention, especially since he also was paid a visit by the Secret Service.

I don't think there's much doubt that the officers who stopped Chip Harrison were over-reacting. It's interesting that the officers' story changed somewhat from this morning to tonight, as they are now claiming that they were just trying to protect Harrison from trouble with the president's protective detail. Since Harrison is talking "attorney" it's CYA time. No surprise there.

I have no idea how many people are displaying identically-worded signs, but I've seen one such vehicle a few days ago, and I have to tell you, reading it made me very uncomfortable.

Now I am as pro-life as I feel a man can be, but I do not like the wording of the sign. I also acknowledge that no one needs my approval as this should be easily covered under the First Amendment. What I am saying, I suppose, is that I can see how a peace officer might "interpret" the word abort to mean exactly what it means in the context of abortion, to end a life. However, Harrison

told the officers that in his opinion the words "Abort Obama" meant to impeach him. He told the officers he does not believe in abortion because he is a Christian.

I doubt many people would equate abort with impeach. This response is too clever.

Which brings me to my point. Stick to your convictions, and if you must make bold statements, by all means stand by them. But a pro-life advocate should try to steer clear of statements that might provoke a violent reaction. That is not the way to changing hearts and minds, and it's a potential betrayal of the cause itself.

Would Jesus say, "Abort Obama." Not likely. No doubt He'd have plenty to say, and I would imagine there would be a call to repent involved at some point. But it would be done with love out of true concern for the spiritual welfare of the president.

How extremely difficult it is to follow the footsteps of the Christ, and how often I fail to do so, and thus give false witness of my own Christian faith.