The Thief's Bill Of Rights?

"True to her name, La Hammer will go down heavy for a wad of bills. But don't call her a hooker - she doesn't come cheap." (Via Naked Republicans)

The First Amendment is the current go-to defense for almost anybody doing anything sketchy these days. Somehow, freedom of speech has been construed to mean the supposed right to do anything irrespective of its broader legality. But for once, the defense has failed for former associates of malfeasant Republican whore Tom Delay.

John Colyandro and Jim Ellis had challenged the laws on money laundering as infringing on their First Amendment rights. But the Austin appeals court sanely ruled 9-0 that they were wrong.

The court said Colyandro and Ellis had "improperly challenged the constitutionality of the money-laundering statute". Thank you, Austin appeals court. Thank you for your sanity in establishing as precedent that the First Amendment is not a thief's bill of rights.

F*ck You John Boehner. Now Support My First Amendment Rights.

The Supreme Court has voted to repeal laws limiting political contributions made by corporations. It's a rough time to be a Democrat and about to get a whole lot rougher.

Naturally, sun-tanned bozo and House Republican Leader John Boehner applauds the decision as "a big win for the First Amendment".

Why do Republicans think the First Amendment applies only to corporations and not actual people? Evidently, to Boehner, freedom of speech means the 'right' to slap down millions of dollars and have TV stations broadcast lies for you. Let's look and see where that's mentioned in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing there about subversion of democracy being freedom of speech. Maybe Boehner means 'the free exercise' of the Republican religion otherwise known as screwing over the country.

Separation of Church and Football

Have to admit I find it hard to be offended by Florida Gators' Tim Tebow's biblical eye blacking. Even as a big ol' lefty who has nothing but scorn for the religious right and organized religion in general, I see nothing wrong with Tebow doing his thing.

Isaiah 40:31 says "but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint." It's probably the nearest thing the Bible has to a pregame pep speech. So what's the big deal?

Of course, I'd have more sympathy for the wingnuts sticking up for Tebow if, like me, they would be similarly unconcerned by a Muslim player quoting verses from the Koran. Can't really see that happening though.

First Amendment v. Defamation

Just to preface, I'm as big a fan of the First Amendment as anyone else. But it's got to be one of the most abused and abuse-able pieces of legislation ever written.

It's abused by Fred Phelps when his hate church's First Amendment 'right' to wave offensive placards at funerals is deemed more sacrosanct than the right of bereaved families to lay their dead to rest in peace.

It's abused by propaganda organizations like Fox when they lie their asses off knowing the First Amendment will trump any obligations they might otherwise have to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity.

It's been abused by Rush Limbaugh throughout his career of advancing authoritarian conservatism (i.e., fascism) and white supremacism.

Sometimes having a First Amendment blows. But there's hope.

Limbaugh's currently being sued by arch nemesis Al Sharpton for defamation after Limpdick suggested Sharpton was involved with rioting and murder. Sure, say what you want, it's a free country and we have a First Amendment. But Sharpton's lawyers are claiming rightly:

"He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal."

Maybe we don't need a rewrite of the First Amendment to check poisonous jerks like Limbaugh, Fred Phelps and Fox News. We just need the good old fashioned libel laws we inherited from English common law to be applied with more rigor.

Maybe we just need to suck it up and admit that Medieval laws designed to protect the reputations of the rich and powerful can, in some cases, be more just in practice than the high-fallutin', Enlightenment-era constitution which sought to replace them.

Just to postscript, I'd like to say I'm not being hypocritical in supporting libel laws. I might call Rush Limbaugh a fat c***, but I'd also support Limbaugh's right to call Sharpton a c*** too if he wished. This would get a libel suit going over in England, but thanks to the First Amendment, we have the right to indulge in name calling.

On the other hand, Limbaugh accusing Sharpton of being complicit in rioting and murder is a seedy attempt to undermine the reputation of a man who marched with MLK and has always advanced non-violence as a philosophy.

Wingnuts may argue that Limbaugh has the same right to sue over the recent 'false' quotes that contributed to him being dropped from the Rams syndicate. But he'd have a hard job defending his non-racist credentials when there are many more provable racist quotes on his record.

Taliban Relaxes Weight Limit For New Recruits?

It's been a busy week for conservatism's de facto leader and giant, fat c*** Rush Limbaugh. First he denies being leader of the Republican Party, then announces he's joined the Taliban. I can understand the former is probably more embarrassing to be associated with than the latter but...

"Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about -- and that is he doesn't deserve the award? Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban."

I understand the principles of polemics. I understand we have a First Amendment. But doesn't this statement quite literally give aid and comfort to America's enemies during time of war? So why isn't Limbaugh's fat ass in Gitmo right now?

The fact that Limbaugh can run his mouth with impunity is more evidence of America's unconditional love for wealth. It's not the Constitution that protects and enables him - it's his money and his potential for generating money. Not true? Then imagine Limbaugh as some guy called Muhammad writing this stuff on MySpace in a public library. He'd be pounced on faster than Osama bin Laden strolling through immigration with a bail of weed.