Chavez and Jackson: Speech Suppressors

The international community is in an uproar over a few meandering comments made by 700 Club host and footnote former Presidential candidate Pat Robertson last week. Robertson suggested that if Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. … We have the ability to take him out and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.” (Click here for audio.)

In response, an angry Chavez said Sunday that his government will ask the United States to extradite Robertson to Venezuela to prosecute him for his words. (The United States response was that such an extradition request appears to be baseless.) Likewise, while meeting in person with Chavez, Rev. Jesse Jackson supported the spirit of Chavez’s retort and called Robertson’s words “illegal.”

Jesse Jackson has aligned himself with a leader hostile to the United States and individual rights. He is seemingly oblivious to a constitutional right that has protected his civil rights-related speech over the decades of his public advocacy. And yes, Mr. Jackson, there is a difference between a foreign policy discussion and Janet Jackson's exposed breast vis-à-vis a “wardrobe malfunction” (although Mr. Jackson apparently believes that Robertson is a boob, he errs by claiming that the Super Bowl and 700 Club snafus should be treated the same way).

The United States has attempted to assassinate political leaders of other countries several times in the past. Indeed, the CIA attempted to kill Cuban dictator Fidel Castro eight different times between 1960 and 1965. However, since 1976 it has been against U.S. policy for government agents to assassinate foreign leaders.

Whatever one may think of Robertson’s statement, which he later cowardly denied he said and then apologized for, defenders of freedom must stand by Robertson’s right to say such words and condemn any suggestion by Chavez or Jackson that Robertson ought to be held criminally liable for his statements.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Klansman engaging in some edgy speech suggesting harmful retaliation. The unanimous per curiam opinion stated: “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Robertson did not ask for imminent lawless action while standing in the same room as Chavez. He merely suggested that, rather than engage in a war against Venezuela, the United States take a particular course of action, however inadvisable that action would be.

It is frightening to even consider the prospect of an American citizen being extradited to a country where freedom is scarce to face charges for speech that we take for granted every day. Although located on the outer ring of protected free speech, Robertson’s words are the ramblings of a talk show host about his foreign policy theory and do not constitute a serious death threat. The Brandenburg Court wrote that “the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”

Even a threat against the President of the United States must be a “true threat.” In United States v. Watts (1969), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction based on a Vietnam War protestor’s statement that if he were drafted and forced to carry a rifle “the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”

Why is so much press attention being focused on Robertson and Jackson-- who have never been elected or appointed to any major political position --and why are their views seen as significant U.S. foreign policy expressions? We are once again being disserved by the cult of celebrity. There are other individuals far more qualified to speak on foreign policy concerns. The media should "take Robertson and Jackson out" of the spotlight.

Four candidates now for Mayor-- all Democrats

D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp recently announced that she will officially declare her candidacy for mayor on September 7. Cropp is the fourth candidate to jump into the race for Mayor of the District of Columbia, joining council members Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4) and Vincent B. Orange Sr. (D-Ward 5) and former Verizon executive Marie C. Johns. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) has not announced whether he will run again.

So . . . there are already four Democratic candidates. Where is the Republican candidate? Hopefully Republicans can learn from the not-too-distant past.

In 2002, the Republicans didn't even have a candidate, at first. When Williams became a write-in candidate due to irregularities that knocked his name off the ballot, the D.C. Republican Committee (DCRC) decided the GOP needed a candidate after all because Williams looked vulnerable. So the DCRC asked Republicans to write in D.C. Councilmember Carol Schwartz for the Republican primary. She won the primary despite not campaigning and ambiguity as to whether she would accept the nomination (although total unknown Todd Zirkle secured a fair amount of votes), accepted the nomination two weeks after the primary, and lost the race for mayor for a fourth time.

Fellow Republicans, let's find at least one mayoral candidate by New Year's Day.

DCYRs announce Persley: “The candidate for the People, not the politicians.”

Eight D.C. Young Republicans were out in force for several hours on Saturday, distributing hundreds of flyers and registering voters in five wards. The flyers informed D.C. voters of Erran Persley's candidacy for Congress against Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Persley is not afraid to run as a real Republican. D.C. voters were informed of Persley's latest position announcements, including:

● Voting Rights in Congress for the District
● Pro-School Choice for needy families
● Against partial birth abortion
● Simplify the tax code to promote fairness and economic opportunity
● Break the cycle of poverty by empowering people to succeed
● Pro-faith-based initiatives:
empowering religious institutions to address community needs.

D.C. residents were largely receptive to Erran's message. However, one citizen outside Brookland Metro Station was unable to handle free speech. Upon being handed a flyer and briefly reading it, the man exclaimed "You're a Republican?!" He then proceded to violently rip the flyer into small pieces, drop the remains on the sidewalk, and walk away without another word. Someone call Greenpeace-- this litterer needs his membership revoked.

Sheehan calls Terrorists "Freedom Fighters"

The Cindy Sheehan media and blog hysteria will undoubtedly make the list of the biggest continuing news stories of 2005. But amazingly, despite the saturated coverage, the following exchange between Sheehan and a reporter days (weeks?) ago has only been reported by blogs and WorldNetDaily (read the story here). Judge for yourself whether Sheehan should be given the "Pat Robertson treatment" for a major speaking gaffe:

Mark Knoller (CBS): "You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?"

Cindy Sheehan: "No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

Calling terrorist infidels "freedom fighters" is a mischaracterization of Orwellian proportions. These so-called freedom fighters are not fighting for freedom, but rather they seek to destroy the fledgling democratic structure that the Bush Adminstration has sought to establish. The terrorists are killing Americans and freedom-loving Iraqis alike. Reasonable people can disagree over whether invading Iraq was justified by U.S. interests or Bush's justifications at the time the decision to invade was made. But calling terrorists "freedom fighters" crosses the line-- what would her son say?

Ms. Sheehan should disavow her remark. But the bigger issue is: Where is the media coverage?

Thanks to Gindy for posting this story earlier and providing me with a news link.

End the Extreme Political Rhetoric

As September 6th, the Opening Day of the Roberts nomination approaches, it is worth taking a step back to examine the state of political discourse in America in 2005.

While there will purportedly be a national debate on the merits of giving a certain distinguished lawyer a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, much of the discussion will be little more than ranting from the left. The word to watch is "extremist," and its variations "extreme" and "extremism." Unless the speaker is condemning a true extremist, someone like an Islamic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, trust nothing the individual has to say. He or she is a demogague terrorizing our language.

In the war of words, the word "extremist" is the functional equivalent of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon. EMP speech generates a very short, intense soundbite producing a transient surge of thousands of emotional volts that kill logical thought. The use of the word "extreme" can damage the reputations of non-shielded individuals including practically any hard-working, decent human being within the effective range of the weapon.

The use of rhetorical weapons of mass destruction must be condemned. It is poisoning a free-flowing, open discussion on controversial issues in this country.

How can Americans find a compromise on the issue of abortion with groups like the National Abortion Federation and NARAL Pro-Choice America in our midst? NARAL was forced by public backlash to pull its ad earlier this month charging that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups" and "America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

NARAL, of course, did not mention the fact that Roberts filed that brief on behalf of the United States and won the support of six Justices of the Supreme Court. "As more light is shed on John Roberts' record, it becomes clear he has extreme views," said Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation. Under Ms. Saporta's ludicrious analysis, a majority of the Supreme Court must be "extreme" as well.

We can reclaim the national discussion by taking a broader view of what constitutes reasonable political beliefs. Judge Roberts is as mainstream as mom and apple pie. And so is liberal Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Likewise, Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only avowed socialist in the House of Representatives, should not have his views dismissed as "extreme." By the same token, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for president in 1988, is not "extreme" merely because he stands on principle for limited government, sometime in defiance of his party's leadership. And yes, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and the D.C. City Council should have their leftist ideas confronted and refuted without unnecessary hectoring (hopefully Norton will return the gesture).

Let us use the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment for the exchange of ideas rather than as a launching pad for EMP rhetoric designed to stop debate before it can begin.

Big Government Conservatism

When someone (usually someone from another country) asks me to explain the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I tend to explain the Republicans as being “the party of smaller government.” But those words tend to slip out uneasily these days; it’s beginning to sound like a lie.


I sometimes wish Bill Clinton was still President. Those were heady days, the dark days of fighting the good fight against the onslaught of socialized medicine destined to be implemented by one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Republicans mocked Clinton when he declared in his 1996 State of the Union address that “The era of Big Government is over,” for claiming to announce the end of big government during a Democratic administration. For example, in 1999, House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio) said, “The president said the era of big government is over, but he keeps sending us things ... kind of like Santa Claus.” Today, with the exception of very few individuals, if a congressional Republican claimed the era of big government is over, he would be and ought to be mocked.

In both news articles and an editorial (“Big Government Conservatives”) on Monday, The Washington Post took great pleasure in announcing that the Republicans have abandoned their limited government principles. The latest Republican capitulation is a $286 billion transportation measure signed by President Bush that contains a record 6,371 pet projects supported by members of Congress from both parties. The Post points out that “Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to . . . the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress.” The GOP honored Reagan’s legacy by appropriating $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California. Are we stuck in some sort of Monty Python time warp? This can’t be happening.

But of course it is happening. The natural tendency of government is to grow no matter who is in control. The lure of maintaining power is strong; one maintains such power by buying votes with spending. Everyone understands that politics is about bringing disparate groups together under a common umbrella, but somehow advocates of small government keep getting the shaft.

The Post editorial concludes: “Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?” (Meanwhile, the criticism from the pages of The Washington Times is nonexistent.) When the Democrats regain power, how can the Republicans credibly fight against bigger government spending? Critics will rightly question whether Republicans oppose Democrat spending proposals for the sake of partisan opposition to Democrat policies, rather than in the service of higher universal principles. The Republican position will appear to be an act of simple political expediency.

Who will represent the values of liberty and limited government if the Republicans embrace unrestrained government spending? Something must be done.

Parody: Government Rank-and-File Workers Speak Out

I recently e-mailed a friend of mine: "If you send me a news story, any kind of story about people that is, I will write a parody based on it and send it back to you-- try it, I dare you."

She sent me a column, but I tackled it anyway. View the original Washington Post column in a separate browser window alongside the parody to get the full effect.

With government continuing to grow even under Republican Presidents and Congresses, it's only a matter of time before . . .

Rank-and-File Workers Speak Out Anonymously On Pay for Performance

By Stephen Bareass

The Washington Post; August 9, 2025; B02

The Diary's in-box is full-- with pay issues at the top of the screen.

Columns in late July explored some of the questions being asked by federal employees about pay- for-performance systems underway in the Bush IV administration. Today's column shares some additional comments from readers interested in how the government compensates and motivates its workforce.

From a stripper fielded by the Department of Health and Human Services who is returning to the private sector: "I find the current system frigid and flaccid. . . . While my supervisors tout the fact that I have all this experience and a nice body, they don't acknowledge that where it counts -- in my thong every two minutes.

"I find it unmotivating to get paid a set amount regardless of the quality of my work. . . and the caps on tips are idiotic.

"Nevertheless, I've seen some behavior in my short time in the government that probably would have led to hiring in the private sector. I leave my government job with greater respect for the work that people do for the poor, for nominal pay. At the same time, I am quite disgusted with the Christian Right; those people would take away working people’s right to healthy sexual gratification."

From a federal schoolteacher located in Boise, Idaho: "Right now, civil service employees are somewhat 'buffered' from politically-motivated actions of the extreme Right. Schoolteachers can advance the latest social theories without fear of losing salary or jobs (however, sometimes it’’s best to have students sign confidentiality agreements!).

". . . Without the Department of Education, I wonder how I could fight for what I believe is right. As an educational professional, we get into debates amongst ourselves all the time. But there was widespread agreement that the home school movement is another example of ‘‘You get what you pay for.’’ How will homeschoolers be able to know right from wrong when they are being taught by parents, without benefit of the values-clarification courses?"

"We'll see how the home schoolers do. . . . I am not optimistic."

[Note: Only minor changes were made to this paragraph- skip it.] From a federal retiree: "In my immediate organization we had two long-term employees that should have been transferred to a different Department because they did next to no work, leaving their assignments to be shifted to others. I clearly sensed the supervisor did not have the time available to sacrifice mission work in order to increase the priority on needed discipline.
In a parallel organization I observed a supervisor apply hundreds of peoplehours needed to pass through all the wickets to transfer an employee -- time that could not be taken and which compromised the mission.

[Don’t bother reading this boring paragraph either.] "I was not in a supervisory position but witnessed the bind leaders were being placed in when faced with the dilemma of increased administrative time encroaching into their primary duties of leading an organization and getting a job done. I am therefore puzzled as to how newly proposed performance pay systems that will require substantially more time to administer to employees can be in the best interests of the government? I am also puzzled as to why this is not more of an issue?"

I don’t know what the hell this person was trying to say, but I have a space quota to fill. Government subsidies of the newspaper industry are based on the number of pages, and we’re behind this month.

From a new federal supervisor at the Department of Homeland Security: "A merit-based system is not a cure to the problems that plague the government workforce, it is nothing new. And it's an old, discredited idea, a lesson learned from its application in the private sector. Of course it makes people, including myself, nervous. Job security is a hallmark of the government. A correctly implemented merit-based system could reveal that some individuals’ existence in government cannot be justified and that they should be, dare I say it, fired. Nothing could be crueler."

A Note to Readers

As you may have noticed, none of the readers quoted above is identified. They gave permission for me to excerpt from their e-mails but not to identify them by name. I verified that they are, indeed, government employees using telephone numbers they gave me. They wanted to make their points but avoid rocking the boat or embarrassing their agencies. However, under the Journalist Source Disclosure Act of 2007, I will be required to submit all of their contact information to the Valerie Plame Center for Responsible Journalism.

Thank you.

E-mail:bareass@washpost.com

New York Times investigates Roberts adoptions, National Council for Adoption Outraged

As first reported by Drudge Report, then Fox News and Underneath Their Robes, New York Times journalists have expressed an interest in reviewing the adoption records of John Roberts' children, but were rebuffed by at least one lawyer they consulted about the possibility.

The National Council for Adoption issued the following statement:

"NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents."

The Times' would-be Woodward's & Bernstein's actions are not surprising. Many a nominee has been withdrawn when "moderately illegal" activity has been uncovered, at least activity dealing with illegally hiring caretakers of children. Recall that:

- In 1993, Zoe Baird, Bill Clintons' first nominee for attorney general, was withdrawn when it was discovered she had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny

- Soon thereafter, Kimba Wood, Clinton's second unsuccessful nominee for attorney general, also withdrew when it was discovered she had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny.

- In January 2001, Linda Chavez quickly withdrew her nomination for Labor Secretary, charging that "search and destroy" politics had focused on the haven she gave an illegal immigrant from Guatemala in the early 1990s.

- In December 2004, New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew his nomination as homeland security secretary when questions arose concerning the immigration status of a housekeeper and nanny he employed.

So it would only be a matter of time before reporters would go on fishing expeditions into adoption records hoping to make a name for themselves by uncovering a scandal. Where will it end?

New York Civil Liberties Union Sues NYC

In light of the random searches of subway stations in Northeastern cities, here's an interesting quote from a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas: "I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing." See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

* * *

New York Police Sued Over Subway Searches
By Michelle Garcia, Friday, August 5, 2005; Page A03

NEW YORK, Aug 4 -- The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the city's police department Thursday, calling the random search of subway riders' bags unconstitutional and ineffective.

The lawsuit -- filed in a federal court on behalf of five subway passengers, including the son of a retired police captain and a naturalized citizen -- alleges that the program violates constitutional rights that protect against illegal searches and guarantee due process.

Full story at WashingtonPost.com.

The Human Cost of Bureaucracy

The first evening of July, I arrived at my vehicle to find the latest blow dealt by D.C.’s bureaucracy: a $100 parking ticket. And before I knew it, I had another. Not only was the duplication an obvious error, but I had received no notice of the law I had violated. The tickets invited a challenge.

Although the term “bureaucracy” may seem unfair to civil servants who diligently work relatively menial jobs day after day in order to carry out the will of the people, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles perfectly matches the connotations of the word “bureaucracy.” My experience with the Virginia and D.C. DMVs on multiple occasions has been that Virginia DMV workers are polite, even pleasant, but most D.C. workers are stoic at best. At least dealing with the DMV is relatively straightforward, compared to the perils of navigating the D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs.

Salvador Dali despised bureaucrats, partly because he had issues with his father, a prominent bureaucrat. Dali’s painting The Average Bureaucrat (1930) depicts a depressed man against a starkly barren landscape, a faceless automaton apparently engaged in an exceedingly mundane activity that eventually causes him to stop interacting with the world and his fellow human beings. The Average Bureaucrat would blend in well with the D.C. DMV work force.

My latest dance with the bureaucracy began around 7 p.m. on July 1 when I parked my car under the bridge near the fish market in Southwest D.C. I was attending a happy hour hosted by my friend at a local restaurant. Before leaving my car, I checked for any indication that parking was not permitted. There was no such indication, no sign, no yellow curb. I parked behind another car on Water Street S.W., where parking is generally permitted.

Upon returning to my vehicle, I had a $100 ticket glaring at me. The offense: parking under a bridge. Approximately twenty cars had lined up behind mine, and the math was easy enough: the City would be collecting a tidy $2,000 on that street that evening.

Two officers were writing tickets, so I indignantly pulled my ticket off my car and began a discussion with one over the fairness of the ticket. He nearly admitted that the ticket was unfair because there was no indication that one should not park on the particular portion of the street. But I could not be angry with the officers, they were simply performing their duties— performing them so well that, during my 30-minute discussion with the officer, the other officer wrote another ticket for my vehicle because I had taken the first ticket off the car. By the time I discovered the new ticket, the officers were gone. Now I had a pair of $100 tickets.

A word of advice: one should always deal with D.C.’s bureaucracy as soon as possible. Procrastination only delays the pain and increases the potential for additional damage.

By late July, I mistakenly thought that I had received the ticket on July 5 and had until August 5 to challenge it. This is because the bureaucrats’ ticket blanks did not permit the usage “July 1, 2005” preferred by most people but rather “01 July 05.” On August 2nd, I examined the ticket more closely and suddenly realized that I had a big problem: The 30 days for challenging the ticket had passed. My right to challenge the ticket was in doubt and, because I had not paid the ticket, the amounts of the tickets would double to $400. That is one heck of a parking tab for a happy hour.

Fifteen minutes later, I hopped in a cab and headed to 65 K Street, N.E. Perhaps I am jaded by my past DMV experiences, but the hour and forty-five minutes that it took to tour the ticket challenge process seemed to pass quickly, helped along by a newspaper. The gentleman who heard my complaint was articulate, firm but reasonable, and followed the law. I was permitted to challenge the tickets despite the fact that more than 30 days had passed. The duplicative ticket was quickly disposed. But the underlying offense stood.

The hearing adjudicator, who never once displayed a hint of emotion and seemingly talked to no one in particular, told me that for a few parking offenses, such as parking on a sidewalk, no notice of the law was necessary. Yes, only an drunken idiot would think that parking on the sidewalk is permitted. But 20 other people who parked behind me likely had been fooled by this strict liability statute. Nevertheless, the adjudicator not only waived the doubling of the fine, he cut the original one in half—perhaps by accident. I didn’t question the decision.

On my way out, I paid my ticket, which required taking another number, another seat, reading a few more newspaper articles. I also took the opportunity to pay a $50 automated speeding violation (for driving 38 MPH in a 25, 3 MPH above the fine threshold), so this was an “efficient” trip to the DMV. It’s important to pay tickets in person or on-line if one has the opportunity. The last time I visited 65 K Street NE to adjudicate a ticket, it was because the District claimed to have never received my $200 check for a snow zone violation (a very sneaky law for new residents) and had doubled the fine.

When my number was called and I walked up to interact with the woman located behind the thick glass to pay my ticket, she never once acknowledged my existence, despite my attempts to engage her on a human level. I am sure she had not smiled in months while on the job. I was just another piece of paperwork to be processed. She was The Average Bureaucrat.

Republican Erran Persley to Challenge D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton

Earlier this evening, Republican Erran Persley announced his candicacy to run against D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. The fundraising event was held at the stately home of a Democrat located a few blocks west of Dupont Circle. He'll need more than a few Democrats to cross party lines if he hopes to win, so this is a good sign.

I had never met Persley before, but he was immediately likeable. When I told him of my concerns, he listened. When he spoke to those assembled, his speech was polished.

Persley spoke of a need to protect those D.C. citizens who are being priced out of their homes by real estate taxes that have increased in response to rising home values. He also pledged to advance the cause of Republican Congressman Tom Davis’s D.C. voting rights bill, the one supported by Mayor Williams and Democrats on the City Council, but not Norton.

Persley is a candidate who is not afraid to run proudly as a Republican. While some would counsel that a Republican who hopes to win an office in the District should minimize his or her political affiliation, others encourage a courageous strategy to build the party in the District. Persley aptly called his upcoming struggle as one between David and Goliath. It would not be surprising to soon see Delegate Norton announce a legislative proposal to ban slingshots in the District.