Slapstick Politics

Quote Of The Day--One Last Note On Rene Marie And The Anthem

2008-07-05T01:02:00.001-06:00

And obligatory eye-roll:

"I didn't expect that singing the song would garner this kind of attention."

Right.

Happy Independence Day!

2008-07-04T14:06:00.001-06:00

Obama Rally At Invesco Field Gaining Traction

2008-07-04T13:32:00.005-06:00

The Associated Press, citing two unnamed "people in a position to know details of the idea," said the switch is under consideration.

Mayor John Hickenlooper said he hadn't heard the rumor directly from the Obama campaign, but added it would be "amazing" if it happened.

"It would be difficult, but not impossible," Hickenlooper said. "You would have to adapt. You would have to make sure you got the right people in the right places - if it's something the Obama campaign wants to do."

Not sure who the sources are, but backchannel whispers and blog speculation indicate that there is at least some planning and logistical inquiries being made:

Gridiron fans, move over. The Obama campaign hopes to turn the last evening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Aug. 28 into a giant rally of voters in a football stadium.

The unusual move, confirmed by two sources, would be an echo of John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960. Kennedy delivered his address before thousands of supporters at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Obama's big moment also would fall on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
. . .
Officials involved in planning the event said the challenge of filling the stadium didn't seem to be much of a worry for the Obamians, who attracted huge crowds during their primary campaign this spring. More worrisome, they said, were issues of logistics and security for all the Democratic dignitaries at the convention -- plus the possibility of afternoon thunderstorms in the open-air stadium.

The football stadium plan appears to be what officials had in mind when they said the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee might shorten the party convention to three days instead of four.

Obama campaign officials didn't respond to requests for confirmation. Shannon Gilson, a spokeswoman for the campaign, told the Denver Post via e-mail simply: "We think Thursday night in Denver will be very special."

The shortened convention rumor--from 4 days to 3--may have been nothing more than a reference to this type of event.

Not everyone relishes the thought of Invesco Field reverberating with political chants shouted in unison.

Ba-Rock Star? Obama Could Be A Mile High When He Accepts Nomination At Invesco Field

2008-07-03T16:43:00.004-06:00

For the people:

Barack Obama's campaign is considering moving his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention from the Pepsi Center convention hall to Invesco Field at Mile High to accommodate the uncredentialed masses, sources say.

The move would mark a major departure from tradition, but would be in keeping with the candidate's desire to build a large grass-roots campaign focused on "change."

It also would leave behind the multi-million-dollar broadcast studios, media offices and high-tech podium and stage to be constructed at the Pepsi Center.

"No decision has been made in regards to this," wrote Matthew Chandler, the Colorado press secretary for the Obama campaign.

Denver's convention host committee declined to comment on the possibility, first mentioned on the blog demconwatchblog.com.

No small "change" indeed--added security and logistics costs, possible schedule conflict rearrangements, media readjustment, DNCC coordination nightmare, etc. But what a way to bring even more people to Denver in hopes of attending Obama's acceptance speech--to view the "historic" moment that it represents.

Heck, even a few bloggers (ahem) might be allowed in now!

DemConWatch has more on the speculation.

Barack Obama: "We Only Have One National Anthem"

2008-07-03T12:16:00.004-06:00

"We only have one National Anthem. And so, if she was asked to sing the National Anthem, she should have sung that. 'Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing' is a beautiful song, but we only have one National Anthem"--Sen. Barack Obama

Developing . . .

Having spent part of the day Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Dem presumptive nominee Barack Obama waded into Denver's national anthem fiasco:

Sen. Barack Obama said today a jazz singer's decision to sing the 'Black National Anthem' at Denver's State of the City speech this week was wrong.

"Well, 'Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing' is a beautiful song that has been sung in African-American churches and other events for a very long time," Obama told the Rocky in phone interview. "We only have one National Anthem. And so, if she was asked to sing the National Anthem, she should have sung that. 'Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing' is a beautiful song, but we only have one National Anthem."

Obama's comments came as the controversy over Rene Marie's rendition entered its third day.

Looks like Obama is attempting to distance himself from any involvement or association, real or perceived (and rightly or wrongly), with Marie, the song, or the kerfuffle itself. That he was in Colorado was a coincidence. Better to get out ahead of a story that has legs far beyond what might be expected under normal circumstances--but with Denver hosting the DNC next month and Obama to be the focus of the showcase, this story has become enough of a concern that Obama chose to deal with it now, not in August.

More "explanations" for the choice of the song by the singer, Rene Marie, have emerged:

After Tuesday's ceremony, Hickenlooper called Marie to "understand what happened." The mayor said Marie told him that her song "was an artistic expression of her love for her country."

But in interviews with the news media, Marie provided a somewhat different explanation.

"Her interviews with the media have conveyed different content and tone," Hickenlooper said in a letter to city employees. "While I cannot speak to her intentions, it's now fair to say the city was deceived."

Marie said she started working on the song about three years ago after she toured Russia and an interviewer referred to her as an American. She said she was "startled" by that reference and felt like she wasn't an American.

"I struggled with why I felt that way when I came back to United States because I love living in this country," she said, adding that she decided to rewrite some of the patriotic songs she learned as a child, both as a creative outlet and to reflect her black heritage.

Rep. Tom Tancredo jumped in:

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton, "condemned" Marie - as well as the mayor - "for the national anthem debacle that took place during the State of the City address," according to a press release from Tancredo's office.

"I hope that this is not indicative of the 'state of the city' and the cult of multiculturalism and anti-Americanism does not hold sway over the majority of the people in Denver," Tancredo said. "It's also distressing because it appears to be another aspect of the racial politics plaguing this nation."

Marie attempts to stress love for country, while positing a questioning of that affection:

"I've been working on that song about three years. Its inception was during an interview I was having when I was touring in Russia and I was being interviewed by this Russian woman who referred to me as an American.

"I was startled by that reference; I almost corrected her. I felt, 'I'm not an American.' Then I was shocked by the fact that I felt that way, and I struggled with that because I love living in this country; I'm so attached to it. My father taught me about having love for this land, our native land.

"But as much as I love singing all the patriotic songs, I grew up in a town that was segregated.

I went to an all-black school as a kid. So I decided I wanted to rewrite these patriotic songs I learned as a kid. I wanted to sing the lyrics but change the melody.

"The entire suite expresses my personal love for this country and my hope for the country."

City Council President Michael Hancock sums up the sentiments of those in Denver and across the country--it's not the song itself, but the singer's choice and question of intent that represents the source of anger:

City Council President Michael Hancock, the master of ceremonies at Tuesday's event, said he's been the target of hateful e-mails and phone calls just because he introduced Marie. Hancock didn't know the singer and didn't know she was going to perform the black anthem, he said.

"She made a very bad decision," he said. "And unfortunately, the mayor and (myself) and other City Council people and other elected officials are bearing the brunt of her very bad and inappropriate decision."

"Black National Anthem" Performed At Denver's State Of The City Address Instead Of National Anthem

2008-07-02T12:13:00.003-06:00

Welcome Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Five Feet of Fury, lgf readers--most recent update at top, scroll for video of "anthem" . . .

"No matter what her reasons for taking this action and deliberately withholding her plans from event organizers, she absolutely chose the wrong time and place to do it. She knew what the city's expectations were, and she was dishonest about her intentions. She imposed her personal choices and their consequences on others, depriving our 12,000 city employees and community-at-large of an opportunity to have their collective accomplishments celebrated and leaving many in our community feeling disrespected"--statement from Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper

**Update 6--Denver's Mayor John Hickenlooper responds more forcefully to the "anthem"--singer "dishonest," Denver "disrespected":

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, in a sharply worded rebuke today, said the singer at his State of the City address who replaced the words to the national anthem with another song had deceived city officials.

"We will do whatever it takes to ensure that a situation like this never occurs again, even if I have to sing the national anthem myself," the mayor said in a prepared statement.

The mayor released what he said would be his final statement over the decision by Rene Marie to sing the lyrics to what is known as the "black national anthem" instead of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

"We all respect artistic license and support freedom of expression," the mayor said. "But in a tradition-laden civic ceremony that included a law-enforcement color guard presenting our flags and the Pledge of Allegiance, making a personal substitution for the national anthem was not an option. We asked for 'The Star Spangled Banner,' and that's what we expected."
. . .
The national anthem is sung during every State of the City speech by the mayor. Marie was not paid for her performance.

"No matter what her reasons for taking this action and deliberately withholding her plans from event organizers, she absolutely chose the wrong time and place to do it," said the mayor in the statement, which he also intended to read from the steps of the City and County Building. "She knew what the city's expectations were, and she was dishonest about her intentions. She imposed her personal choices and their consequences on others, depriving our 12,000 city employees and community-at-large of an opportunity to have their collective accomplishments celebrated and leaving many in our community feeling disrespected."

**Update 5--Gov. Ritter's response:

"If you invite someone to sing the Star-Spangled Banner at an event, you invite them to do just that," Ritter said.

"The problem here is she was invited to do one thing, and she chose to do another thing," Ritter added. "And that's unfortunate for a variety of reasons. It's a fair interpretation to say it's disrespectful."

Ritter added that as governor of Colorado, he's observed how people's facial expressions change when the national anthem is sung, and the singing of the song is a tradition that has meaning for many people.

"There is something about that anthem," Ritter said. "It is substantive and symbolic. It is about our country, and it is about a level of patriotism."

**Update 4--Rene Marie: "I pulled a switcheroonie on them"; 850KOA's Mike Rosen hosted a call from Denver City Council president Michael Hancock (an African American) who was not only surprised by the substitution, but rejected it completely, and then Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who believed it to be inappropriate as a song choice and for the venue--disrespecting Mayor John Hickenlooper and the work of the city.

**Update 3--Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper attempts (audio)--poorly--to explain that Rene Marie's intentions were "not disrespectful"; Post columnist Gloria Neal (an African-American) calls Marie's choice a "moment of artistic flatulence."

**Update 2--video is live (apologies, YouTube was being, well, YouTube) . . .

Not a "political statement":

Jazz singer Rene Marie, who was introduced to sing the "National Anthem," sang what is known as the "Black National Anthem" instead, evoking angry reactions among some of the estimated 700 people who attended the event.

"There is no substitute for the National Anthem. Period," said Councilman Charlie Brown.

"This is the State of the City address. It's not a NAACP convention," he said, referring to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Hickenlooper and his staff said they expected Marie to sing the "Star Spangled Banner" and that they were surprised when she sang something different.

Hickenlooper said he spoke to Marie after the ceremony and that she apologized profusely.

The mayor said Marie told him that she meant no disrespect.

"She blended the two songs together," Hickenlooper said. "She was trying to make an artistic expression of her love for the country. She did not intend to make a political statement or anything."

This seems to contradict earlier statements that Marie's intent was for the sake of "art" and "to make you think."

**Update--The reason for the anthem switch? "Art":

Once she finished performing, there was a moment of awkward silence and then the crowd gave her mild applause. Marie said she understood why the audience was confused, since the song sounded familiar but the lyrics were different.

"Art is supposed to make you think. I wanted to express how I felt, being a black woman living in this country," Marie told 7NEWS.

The Denver Mayor's Office said it wasn't aware that Marie was planning to sing that version of the song. A spokeswoman told 7NEWS that the office expected her to sing the traditional anthem.

The Broomfield singer said only three people at the State of the City speech knew she would sing the lyrics to the Black National Anthem -- her husband, her mentor and herself. It was not a song requested by the city, but a song she had deliberately chosen to perform.

Here's a profile of Rene Marie from the Rocky Mountain News earlier this year.

Rene Marie sang alternate lyrics to the tune of "The Star-Spangled Banner." (Denver's Channel 8)

On a tip--developing . . .

Apparently, fried foods aren't the only "non-patriotic" things in Denver under Mayor John Hickenlooper--not with the national anthem replaced by the "black national anthem" during the Mayor's State of the City address (full transcript):

Mayor John Hickenlooper's annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn't included than what was.

At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.

Instead, she performed the song "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," which is also known as the "black national anthem."

When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.

"Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" was written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson in 1899 and set to music by his brother in 1900.

City Councilman Charlie Brown took to talk radio Tuesday afternoon to criticize the absence of the national anthem at the State of the City proceedings.

"There's no replacement for the national anthem," Brown said on KOA radio. "They should have sung it."

The Mayor's office did not immediately return a phone call for comment.

"It's the new patriotism."

Here are the words to "Lift E'vry Voice and Sing".

More on the "alternate" anthem:

As Denver dignitaries gathered today for Mayor John Hickenlooper's State of the City address, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.

But that's not what she did.
. . .
Brown said Hancock has told talk-radio stations that he only introduced the singer from prepared remarks handed to him and was unaware that she would not be performing the "Star-Spangled Banner." Hancock did not immediately return a call seeking comment, nor did Hickenlooper or his staff.

From the tipster:

Infuriating. The microphone should have been cut off. At the very least the mayor and council should have expressed chagrin. I, however, would have cut her off. I would be incensed if I were standing with my hand over my heart for the national anthem only to have this insidiously slipped in instead.

Can't say it any better than that.

FBI Agents To Descend On Denver During DNC

2008-06-30T16:55:00.000-06:00

No specific number, but it will be large:

"Hundreds" of FBI agents will be in Denver during the Democratic National Convention, according to James Davis, the FBI special agent in charge of the Denver field division that oversees Colorado and Wyoming.

The FBI is "responsible for gathering intelligence on, primarily terrorist activity, any possible terrorist activity with regard to the convention, and make sure we get that intelligence to our partner agencies so they can be prepared," according to a "Colorado Matters" interview that aired today on Colorado Public Radio. The audio is available here.

Davis also said that, "We don't have any information right now about any credible threat to the convention on a terrorist level."

Host Ryan Warner asked about the number of additional FBI agents that will be in town.

"I don't want to say exactly how many, but I can tell you that it's in the hundreds," replied Davis.

Convention protestors will be particular tuned in to this segment:

Earlier in the interview, regarding the possibility of disruptive protests at the convention, Davis said the FBI is looking at "tactics and groups similar to what we've seen in conventions in the past and other major meetings" such as "blockage of streets and attempts to disrupt traffic flows, that sort of thing."

Davis would not say whether undercover FBI agents have joined protests groups or attended their meetings.

More generally, Davis acknowledged the possibility the convention could draw criminal activity - and that law enforcement partner agencies were aware of that.

"Criminals are smart enough to recognize that law enforcement is going to be very busy during that time. General crimes, things that occur regularly, are more attractive - I think - to criminals at that time when they know that police are going to be heavily otherwise occupied."

DNC Protest Groups File Bigger Lawsuit, Seek More Concessions

2008-06-30T16:40:00.002-06:00

Give 'em an inch:

Groups wanting to protest at the Democratic National Convention filed new court challenges to Denver and the Secret Service's rules governing protests and parades, saying they violate the public's right to free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents 13 protest groups, has filed an amended complaint in federal court asking U.S. District Judge Marcia S. Krieger to order the city and Secret Service to make changes.

What are the protestors seeking?

Glad you asked:

Move the "public demonstration zone," a fenced area where groups would be allowed to protest, to be within sight and sound of delegates entering the Pepsi Center.

The zone is currently planned for a corner of Lot A, or VIP parking, farthest from the Pepsi Center entrance.

"No human voice, or any other sound ... can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance to the Pepsi Center from inside the Public Demonstration Zone," the ACLU wrote in court documents.

No sound perhaps, but the wafting patchouli/body odor might be overwhelming. Believe me, the delegates will know the protestors are there.

Next:

Allow protesters to hand out leaflets to delegates or others attending the convention who are within the "hard security zone," or secured perimeter, of the Pepsi Center. The city has said this will not be allowed, according to the ACLU lawsuit.

Nope. Security concerns aside, leaflets aren't "green." Come on protestors, get on the "green" bandwagon!

Allow parades to pass near the Pepsi Center and at times when delegates are present.

The city's approved parade route runs from near Civic Center, west on Colfax Avenue and north on Speer Boulevard, and ends at Seventh Street and Auraria Parkway, which is the entry and exit point for the public demonstration zone in Parking Lot A.

It does not include Chopper Circle or Ninth Street, as the protest groups want.

The city is allowing parades only between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Convention organizers have said delegates will arrive at the Pepsi Center around 3 p.m. each day.

Unlikely, though corraling thousands of protestors left over from the afternoon parades into the small public demonstration zone in Lot A or getting them to disperse before the Pepsi Center will be a tall task.

Approve alternate parade routes for two groups. One group wants to hold an immigration parade that would start at 29th Street and Speer and run south to Sunken Gardens park. The other wants to march from Civic Center to the federal courthouse at 18th and Stout Streets to urge the release of political prisoners. The city has denied both requests.

City officials and the Secret Service have said they must balance the rights of people to express themselves with the need for security during the DNC, scheduled for Aug. 25 to 28.

They insist the public will still have ample opportunity to communicate with the delegates and others attending the convention.

Krieger has scheduled an all-day hearing for July 29 to consider the ACLU's requests.

Protestors want "Parade-A-Palooza" and the city has bent over backwards allowing at least SIXTEEN hours of parades during the four days of the convention. That is all, apparently, not enough.

Democratic National Convention Countdown, No. 61-56

2008-06-30T16:25:00.001-06:00

Democratic National Convention Daily Digest and Open Thread
Wednesday June 25-Monday June 30, 2008--No. 61-56

Featured story:

•DNC protestors have filed an even bigger lawsuit, seeking additional concessions from the city.

Monday June 30
MSM:

•More on the ACLU lawsuit and security fence around protestors at the DNC:

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.

Blogs:

•Hillary Clinton will decide if, when Bill Clinton will speak at the DNC.

Sunday June 29
MSM:

•Careful where you take those photos--181 "terrorist liaison officers" are watching for suspicious activity, including shooting photos and video with "no apparent aesthetic value" (which would be true of all coverage of moonbats)--and will, no doubt, be in operation during the DNC:

Future terrorism "is going to be noticed earliest at the most local level," said Robert Riegle, director of state and local programs for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington.

Civil liberties watchdogs warn of unprecedented new threats to privacy.

"The problem is, you're drafting individuals whose job isn't law enforcement to spy on ordinary Americans and report their activities to the government," said John Verdi, director of the open-government project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

In Colorado, TLOs report not only illegal but legal activity, such as bulk purchases along Colorado's Front Range of up to 150 disposable cellphones. TLO supervisors said these bulk buys were suspicious because similar phones are used as remote detonators for bombs overseas and can be re-sold to fund terrorism.

Taking photos or videos can be deemed suspicious because "surveillance is a precursor to terrorist activity," said Colorado State Patrol Sgt. Steve Garcia, an analyst in Colorado's intelligence fusion center south of Denver, which handles TLO-supplied information.

•Rocky Mountain News--city should hold Tent State to the 11 conditions set forth in its "conditional" permit to hang out in City Park:

Denver needs to take a firm stand in negotiations with the anti-war group Tent State University.

The student-run organization recently received a conditional assembly permit to bring potentially thousands of protesters to Denver and set up a tent city in a corner of City Park during the Democratic National Convention. But one of their leaders seems less than thoroughly committed to abiding by the terms of the deal.

How many protesters might participate isn't clear. The permit sets aside space to accommodate 20,000, but Tent State organizer Adam Jung says he wants to bring 50,000 here. Such talk may be nothing more than PR, but that's why as negotiations move forward, "conditional" is the term to remember.

The city expects - as it should - the Tent Staters to abide by all 11 conditions set forth by the Parks and Recreation Department in an order it issued June 20.

Among them: No camping. No alcohol. Get the approval of neighborhood associations, the Denver Zoo and the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. Make sure PA systems for music and other performances don't disturb the neighbors. Provide portable toilets, drinking water and trash collection for the site.

In other words, satisfy the same expectations any group hoping to bring a large number of people to occupy a major portion of a Denver park would have to meet.

We're not confident Tent State can meet those goals. Indeed, Jung told the Rocky that he hopes for flexibility. Perhaps the city could provide outhouses and churches and nearby residents could offer their showers, he said. As for camping, which is prohibited by ordinance in City Park: "If we have to figure out a way to remove all of these people at 10 or 11 at night," Jung said, "it becomes very problematic."

Saturday June 28

Blogs:

•Drunkablog--apparently not even DNC delegates are buying into the convention's moonbatty "carbon credit challenge."

•Drunkablog--AP's writers can't count; Recreate '68 still "not exclusionary" despite everyone's reluctance to discuss the group or plans for the DNC (and everyone has a "little bit of magic inside them" according to R 68's Glenn Spagnuolo--oh, and fluffy bunnies, colorful rainbows, and unicorns)

Friday June 27
MSM:

•Barack Obama responds to Ralph Nader's comments; rules for Denver city workers released--what they can and can't do during the DNC; Denver cabbies promise "smooth ride" for DNC.

Blogs:

•Drunkablog's daily DNC roundup--non-credentialed DNC bloggers will have a second opportunity to rub elbows with the high and mighty in the Leftosphere--including Kos--at "The Big Tent"; MSM types are quite unhappy about their proximity to the unwashed masses of protestors in Lot A next to the Pepsi Center; some moonbats are worried about CIA plants and government infiltration into groups like Recreate '68 for the purpose of promoting violence and discrediting the protestors; the Colorado delegation to the DNC has a little politically correct quota management to take care of--wait for it--too many men!

•More on "The Big Tent"; proximity of protestors and MSM types (including pictures, maps); DNC "podium guy" retires.

Thursday June 26
MSM:

•While the DNC has been bombarded with volunteers in Denver, the RNC is having some difficulty rounding up volunteers in Minnesota.

•Ralph Nader: Obama trying to "talk white."

Blogs:

•Drunkablog--no "pointed sticks," gas masks, projectile launchers, or, um, "giant puppets" in Arapahoe County, with possible plans to extend a similar prohibition in Denver for the convention; Denver ~~submits to ACLU's request~~ releases a "redacted" copy of its ~~inmate torture handbook~~ jail manual.

•Drunkablog's daily DNC roundup--you can have organic or unionized products at the DNC, but not both.

•DNC "Convention Captains" announced.

•Denver Congresscritter Diana DeGette launches series of online videos--"Denver's Finest"--to assist attendees and delegates to the DNC.

Wednesday June 25
MSM:

•Barack Obama's sister stumped for the Dems' candidate in Denver.

Blogs:

•Drunkablog's daily DNC roundup--Tent State's leader is just a humble Missouri farm boy; the city will be getting $50 million from the Feds to offset security costs (including some very specialized equipment; and more on the "cultural events" planned for the convention.

•More on the $50 million for DNC security (it took Boston 2 years to be reimbursed).

All previous Daily Digests can be found here.

Guest Column: Supreme Court Unleashes Legal Beast To Trouble Colorado's 2nd District

2008-06-30T11:47:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

I have never liked campaign finance reform laws. The notion that one can take the influence of money completely out of politics seems, at best, woefully naive and, at worst, ridiculously absurd. Nonetheless, in so many ways our lawmakers and activists continue to try. After they finish attempting to put all sorts of fetters on the evil beast of our political system, the Supreme Court inevitably comes by and proceeds to cut about half the restraints. Of course, this simply creates a very angry beast that has to lurch clumsily about using only one leg and one arm. And people wonder why campaign regulations are always such a disaster. Well, the Supreme Court has, yet again, taken its judicial scissors to the latest Congressional fetter: the Millionaire Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). And yes, the beast is already crashing about angrily.

Let me try to sum up the bizarre laws at issue in very brief terms. Between the meddling of Congress and the stilted reasoning of the Court, the government may impose limits on how much money people may contribute to any given campaign, but not on how much money the campaigns can spend. Also, there is no limit to how much an individual candidate can contribute to his campaign. The reason for this is that money is speech. Contributions may be limited because they still express the message of support for a candidate but, in being limited, also prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. However, the candidate is free to use as much of his own speech/money to promote his cause as he wants. To limit that would be to limit his speech too directly.

Naturally, this creates an advantage for rich candidates. They can spend their own money without limit while a poorer candidate, who may have rich friends, cannot get as much money out of those friends because of the campaign contribution limits. Thus, Congress passed the so called Millionaire Amendment so that if a rich candidate used enough of his own money, the contribution limits for the poorer candidate would be near tripled while the contribution limits for the richer candidate would remain the same. This would continue until the two candidates had eliminated the financial difference between them.

Now, though, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, has declared in Davis v. Federal Election Commission that this balancing scheme is unconstitutional. Apparently, this imbalance does not directly limit speech, but creates a substantial penalty for a rich candidate who chooses to exercise his right to speech robustly (i.e. spend a lot of his own money and trigger the provisions of the amendment). Thus, the Court has declared that the law must go.

Naturally, the government has objected that this means that rich candidates will once again have a huge advantage in elections given the contribution limits. The Court is aware of this. However, Justice Alito reminds us all that it was Congress who created this problem in the first place with its bizarre attempts to regulate campaign contributions. Congress also has the power to fix this situation. He recommends:

If the normally applicable limits on individual contributions and coordi nated party contributions are seriously distorting the electoral process, if they are feeding a “public perception that wealthy people can buy seats in Congress,” Brief for Appellee 34, and if those limits are not needed in order to combat corruption, then the obvious remedy is to raise or eliminate those limits. But the unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.

In my own humble opinion, Congress would be well advised to adopt Justice Kennedy’s recommendations from his dissenting opinion in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). He pointed out that all of these attempts to limit the flow of money just serve to create problems or push it underground where there is virtually no accountability or transparency (such as 527 groups). Thus, he suggests that, rather than limiting contributions or expenditures, Congress should simply require that all contributions be reported and made public. Certainly, the internet is more than capable of providing instant access to this information for anyone who wants to know. In that way, the public could judge for themselves whether a candidate was too beholden to any particular donor or interest group and vote accordingly. Now there is a novel thought: trusting the voters to make decisions themselves.

For those of you interested in what the dissent had to say, Justice Stevens seems to think there is nothing at all wrong with this imbalanced scheme. Indeed, he goes so far as to contend that Congress should limit both contributions and expenditures. It seems he feels that if the campaigns were forced to spend less, then the quality of their message would be forced to improve and he would not have to ensure watching so many of these annoying and repetitious political advertisements on television any longer. It is rare that a Justice so plainly expresses his personal opinions and tastes as a matter of law. Preventing the Court from being populated by others who feel at liberty to do so may be the single most important reason to elect John McCain as our next president—despite the fact that he is partially responsible for saddling us with these nightmarish campaign laws in the first place.

In the meantime, we shall watch the beast of our current system flail about in the 2nd Congressional district where the millionaire idiot author of Colorado’s ethics debacle, Jared Polis, just triggered the now unconstitutional amendment and his opponents, Joan Fitz-Gerald and Will Shafroth, are left without the benefit of the increased contribution limits it would have provided them.

Colorado Senate 2008: Schaffer/Udall Updates

2008-06-30T07:25:00.001-06:00

At Schaffer v Udall, a Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 project, you'll find out:

•Why Mark Udall welched on an online debate to be co-moderated by SvU and liberal blogger and all-around stand-up guy David Thielen (one of the few), after Bob Schaffer had already agreed to the blog-centric showdown.

•How you can submit questions to the candidates for their first televised debate on July 14.

•What the connection is between Mark Udall's wife and a group launching attacks on her husband's Senate rival.

•Where Udall really stands on gun control--before he was against it.

Blogger Ross Kaminsky of Rossputin.com has unraveled the early attacks on Bob Schaffer in a series of posts:

This is the first in a series of articles responding to three front-page articles in the Denver Post by reporter Michael Riley which attack former Congressman and current Senate candidate Bob Schaffer for a fact-finding trip Schaffer took to the Northern Marianas Islands (“CNMI”) in 1999.

Ross is up to part 6--here are the links:
Part 1
2
3
4
5
6

Blogs4Borders Video Blogburst 063008

2008-06-30T06:20:00.000-06:00

Freedom Folks has this week's edition of Blogs4Borders.

Guest Column: On Heller

2008-06-28T19:12:00.003-06:00

**Note--this should have been posted yesterday, but was left as a "draft" (and that's why it starts out with "Today")--EP

Today, virtually every newspaper and broadcaster across the nation has been trumpeting the news that we have a newly expressed fundamental freedom: an individual right to keep and bear arms, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in The District of Columbia v. Heller. If you woke up this morning breathing a bit easier and feeling a little more free, that is why. What every article and story will tell you is that the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban. However, most stories seem to be missing two important points: the opinion was quite funny, and it went a lot further than people seem to be grasping.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. To read his opinion is to be transported back to grade school, listening to your teacher patiently instruct you on basic grammar. If you ever wondered what use it was to learn all those annoying rules governing punctuation, Scalia will be happy to explain how one of your basic rights rests upon the use of three commas in the Second Amendment.

The amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Throughout, the opinion, Scalia expounds on the use of those commas, the differences between prefatory and operative clauses, and even goes so far as to dissect and rearrange the Amendment as a grammar school teacher might demonstrate to his students while diagramming sentences. Remember those sentence diagrams? He then instructs us as to the differences between singular and plural, the use of verbs and their objects, modifiers, prepositions, and idiomatic usage. English teachers everywhere should be rejoicing.

In the footnotes, scattered throughout, one can imagine that Teacher Scalia has just been interrupted during lecture by a question from a student-a particularly annoying little boy who bears a strong resemblance to a miniature Justice Stevens. Scalia, like any good teacher, generally responds by patiently explaining why his pupil's assumptions are mistaken. Occasionally though, like all good teachers driven to distraction by particularly annoying students, Scalia offers a sharp rebuke, openly speculating as to whether Justice Stevens might have leapt through the looking glass to study law with the Mad Hatter. He also describes Stevens' grasp of the English language as "dead wrong," "an absurdity," and "grotesque." Judging from Scalia's remarks, by the time I got to the dissent I was expecting to find near illiterate ravings.

For example, here is a small sample of the opinion as Scalia responded to Stevens' contention that "bear arms" did not just mean "to carry weapons or armor" but "to carry weapons in a military context."

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

He also remarks that:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

In any case, Scalia manages to save the English language from being tortured and ravaged by Justice Stevens. As a result, we now have a solidly expressed individual right to keep and bear arms defined by a most amusing opinion. We have quite a bit more than that too.

Most articles are reporting that Scalia's opinion preserves gun control laws regarding schools, certain public places, and bans on automatic weapons. This is not precisely true. The opinion simply states that those items were not at issue before the Court and will therefore be presumed to be valid until specifically contested. Yet the Court just issued a very broad embrace of an individual right to keep and bear arms, especially in the interest of self defense. Moreover, it also adopted, as a standard for protected weaponry, that which is "in common use at the time." The only limit the Court articulated was to say that, "that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

In the dicta, Scalia acknowledged that, as standard issue for our infantry, M-16s might be protected. However, as they are not commonly used by the citizenry, they might not be protected. As he points out toward the end of the opinion, the Court only expressed a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. He openly invites further lawsuits to help determine just how far that right may go-much to the chagrin of the dissenting Justices who rightly see a flurry of litigation coming and the probable overturning of a good number of longstanding regulations.

This is an exciting time, the first formal expression of a right we have had for 200 years. I look forward to seeing how we develop this right. In the meantime, teachers, you now have solid evidence which to prove to your truculent students that good grammar can lead to greater freedom.

Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

From The Frontlines--Join Michelle Malkin For Troop Care Package Web-A-Thon

2008-06-26T22:09:00.000-06:00

**DO NOT tip my PayPal jar if you want to donate to "From the Frontlines"--head on over to Michelle's place to hit up the right donation place--all inadvertent PayPal tips received today WILL BE FORWARDED to "From the Frontlines"

**Sticky Post**

Starting 2pm MDT--Michelle Malkin has issued a challenge in a "web-a-thon" for the troops:

’ll be in beautiful Mountain View, CA all day today for “From the Frontlines,” our ground-breaking web-a-thon for the troops. Move America Forward’s Melanie Morgan and I will go live on Ustream.TV and right here at MichelleMalkin.com (as well as at HotAir.com) at 4pm Eastern/1pm Pacific. (Just hit the play button on the embedded video player above when showtime arrives; if you’d like to join the live chatroom, make sure to register at UStream beforehand!) I’ll be updating this post all day as I liveblog the event from UStream’s studios. Thanks to all our fellow bloggers who’ve helped spread the word!

We’ve got a star-studded line-up of troops, military charities, celebs, and talk radio stars — from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to Dr. Laura and Laura Ingraham to musician John Ondrasik and “Lone Survivor” author and Navy SEAL hero Marcus Luttrell — who’ll be joining us in our eight-hour marathon fund-raising drive to help send the largest number of care packages in history to our men and women in uniform serving overseas.

Liberty Prevails--2nd Amendment Lives!

2008-06-26T08:53:00.005-06:00

Narrowly, no thanks to the liberals on the court.

Hot Air has an excellent roundup and analysis on the 5-4 decision.

New RMA 2.0 blogger Steven M. Nielson of The New Conservative has even more.

Democratic National Convention Countdown, No. 62

2008-06-24T21:25:00.001-06:00

Democratic National Convention Daily Digest and Open Thread
Tuesday June 24, 2008--No. 62

MSM:

•DNC will be simulcast in Spanish for the first time ever, via Comcast.

Blogs:

•20K protestors led by Tent State will assemble in City Park (with permit), but no overnight camping (illegal) will be allowed.

•Protestors near Pepsi Center will be peering out through a wire mesh fence.

•Drunkablog--Younger generation of activists with plans for the DNC nauseatingly featured in the Post, with CodePink's Zoe Williams and Tent State's Adam Jung.

•Drunkablog--Students for a Democratic Society reaffirm their "non-violent" plans to disrupt the DNC.

•Drunkablog--Recreate '68 unhappy that new parade permits won't include routes of the group's own choosing.

All previous Daily Digests can be found here.

20K Anti-War Protestors Plot DNC Camp Out At City Park

2008-06-24T20:23:00.003-06:00

There's just one snag--they can't stay past 11pm--but first the moonbats from Tent State discuss the small city they are hoping will arrive in Denver:

Neighbors are bracing for 20,000 anti-war protesters planning a five-day camp in City Park during the Democratic National Convention.

The city issued an assembly permit for Tent State University to bring the tribe of college kids from across the country for an "alternative university" Aug. 24-28 in the southwest corner of the park.

"Come to Denver to end a war!" declares the Web site for Tent State University, which describes itself as "a a positive, youth-led initiative to fund education instead of war."

Tent State will be a staging area "to experience real democracy" and DNC protests and it will be a campus for "classrooms" teaching nonviolent antiwar tactics and strategies, the Web site says.

But organizers have to iron out some big kinks before they can pitch the tent city just two months from now.

While city statement said the permit is for "approximately 20,000 participants," chief Tent State organizer Adam Jung said he dreams of luring up to 50,000 protesters if he locks up hot music acts ranging from political hip-hop to Southern honky tonk.

Honky Tonk?

Now for that pesky city law that might put a crimp in their plans:

The hang-up: Overnight camping is illegal in the park.

That means each night, thousands of protesters could be forced to exit the park by 11 p.m., roaming the city for places to sleep. Jung says there's not enough nearby hotel rooms at prices college students can afford.

"It's not a camp out," said City Councilwoman Carla Madison, whose district includes the 314-acre park, home to Denver Zoo, a golf course, tennis courts, a lake with paddle boating, and popular music and arts festivals.

"The park closes at 11 p.m. and they have to be gone," she said.

But if you think that the city is planning a hard-line application of its laws, then think again. More negotiations and "dialogue" are planned:

"Now, don't ask me how it's really going to shake out," Madison added. "But that's the way it's going to be: that they can put their tents up, but they can't camp out in them."

Organizer Jung is hopeful that ongoing negotiations with city officials will allow the group to camp overnight at the park.

"We've met with the mayor and we've met with police officials and they're very reasonable people," said Jung, a 28-year-old, raised in a Missouri farm family who hopes to draw people from across the political spectrum to the tent city. I think the city is open to it.

"Our main argument is, if people are allowed to camp, is that we retain control over the entire event," he said. "We're bringing in professional security, so we can direct the energy and we can keep it safe and ... a very positive event."

But, he added, "If we have to figure out a way to remove all of these people at 10 or 11 at night, it becomes very problematic."

"That's what happened in Chicago," Jung said, referring to the 1968 Democratic National Convention's notorious clashes between Vietnam War protesters and Chicago riot police.

Recreate '68 in City Park. At least it will be a scenic riot.

Also with "professional security." That should go well.

Denver: DNC Protest Area To Have "Wire Mesh Fence"

2008-06-23T20:45:00.005-06:00

To keep the moonbats at bay, the Democratic National Convention security plan includes a "wire mesh fence" of an undisclosed height to surround the protestors over in Lot A at the Pepsi Center.

Essentially another of those non-update updates that releases a crumb of information--followed by more whining from Glenn Spagnuolo of Recreate '68:

City officials released a few more details Monday for groups that want to protest outside the Pepsi Center during the Democratic National Convention, including the fact a wire mesh fence will be used to mark the protest area.

But other key components — including what portion of the parking lot will be designated for protest groups and how high the fence will be — were not disclosed. However, the city said it didn't plan on topping the wire mesh fence.

And then there was the issue of the marching route for protest groups and how far away it would be from the Pepsi Center during the convention Aug. 25-28.

Apparently, it was far enough to bring howls of protest from some of the protest groups.

"New York City let us march right in front of Madison Square Garden. I could put my foot on the first step," said Glenn Spagnuolo of Recreate 68. "If New York can let 600,000 people march in front of Madison Square Garden, then they should let 25,000 people march in front of the Pepsi Center."

But city officials assured protest groups that delegates going to and from the Pepsi Center during the convention would be within earshot of protestors and that there would be plenty of other chances for protestors to speak out throughout the city.

Not enough, apparently.

**Update--more details, via the Post:

There will be "wire mesh fencing" but the city "does not anticipate topping the fence," which was a major point of dispute at the 2004 convention in Boston, where razor wire topped the protest area.

More details below from the city of Denver's statement...

- Permits are not required to enter or use the public viewing area.

- Persons using the public viewing area will be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, or conversely may be subject to search and seizure, under Constitutional standards.

- No one will be allowed to obstruct the public viewing area in a way that would prevent free use of the area by others.

- The public viewing area will be open to the public, subject to laws that apply to public areas, including juvenile curfew laws and laws that govern overnight camping in parks and on any public right-of-way.

No worries. The moonbats will camping everywhere else.

Drunkablog--unfailingly--has a roundup and photos of the to-be-enmeshed Lot A, where the ~~animals in a zoo~~ moonbats will be "contained" within "earshot" of the delegates at the Pepsi Center.

Climate Change Blasphemy Must Be Prosecuted Says NASA Scientist

2008-06-23T18:36:00.002-06:00

It always amazes me to see how people view the legal system. Dr. James Hansen, vaguely referred to by The Guardian as one of the world's leading climate scientists (presumably due to the fact that he becomes hysterical more swiftly than the others), now thinks we should prosecute oil company executives for, "high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming."

Last time I checked, expressing doubt as to any theory, and then trying to disprove that theory, was part of the scientific method--not a violation of the criminal code. But never mind that, we have important criminal accusations to consider.

So, what are crimes against humanity and nature anyway? Article 7 § 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:

any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Strangely, it says nothing about climate at all. Even if it did, Global Warming might be widespread, but could hardly be called a systematic attack upon any civilian population by oil company executives from the lawful operation of their businesses.

That leaves crimes against nature. Crimes against nature are not international crimes at all. They are generally part of state law. They forbid things like masturbation, oral sex, and sodomy. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), most of the so called crimes against nature are unconstitutional as they violate our fundamental right to privacy. Of course, bestiality and necrophilia are both still forbidden, but Global Warming just does not seem to fit into this category does it? Then again, perhaps it does.

It seems the oil companies have violated neither international nor domestic law with their pernicious doubts about Global Warming. Of course, this is not the real problem here. The particular criminal charge does not matter so long as we can find one that will work to silence these doubters once and for all.

Generally speaking, true scientists want a lot of doubt expressed about their theories. They want the whole scientific community to have a go at them, and, if they still stand up, undamaged, at the end of the day the whole world is likely to embrace them. Such is not the case with Global Warming, though. Almost any rational person can manage to find considerable holes in the Global Warming theories. A scientist would say this means it requires more research and study.

Dr. Hansen and his ilk, however, remind us that this is about more than just science or law: it is about moral goodness. More research and more study takes time. Persuading lawmakers to act takes even longer. But we know what is evil now. Global Warming is evil. Those who doubt it are evil. There are many of them out there—doubting—and they are getting away with it!

There was once a time when our legal system would have accommodated such thinking. Indeed, both Church and State tried for a long while to prosecute irritating “doubters” for insufficient belief. Back then, though, we did not use those words. Instead, we used words like Inquisition, heretics, and blasphemy. The system had a splendid effect upon morality, but apparently science lagged a bit. We called that time the Dark Ages. Ironically, today, any government that tried to manage belief in such a way would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. See supra, Article 7 § 1(h).

Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Democratic National Convention Countdown, No. 65, 64, 63

2008-06-23T12:54:00.007-06:00

Democratic National Convention Daily Digest and Open Thread
Saturday June 21, Sunday June 22 and Monday June 23, 2008--No. 65, 64, 63

MSM:

•Need an autograph for your favorite liberal friend? The DNC will host a slew of liberal/progressive authors, and a Presidential exhibit that includes a recreation of the Oval Office from Clinton's administration (um, ewww), a limo, Air Force One mockup, and other Presidential paraphernalia. But about those authors:

The working list of authors to stop by for book signings during the four-day DNC includes Madeleine Albright, Maya Angelou, Jimmy Carter, Stephen Colbert, Maureen Dowd, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, Al Franken, Newt Gingrich, Al Gore, Bill Moyers, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Reich, Frank Rich, Cokie Roberts and Donald Shriver.

How'd Gingrich get in there?

•With private donations seemingly unable to close the gap for the Democratic National Convention fundraising efforts, the DNCC is looking to corporations to make up the difference.

•More DNC celebrity rumors and sightings.

•Catering to the DNC crowd "still up in the air."

Blogs:

•Mount Virtus--A Denver teacher contract and union labor battle could spice up the Democratic National Convention in August.

All previous Daily Digests can be found here.

Blogs4Borders Video Blogburst 062308

2008-06-23T11:15:00.002-06:00

Freedom Folks has the latest edition.

Democratic National Convention Countdown, No. 66: Parade-A-Palooza, Hollywood "Intellectuals"

2008-06-20T14:14:00.005-06:00

Democratic National Convention Daily Digest and Open Thread
Friday June 20, 2008--No. 66

Blogs:

DNC Parade-A-Palooza--everyone that wanted a permit to march from 11am-3pm during the convention got their wish, though the grumbling over the route hasn't subsided. Also, Mike Rosen lets us know how he really feels about Recreate '68 and the other protesting moonbats.

The "Creative Coalition"--Hollywoods "brightest" liberals will hold forth on issues "topical" to the convention--including such intellectual luminaries as Quentin Tarantino, Spike Lee, Susan Sarandon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Neil Patrick Harris, Dana Delany, Barry Levinson, Matthew Modine, Alan Cumming, Cheryl Hines, Rachael Leigh Cook and Wendie Malick.

Raising money for the DNC really is important--the DNC volunteer coordinator resigned--"not empowered to do my job."

All previous Daily Digests can be found here.