Weaponizing the First Amendment with the Politics of Resentment!

Democrats would be wise to work "resentment" into their discussions of what should be a winning American agenda. I wrote about it here, based on an incredible tweet storm by Republican Bruce Bartlett. It was a blog post that got almost no views. I guess Democrats already knew this stuff.

I'm not kidding...resentment, resentment, resentment!!! Please, it works. Scott Walker reversed a century and a half of progress with it. From NPR/WPR's Fresh Air, and edited to feature "resentment:"



Republicans are now using RESENTMENT for everything...it's the new "uncertainty." 

1. Big Monied Conservatives Higher Calling...and Spending: It's no secret that big monied conservatives are now using the courts to weaponize the First Amendment with the politics of resentment, openly using it to justify "dark money." Would I kid you?

Donor disclosure to the IRS "can easily be abused to suppress First Amendment rights," said David Keating, president of the anti-regulation Institute for Free Speech.

"Citizens shouldn't fear harassment or persecution over their beliefs," said Nathan Nascimento of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a business association that's a financial hub of the Koch brothers' political network.

Mitch McConnell said the new rules would prevent Americans from being "bullied for exercising their First Amendment rights."

...resulting in this jaw-dropping administrative rule:

Dark Money Rules: The Trump administration has weakened a donor disclosure rule for tax-exempt groups, possibly letting more foreign cash into U.S. politics. Under the new rules 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) business associations will not (have to disclose donors). Critics call these groups, which are sometimes used by secretive political funds, "dark money."

The voting public left and right ended up being road kill over the issue of money in politics, which they are firmly against...

 Limit campaign spending.

But it's still okay because these dark money groups - like the NRA now a Russian front group and the US Chamber of Commerce...are all on the right:

The 501(c)(4) social welfare groups have been a rising force in politics, especially on the right. There is also a smattering of heavily financed 501(c)(6) business associations in politics, again on the right.

Heck, it's not written in the IRS code, so why create a supposed "national database." Russian influence over our elections? Who cares. From NPR, the whole story:



The First Amendment and Free Speech: So let's wipe out any and all control we ever had over our government.

2. Allowing foreign nations to attack candidates in U.S. elections because they too have free speech rights?

Politico: Why Banning Russian Facebook Ads Might Be Impossible: Conservative judges are skeptical of regulating foreign interference in our elections, citing free-speech concerns. Will the Supreme Court toss out Senate efforts to crack down? 

A three-judge court construed the statute barring foreign election spending to apply only to express advocacy ... it had to read the statute this way thanks to another Roberts Court opinion, which held that reading the issue advocacy test broadly would violate the First Amendment.

Make no mistake, resentment based on “victimization” is also now registering off the Richter scale since Trump legitimized hate speech. These mouth drooling Trump dependent worshippers really do think racist and bigoted epithets are protected free speech rights, and that every other protected freedom pales in comparison or disappears completely.

You wouldn't be partisan to say these beliefs are only a characteristic of the repressed and fearful conservatives now holding the reigns of government because they've got the supposed higher political calling.

3. The stacked bought-and-paid-for conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court upheld a professor's free speech rights to publish the personal information and email of an ideological opponent and student teacher so others could harass and threaten her. And he did it twice:

As the University explained: "The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages."

The following example is just a courthouse argument away from redefining the First Amendment in our conservative stacked judicial system based on the Federalist Society's concept of "originalism:"

California student claims he’s a victim after losing his athletic scholarship for shouting homophobic slurs at civil rights protesters. Bronson Harmon attended California Polytechnic State University on a wrestling scholarship, which was rescinded after viral videos showed him using anti-LGBT slurs while marching with his father, reported The Tribune. “Saying what I said is definitely not the right thing. I still feel like my freedom of speech was taken away, and I don’t think my scholarship should have been revoked over something like that” ... is shown flipping off a demonstrator and screaming, “F*ck you, f*ggot.” Another video shows Harmon shouting “Trump 2020” at protesters. The Harmons and a friend also started a fight with demonstrators, according to police.

Harmon blames the demonstrators for his use of the homophobic slur. “I totally regret it. I got caught up in the heat of the moment. I was there to peacefully protest the things that we believe, and people were harassing us, spitting on us and calling us Nazis.”

Candidate Nicholson trashes parents for maxing out donations to Tammy Baldwin!

Free speech and the First Amendment has been weaponized by the Trump Party. Not only is it being used to spread bigotted racist hate speech, but it's also been transformed from the traditional verbal/written speech into money.  

There are even different rules for Democrats, who should not be allowed to spend money on campaigns because they're doing it for all the wrong reasons...it's right there in the originalist reading of the First Amendment I think.

Democratic voter spending "Represents Intolerance:" Senate candidate Kevin Nicholson blasted his own parent's free speech right, describing their support and donations to Sen. Tammy Baldwin as a “representation of the intolerance” in the Democratic Party...all because they gave the max amount? Don't tell Koch's or Adelson:

The Hill: Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Kevin Nicholson slammed his own parents for making the “maximum contribution” of $2,700 to his Democratic opponent in a fiery editorial published by Fox News on Monday ... accused his parents ...
“My parents have since turned their back on me, my wife, their grandchildren, and their extended family,” Nicholson wrote in the editorial. He pointed to his parents' donation as a “representation of the intolerance” in the Democratic Party.

“Adding to this, they decided to make the maximum contribution to my Democrat opponent in my campaign for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, an intentional personal blow that made headlines across the country. It was deliberate – and it is a true representation of the intolerance of a political philosophy that stands on the false platform of tolerance.”

To Republicans, NFL Football a welcome relief from the suffocating demands of Free Speech.

It looks like Trump is winning the NFL kneeling debate? That was the text I got from my conservative friend in Milwaukee, bragging about the decline in NFL ticket sales. What about Trump hurting another American businesses bottom line. Go patriotism.

But flag waving nationalism should scare us, and I'm horrified it doesn't. Dictators thrive on this kind of stuff. My conservative friend said he doesn't want the politics, but that's like say you don't want the First Amendment during football. These are "cafeteria constitutionalists," who often talk about being strict constructionists, all the while defending an imagined "respect the flag" requirement.

He also sent me this phony patriotic gem by Fulton Homes, standing up for those hard fought freedoms they now want to take away:



GOP Worship of Statues and Symbols Exposed: Flag pins and car magnets supporting veterans were the early symptoms of a bigger problem, phony patriotism. So the time was right for a flaming nationalist bigot and racist like Trump to ignite a nationalist fire that would rage out of control for decades to come.

Disrespect? Are Americans really this Stupid? The most troubling part? That so many people think there's an acceptable time and a place for the 1st Amendment. I say give up your season tickets and let real fans and families fill the stands, especially Trumpian Packer ticket holders.



or what about the two high school football players tossed of their team by their Marine veteran coach, who never really got the whole concept of fighting for our freedom:

Sophomore Cedric Ingram-Lewis and his cousin Larry McCullough were kicked off their team at Victory & Praise Christian Academy, the Houston Chronicle reported. The pair didn't play in the Friday night game for their private church-affiliated football program in the Houston suburb Crosby.

or

Republicans in Wisconsin made it mandatory for high school graduates to take a civics test. Phony patriotism, sure, but ironically something we apparently desperately need...for Republicans:

When we asked fans if the controversy would make them more or less supportive of the NFL, 71% said less and only 15% said more. Of those who said they are now less supportive, 74% said their change of heart was permanent, and only 3% said they felt it was temporary. Public attitudes are fickle, and it’s entirely possible boredom with the issue — or terrifically exciting football — could make people forget before long. The NFL, after all, has faced other disturbing issues that didn’t seem to dent its popularity.

 I thought the response below spelled it out perfectly:

"I can't walk past the television screen, news or sports, without seeing this on the bottom line; "NFL players protest anthem."  It is amazing to get a fact error in a four word headline."

Never mind Trump bashed the flag waving ritual back in 2014...his breathless followers still don't feel duped:

Trump shreds Freedom of Press with dangerous attack on CNN!

The Democrats rarely mention how Trump's attack on the press is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Democrats appear to have ceded all interpretations to "originalists" and "constitutional conservative" extremists on the right.  

Trump's CNN Threat: There's nothing funny or presidential about Trump's latest assault on the press, with the juvenile attack on CNN shown below. Nothing promotes violence or deadly force than Trump's dangerous tweet:



White House Homeland Security Adviser and kiss ass Thomas Bossert's clueless indifference and Trump adoration is so breathtaking...it's beyond words. Republican strategist Ana Navarro sounded the alarm better than anyone...and no, really she's a Republican. The Democrats need to sound like this, on everything. A must see, from ABC’s “This Week”...

Thomas Bossert: “There’s a lot of cable new shows that reach directly into hundreds of thousands of viewers and they’re really not all very fair to the president. So I’m proud of the president for developing a Twitter and a social media platform where he can talk directly to the American people. 

In fact, he’s the most genuine president and the most non-politician president that we’ve seen in my lifetime. And he’s demonstrated ― whatever the content of that particular tweet is or any tweet ― he’s demonstrated a genuine ability to communicate to the people. I think that no one would perceive that as a threat. I hope they don’t. I do think that he’s beaten up in a way on cable platforms that he has a right to respond to.”

Republican Ana Navarro: "(Trump) is going to get somebody killed in the media. Maybe that will stop him. I am disappointed beyond belief by the answer that the homeland security adviser just gave. What a wuss. What a wuss. You could see that he is ceding his principles. You are the homeland security adviser and you can’t stand here and say the difference between right and wrong."

WTF!!! ACLU backs away from challenging GOP shredding First Amendment with "Free Speech" Bill.

Well, that's that. What seemed like an easy one was allowed to slip by....

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin criticized those punishments as “unnecessarily draconian,” and warned they could chill free speech on campus.

Republicans turning University of Wisconsin into Swill Hole for Right Wing Politics.

What's wrong with this statement about the UW free speech bill:

Opponents to the bill argue the changes would violate the free speech rights of students who want to protest campus speakers. 

What's wrong? The answer if pretty simple: This is unconstitutional, and violates the First Amendment, not just the rights of students on campus. Framing is everything. Anytime you mention "regulation" in the same sentence with "free speech," free speech is already a goner.

It's funny how the simplest most common sense regulation on handguns is a violation of our Second Amendment rights. But with speech, Republicans have no sense of guilt or hypocrisy. What follows is so broad that it defies logic:

Under the proposal, students who disrupt campus events at UW System schools could be expelled ... new rules for free speech and expression on system campuses. That includes penalties for people who disrupt free expression on campus by engaging in, "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct ... establish a special council in charge of disciplinary hearings when a student is accused of preventing someone from speaking or restricting their free expression. Anyone can report a student at one of the system's four-year or two-year colleges for violating the policies and a student would automatically be sent to a disciplinary hearing if reported twice.

This mind blowing ironic part...:

New students would be informed of the system's free expression policies and receive First Amendment training.

I know, stunning isn't it?

Have university officials threatened to challenge the law in court? Has anyone? Let me know in the comments section if anyone has stepped forward to challenge this state law.

Off Campus Speech as well: Check out this amazing Scott Walker explanation from Upfront with Mike Gousha from back in April of 2017:

Walker: "Whether it's against me or somebody else say, "I disagree," but disagreeing and even protesting is one thing ... But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong." To me a university...anywhere free speech should be upheld...but disrupting and shutting down as we've seen here in Wisconsin, but elsewhere across the country, shutting down the ability for someone to actually be heard is not free speech."

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

The right to be "heard" is not protected by the Constitution. But Walker wants to go beyond the Constitution, with "I just think that's wrong" as a standard, which is pretty much all it takes under an oppressive government. And who knew we could specifically select "anywhere free speech should be upheld?" Where are those other areas? I found a few in a previous post, here.

Republican Attack on the Left: Pure and simple, this is a politically motivated attack. The absolute arrogance of power allowed for this slip-up by the author of this bill:

Rep. Jesse Kremer, of Kewaskum, said ... the "elitist media" of "losing their minds over someone with a different opinion." Kremer said the "left's unhinged attacks" on his perspective — which he said included death threats and profanity-laden messages — demonstrated the need for his legislation. 

Associate Professor Dave Vanness tweeted:

Conservative Guest Speaker Con Game: As I've mentioned before, here, here, and more recently here, speaker controversies and protests are the best way to bolster that persons reputation and fees, so it's in their best interest to play it up and to feed their legend.

Plus with this bill, Republicans are conning us again, this time seeking taxpayer cash funding for conservative whack jobs via frivolous lawsuits brought by these "offended" speakers:

"Speakers who believe free speech rights are violated by UW could take school to court under Assembly bill."

Turning the University of Wisconsin into a Swill Hole for Right Wing Politics: The Journal Sentinel offered this incredibly insightful look at why this is happening in the first place, and it has nothing to do with free speech or their current rules for dealing with disruptive behavior:

Conservative foundations that for years have quietly given money to help student groups bring speakers to college campuses recently have been under scrutiny in the wake of speaker protests, suggesting the push for conservative views is from off-campus.

The Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in recent years has given Young America's Foundation tens of thousands of dollars for such activities as increasing the number of conservative-leaning campus events it sponsors, including in Wisconsin ... Young America's Foundation was making efforts to reach more students in the Midwest."

"This is balancing of the scales," said Donald Downs, who in the fall of 2006 co-founded the UW-Madison Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy.

"Liberal Democracy?" Here's a thought, see if you find anything "liberal" in the following description of Downs Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy:

The second mission relates specifically to the University of Wisconsin. It is to advance intellectual diversity at the University by taking ideas seriously that we believe have not always enjoyed sufficient respect on campus. Such ideas include the various strands of conservative political thought and libertarian thought, in addition to thought addressing religious liberty, foreign policy, and the role of the military in American society and on campus.

Wow, the role of the military in society and on campus, really?

I'll give this Democratic press release the final word:

State Representative Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) blasted Assembly Republicans Unconstitutional Bill Addressing Republican-Manufactured Crisis: 

“Once again, Republicans are making it abundantly clear that they only care about what’s happening on University of Wisconsin campuses when it suits them: when they’re a sounding board for what Republicans want to do, when they teach students what Republicans want to have taught, and when they promote values Republicans want to have promoted.”

Watching Oppressive Republicans dismantling free speech and freedom of the Press!!!

End of the First Amendment; Free Speech and Freedom of the Press: This says it all about what the Republicans Party has become.  

"Republican Greg Gianforte declared victory in Montana's special congressional election, barely a day after he was charged with misdemeanor assault following accusations that he (body) slammed a journalist to the ground. Gianforte: “It's unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ" ... it's another example of a candidate being rewarded by voters for behaving badly. So what's the incentive for good behavior?

Security Protection for the Press? Why not? Have you heard what Trump has said about them?

Meanwhile Trump racks up Security Costs:

Congress would allocate more than $120 million in additional money to help cover the escalating costs of protecting the Trump family and Trump Tower.

Shoot the Democratic Enemies of the State: And woe to anyone who disagrees with the Republicans authority; protests will not be tolerated, resistance is futile:

A Texas Republican threatened to “put a bullet in one of his colleague’s heads” during a scuffle on the House floor over the state’s new anti-‘sanctuary cities’ law. Representative Matt Rinaldi, R-Irving, made the comment to Democratic Representative Poncho Nevárez during a dispute that began when Rinaldi told two Hispanic lawmakers that he called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Senate Bill 4 protesters at the Capitol.

“I made it clear that if he attempted to, in his words, ‘get me,’ I would shoot him in self defense,” Rinaldi said. “I would shoot him in self defense. I am currently under DPS protection.” 

"Populist" Right Wing Authoritarians now need Protection from the Public? This isn't a new idea. Scott Walker played up "threats" (even created a few) during the massive protest in 2011, resulting in the elimination of open public forums. He now appears at closed corporate speaking engagements with captive employees:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that in 2013 taxpayers spent $2.23 million for the 10 state troopers who protect Walker and his family, GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and dignitaries from other states and countries who visit Wisconsin … up from $657,457 paid out by Walker’s predecessor, Democrat Jim Doyle during his last year in office in 2010. Walker’s security bill inched higher in 2014, to $2.3 million. A large part of the increase came because Walker had added five members to what is officially known as the Dignitary Protection Unit in the wake of the Act 10 protests. 

Security Protection for Right Wing Authoritarian Campus Speakers: The rise of white supremacist groups, gun rights militias, and anti-liberal Republicans are now getting the speaking time they've demanded for years, thanks to a Walker Republican bill to threaten severe punishment for University of Wisconsin campus student protests. Their work since the 60's might just pay off this time around:

A Republican campus speech bill requires University of Wisconsin System institutions to punish students who take part in disruptive protests … requiring universities to expel any student who violates the policy three times … students who engage in “violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others.”

Outright admission that conservatives deserve extra protections: Despite dominating government, our talk radio outlets, and churning out large numbers of conservative college students:

Republican members argued that their ideas are under fire on college campuses from left-leaning students and faculty, saying the legislation was needed to preserve open debate at UW institutions and protect the free speech rights of controversial speakers. Rep. Joan Ballweg, R-Markesan, said the bill would ensure “there is no idea or issue that will be shouted down in a public forum.”

It would chill free speech on campus and infringe on regents’ authority to govern their institutions themselves. “The very bones of this legislation are diseased,” said Democratic Rep. Jimmy Anderson.

“Don’t you see a concern about two left-wing or two right-wing students raising an issue with perceived activity by students attending an event?” Rep. Gary Hebl said. “Don’t you see the floodgates opening?” Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer asked Hebl if he had a better idea. Hebl responded that he couldn’t see any way to make the bill better.

Republican Rep. Travis Tranel told the committee he had heard from college students in his district that they’re afraid to express conservative views in class for fear the professor could dock their grades. Hebl and fellow Democrat Terese Bereceau both cut him off, challenging him to prove his anecdote was true. Hebl accused Tranel of making things up without any evidence, comparing him to Joe McCarthy.

Even Unconstitutional Repressive Laws can't be Criticized: If Republicans decided tomorrow to shred the Constitution and arrest every known liberal, UW system professors would be banned under penalty of law to say anything:

It also states that System institutions must “strive to remain neutral” on public policy controversies. 

Conservative groups could organize and systematically eliminate their opposition with ease:

Another amendment requires universities to launch an investigation and hold discipline hearings if they get two or more complaints alleging someone violated the policy.

Cities Next: Portland Republican says party should use militia groups after racial attack: 

The top Republican in the city said he is considering using militia groups as security for public events. James Buchal said: “Yeah. We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”

The Oath Keepers are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the US,” recruiting current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They have recently appeared at rallies from Berkeley to Boston. The Three Percenters are described by Political Research Associates as “a paramilitary group that pledges armed resistance against attempts to restrict private gun ownership.” They were a highly visible presence in Burns, Oregon, before and during the occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge by rightwing militia early in 2016.

James Buchal issued a statement in which he bemoaned a “criminal conspiracy to commit crimes of riot” ... lament(ing) “rising lawlessness” in Portland ... a video of Buchal addressing a Multnomah County Republican Central Committee meeting depicts Buchal making a fiery pro-Trump speech. He says of the President, “His enemies are my enemies and his enemies are all our enemies. Our enemies are more dangerous than ever. We are really in a life and death battle for the future of our society. And these globalist people are not going to give up. If we don’t tell out fellow citizens that there are these dark forces in the government, like the CIA and the shadow government, who are trying to take Trump down with lies, who is going to tell them?” 

Spencer Sunshine, an associate researcher at Political Research Associates who last year co-authored a major report on the growth of the far-right Patriot Movement in Oregon, said: “Consideration of the use of unaccountable, private paramilitary groups by one of the main political parties is a dangerous lurch to the far right.”

Rioting or Protesting? Authoritarian Republicans again take aim at Shredding 1st Amendment and Public Dissent.

The Republican war on protesters continues to morph into what can only be described as an authoritarian dictatorial one party state. Nope, I'm not being hyperbolic.

Shredding the 1st Amendment, again, Republican State Rep. John Spiros wants to kind of blur the line between "protesting" and "rioting." After all, who's to say what active loud protesters are doing exactly...maybe rioting, maybe protesting...find the right court, who knows. Depends on whether you want to arrest them, to send a message. ACLU where are you:

State Representative John Spiros (R-Marshfield) introduced a package of three bills that would seek to define the actions of a riot and provide a criminal penalty as well as provide a penalty for blocking traffic and/or carrying a firearm while rioting. 

What, a penalty for carrying a firearm...weren't guns supposed to make us safer. Guess that was an inadvertent slip of the truth, for once. 

These armed brave rugged "freedom and liberty" loving independent real Americans can't take the 1st Amendment heat from their constituents. Maybe people are angry over Republican policies? No, they just hate the fact they lost the election...: 

“I have been deeply affected by the news reports all around the country and in our own state of individuals who are seriously damaging property, creating general chaos, and threatening the safety of innocent bystanders with danger and in some cases, life threatening injuries. 

Fear of "the other" motivates Spiro to protect us against "outside" ideas that challenge the authority.

Under the lie that Republicans want to keep us safe...isn't that what guns/concealed carry was supposed to provide...protesters and/or rioters must be punished as felons. 

Rep. Spiros said, "Senator Wanggaard and I are introducing these bills to ensure our public remains safe from these sorts of actions, while protecting the right to peaceful assembly,” blah, blah, blah.

Riot or Protest? Hey, no problem here for the 1st Amendment because they said so: 

These anti-riot bills accomplish the following three goals: define a riot, prohibit carrying a firearm while rioting, and prohibit blocking traffic while rioting. Under these new laws:

1. Any individual who chose to participate in a riot; 

2. Carry a firearm during a riot;

3. Or block traffic during a riot would be subject to criminal penalties. 

And just in case you were worried about Republicans cracking down on your 1st Amendment rights, naw, they say there's nothing to worry about:

Rep. Spiros said, “These bills were intentionally crafted to protect both 1st and 2nd Amendment US Constitutional Rights, while providing law enforcement the proper tools to keep public safety and order. I believe it is important to protect our citizens and ensure civil liberties while punishing those who seek to cause harm and destruction." 

How'd we ever live without this crackdown? To use an often repeated Republican line..."can't we just enforce the laws we have on the books already?"

"We have a Moron for a President!" Just another Trump Monday.

There is so much to get to today that proves over and over again that the nation...no, the world, is at the mercy of the dumbest most reckless president in history, Donald Trump. We can thank Democratic voters too, who just took a chance, wanted to see what would happen, and who had a problem with Clinton's possible conflicts of interest...unlike anything Trump is getting away with now.

Just today these loosely related stories all made me want to just turn of the TV, radio, computer and burn the newspaper.

1. Trump's grasp of history is...well, "people don't realize, you know?"

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War...People don't ask that question. But why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

2. Or the massive press coverage over the revised Republican plan to let states opt out of covering preexisting conditions, a tip to the tea party Freedom Caucus, wasn't something Trump was aware of. Even my favorite author and conservative Norm Ornstein was uncharacteristically fed up:

“Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, ‘Pre-existing is not covered.’ Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, ‘Has to be.’”

3. Or Trump's war with the constitutionally protected free press. It was a real head turner hearing Reince Priebus admit that Trump was looking at ways to punish the press; change libel laws so anyone can sue the media out of existence. What's so crazy about that? 

4. Rubbing shoulders with brutal dictatorial leaders, many who have killed journalists, Trump is now inviting them to the White House, while criticizing and distancing himself from U.S. allies: 

Russia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Egypt, Turkey, the former Ukraine, Georgia, are concrete examples. What do these regimes have in common? They have ‘elected’ leaders. That’s the democratic part. Virtually every other aspect of their governance structure looks a lot like authoritarianism run rampant.

President Donald Trump has invited Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to the White House "to discuss the importance of the United States-Philippines alliance," according to a White House readout of the leaders' phone call on Saturday.

"It was a very friendly conversation. President Trump enjoyed the conversation and said that he is looking forward to visiting the Philippines in November to participate in the East Asia Summit and the U.S.-ASEAN Summit."

Duterte is a controversial and polarizing leader with a deadly and ruthless reputation. Since taking office last year, he has been outspoken in his support of extrajudicial killings of thousands of citizens accused of dealing or using drugs. His crackdown on suspected drug dealers and users has left nearly 2,800 people dead purportedly in gun battles with police. Another 6,000 deaths are being investigated.

But Trump loves a good dictator/tyrant for their popularity and power...

5. Trump may think North Korea's Kim Jong-Un is dangerous, but that's what makes him what Trump calls a "smart cookie..."

6. Here's Trump on Obama's wire tapping allegations that he's still not willing to prove. This is Trump folding under media pressure, the little baby:

Walker now defends Protesters, but backs "Ann Coulter Bill" Punishing Free Speech on UW Campuses

Not many Governors have a calm, detached sociopathic speaking style like Scott Walker, thank god. And while he demands that same low key communication style from his most vociferous opponents, there's still no way he's ever going to change his mind.

Walker is the best argument against career politicians, because guys like Walker see only politics and pure ideological policy as the end game, not good public policy.

The Walker Authority Shredded the First Amendment during 2011 Capitol Protests against Union Busting Act 10: How could the nation forget:

The government is forbidden from making a “law abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” … but in 2011 ... Scott Walker, concluded … residents did not warrant 1st Amendment protections ... Walker’s response, typical of a fascist unaccustomed to being challenged, was to have many protesters arrested and fined for exercising their 1st Amendment rights; something Dane County Judge Frank Remington ruled was unconstitutional.

The conservative McIver Institute Director of Communications Nick Novak was angry that the six protestors claimed being arrested caused them embarrassment, created difficulties finding a job, and fostered a negative stigma in their personal records that will follow them for the rest of their lives. The real victims who deserved reparations, according to the belief tank … were “multiple Republican legislators that were harassed in the halls of the capitol and the governor who was routinely compared to Adolf Hitler.”

On Upfront with Mike Gousha, Walker provided his most laughably outlandish moment of hypocrisy yet; defending free political speech and their constitutionally protected protesters. Walker finally reached what was once believed to be an unreachable level of bullshitting, but he did it, and with a straight face to boot:



I hope you're sitting down...

Walker: "Whether it's against me or somebody else say, "I disagree," but disagreeing and even protesting is one thing, if you come into an auditorium where they're having a discussion or a conversation on this, and you want to hold signs up, you want to protest that, you want to rally out front, perfectly fine. But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong." To me a university...anywhere free speech should be upheld...but disrupting and shutting down as we've seen here in Wisconsin, but elsewhere across the country, shutting down the ability for someone to actually be heard is not free speech."

Here's a short recap of bill Walker is talking about above, and now backs on our UW campuses:

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, proposed legislation (that) would set new rules for free speech and expression on University of Wisconsin System campuses. That includes penalties for people who disrupt free expression on campus by engaging in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct" … Students could be expelled under a bill.

That sharply contrasts with his recent comments at CPAC during his infamously flawed run for president:

“I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”

But his comments weren't the only ones that trashed the peaceful protests directed at what we thought were accountable elected politicians:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin denounced what he saw as "mob rule" trying to thwart the electoral will of the people, citing specficially the "amount of thuggery, the threats of execution" against Republican lawmakers.

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse viewed the events in the Capitol as a near-total breakdown of law and order. "How do you like this new democracy, that has a mob storming the Capitol and, with the aid of the minority party, blocking the access of the majority party into their offices and into the legislative chamber?" Professor Althouse wrote on her blog. "It looks more like anarchy to me."

To others, this was precisely the sort of situation for which the guarantee clause was created.

"It is hard to recall many moments that more directly echo the concerns of the founders than the situation America faces today, with a mob of protesters, some bused in from out of state by labor unions bent on protecting their financial interests, occupying the state house at Madison and the governor there under heavy guard," states a New York Sun editorial.
Cornell University law professor William Jacobson wrote on his blog, Legal Insurrection ... The appearance of a bullhorn-toting protester on Feb. 27 in a "COPS FOR LABOR" T-shirt showed that "the police union members involved have actively advocated and offered to participate in insurrection against the legal authority in Wisconsin."

But the Guarantee Clause obviously doesn't apply: 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.-ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4

In reality, the Guarantee Clause would protect us from the likes of Scott Walker:

Cornell University law professor Aziz Rana, author of "The Two Faces of American Freedom," wrote, "the truth about the guarantee clause is that its initial purpose was less a concern with popular protest and far more a worry with potential backsliding by state governments into aristrocratic or monarchical forms of government," says "That would suggest to me that ... peaceful protest combined with local police sympathy and the decision by some legislators to flee to Illinois are not issues that would invoke the guarantee clause." 

Wisconsin Republicans kept the fear mongering myth about protester violent alive, and that there was massive destruction of public property by liberal vandals. Nope, never happened:

The protests were peaceful, on the whole – with only 18 arrests during more than three weeks of steady protests in Madison – but critics question whether Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, too, was taking sides.

"We are seeing democracy in action, people engaging in their government, making their issues known," Sheriff Mahoney told Time magazine. " I'm very proud that the people of Wisconsin are engaged in their government and shown the rest of the world how democracy works." At one point, he said his deputies "aren't palace guards."

No Vandalism either...according to PolitiFact, the highly publicized cost of repairs, do to protester vandalism, got all the necessary political mileage, despite being a Pants on Fire lie:

By March 7, 2011, the Department of Administration reported that all signs and banners in the Capitol had been removed. Some of the signs are being considered for preservation by the Wisconsin Historical Society or the Smithsonian Institution.

The protesters "have adopted an ownership ethic in the building, treating it with the utmost care and respect," wrote Jason Tish, executive director of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and a local field representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

He called the demonstrators "evangelistic about their respect for the building." "The extent of what I saw today is just chips and nicks -- cosmetic damage," he said in an interview. "I don’t see how they (protesters) could have conducted themselves any better." Tish said the building bore the signs of the "accelerated cumulative effects of lots of people going through the building. I saw no intentional damage." The new estimate: $347,500, some 20 times less than the original one. And there are indications that even that could be high.

This smells like an effort to pour gas on the anti-protester fire. The claim was ridiculously high. And that gets a Pants on Fire rating.

Republicans using "human trafficking" as cover to ban Porn, Free Speech, Create Reporting Centers and Store Your Private Records if you remove Obscenity Filter.

After announcing the sale of our private internet surfing habits, the Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai announced the end of Net Neutrality a few days ago:

Pai, a former counsel for Verizon (VZ, Tech30), has slammed the FCC's earlier approach to net neutrality as a "mistake" and begun chipping away at the edges of it.

The FCC's action coincides with the following attempt to violate the First Amendment.

It looks like "freedom and liberty" loving Republicans have jumped on board the following plan for censorship. You can't make this stuff up:

More than a dozen state legislatures are considering a bill called the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act,” which has nothing to do with human trafficking and all to do with one man’s crusade against pornography at the expense of free speech.

More of the bills horrific details in a moment. First, who's the crusading man behind this hot idea?

Perhaps more shocking is the bill’s provenance. According to the Daily Beast the man behind the model legislation the state bills are based on is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop.

No problem there? And yet not one red flag went off for our freedom/small government loving Republicans. You won't believe what passes for good ideas on the right. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The bills would require device manufacturers to pre-install “obscenity” filters on devices like cell phones, tablets, and computers. Consumers would be forced to pony up $20 per device in order to surf the Internet without state censorship. The legislation is not only technologically unworkable, it violates the First Amendment and significantly burdens consumers and businesses.

Here are the states that have jump on board...don't worry Wisconsin, you'll probably be on it soon...

The bill has been introduced in some form Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia. Wyoming and North Dakota, have already rejected it.

Just another Republican "small government" maze of regulatory hoops to jump through. And our anti-privacy Republican overlords will be keeping records on everyone:

Anyone who wants to unlock the filters on their devices would have to put their request in writing. Then they’d be required to show ID, be subjected to a “written warning regarding the potential dangers” of removing the obscenity filter, and then would have to sign a form acknowledging they were shown that warning. That means stores would be maintaining private records on everyone who wanted their “Human Trafficking” filters removed.  

There's more... 

The bill would force the companies we rely upon to ensure open access to the Internet to create a massive censorship apparatus that is easily abused.

Under the bill, tech companies would be required to operate call centers or online reporting centers to monitor complaints that a particular site isn’t included in the filter or complaints that a site isn’t being properly filtered. Not only that, but the bill specifically says they must “ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product” putting immense pressure on companies to aggressively and preemptively block websites to avoid legal liability out of fear of just one illegal or forbidden image making it past their filters. Social media sites would only be immune if they also create a reporting center and “remain reasonably proactive in removing reported obscene content.” 

When EFF went to two Republican lawmakers in South Carolina and told them who came up with the bill. Neither politicians cared, and despite being against taxes, they didn't mind this tax because they're just "making a statement." 

State Reps. Bill Chumley and Mike Burns co-sponsored the Human Trafficking Prevention Act in South Carolina. Chumley called human trafficking an issue that he’s “really concerned with,” so he helped introduce the bill along with Burns.

“Yes, he’s working with us on this,” said Chumley of Sevier. “I don’t know anything about [him] so much. It didn’t really matter to me. Burns said he’s “still behind the premise of the bill,” despite hearing about Sevier’s past. The centerpiece of the bill, the $20 fee, is now up for debate. “We do not want more taxes. Period,” he said. “But we are trying to make a statement, and $20 ain’t gonna kill anybody.”

Republicans put in motion, expanded police powers, eliminate government dissent, arrest protesters and seize property.

Trumpian heads are spinning after trying to digest two conflicting party movements. One will vilify liberal free speech on campuses, and the other will arrest protesters and seize their assets if they dare speak out against the government.

This is the wet dream vision Republican have of America. Twisted, ugly and vindictive.

What is happening in Arizona is the start of the U.S. unraveling as a country and the Constitution. But first in a related story....

End of Free Speech # 1: Education Sec. Betsy DeVos sent a chill nationwide with this Bizarro World defense of weak-kneed conservatives "victims" who are too afraid to speak out on campus:

DeVos: “Now let me ask you: How many of you are college students? The fight against the education establishment extends to you too. The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think. They say that if you voted for Donald Trump, you’re a threat to the university community. But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.”

End of Free Speech # 2: This is how liberty dies? What's happening in Arizona is breathtaking and scary, signaling in the beginning of the end of our country or the Republican Party. Treating government protesters like organized crime members...is something I never thought I'd see, and I was there in the 60's:

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent: Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.

SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

But the real heart of the legislation is giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side ... sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south.

But Sen. John Kavanagh (R) said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters.“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder. A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists. But this stuff is all planned.’’

By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events and Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’
 “Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts? Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said “I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do. If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out. There has to be something to deter them from that.’’

The "unintended consequences?"

The legislation does far more ... such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies. For example, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration. “And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car. And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes. That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the whole legislation is based on a false premise of how disturbances happen. “This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that? I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns. “I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard."

And guess what happened...

The 17-13 party-line vote sends the bill to the House.

Trump shreds First Amendment's freedom of the Press, in Waukesha.

Cafeteria constitutional conservatives like to pick and choose what works and what doesn't work, freedom wise, depending on the situation.

"...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

Republicans have been setting this argument up for a long time; the liberal media can't be trusted. So of course the corrupted liberal press is not constitutionally protected.

It was just a matter of time before someone like Trump, a right wing authoritarian, would test just how willing a resentful public would be to make little exceptions in the beginning:

JS: At Mike Pence's first public event as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, a Washington Post reporter was barred from entering the venue and was patted down by Waukesha County deputies, according to The Washington Post … When reporter Jose DelReal asked whether others attending the rally could enter with their cellphones, he said the official replied, "Not if they work for The Washington Post."

"First, press credentials for The Washington Post were revoked by Donald Trump," Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said. "Now, law enforcement officers, in collusion with private security officials, subjected a reporter to bullying treatment that no ordinary citizen has to endure. All of this took place in a public facility no less. The harassment of an independent press isn't coming to an end. It's getting worse."

Hillary wants to revise the First Amendment? Outrageous!

Throwing political opponents like Hillary Clinton in jail sounds so...banana Republican, doesn't it?

Sadly, they mean to do just that, and see nothing disturbing about it. Donald Trump Jr. received media praise for a powerful speech that perpetuated a list of absolute nonsense and lies that were disproved by his own party's congressional investigations, and no one cared.

The next logical step for Republicans?

Republicans have been "framing" the issues in same way the tabloids have doing for years, with sensationalized eye candy like...

The Wall Street Journal has mastered the art of propagandist headlines that are meant to alarm its readers, like the one below:

Clinton to Madison: Get Me Rewrite

She tells Sanders voters that she’ll revise the First Amendment.

How dare she. The article is actually about Hillary Clinton's promise to take money out of politics, by proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that would overturn Citizens United. 

Voters won't like that...right? It's obvious who the WSJ is trying to reach with this one, but it sure isn't the American public, as you can see by the results from the conservative pollster Rasmussen Reports: 

Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey (July ’15) found that 59% of voters think most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution, and 56% think it’s likely their own representative has already done so. That includes 26% who think it’s Very Likely their representative has sold his or her vote. 

76% of Likely U.S. Voters (Feb. '16) believe the wealthiest individuals and companies have too much influence over elections,

80% agree that wealthy special interest groups have too much power and influence over elections. 

So as horrible as "revising the First Amendment" sounds, Americans are with Hillary and Bernie. 

Sure both party's take lots of money to fund their campaigns, but only one wants to take that same money out, and it sure ain't the Republicans. Even more surreal, their down and out small town middle American voters want to oddly, elect a millionaire. You can't make this stuff up.

What we're not seeing is the WSJ opposing a proposed revision in the new Republican platform:

“We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states,” the platform reads.

That's a good revision.

I'm surprised Trump missed this one. After all, it could be true: