While our entire nation feels the blight of illegal immigration, the severest impact occurs in the states along our border with Mexico. So the San Diego Minutemen organized with a mission “to demand maximum border security and immigration enforcement both locally and at the national level.”

As one of their activities, they “adopted” Interstate 5, near the Border Patrol’s San Clemente checkpoint. Under the Adopt-A-Highway Program, businesses and other organizations can provide financial support for trash collection and beautification along a segment of main highway, in return for one “recognition” sign along that stretch of road. This picture shows Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, standing under their sign.

As geography would have it, their sign was in an ideal position to be seen by illegal aliens sneaking into the United States from the southern border along the Interstate 5 corridor. So the militant advocacy groups supporting illegal immigration pressured the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to remove the sign, citing “safety concerns.” Cowed by the powerful Latino Caucus, CALTRANS caved and removed the sign to a sparsely travelled stretch of California 52 — that is, from a busy Interstate to a remote state road.

The San Diego Minutemen sued in federal court, on the basis that their free speech rights had been violated. As their attorney, they selected Howard Kaloogian, a former California state legislator and an accomplished activist who had led the successful effort to recall former California governor Gray Davis. Last month, a federal judge ruled in their favor, and directed CALTRANS to restore the sign to its former position.

Yesterday, the sign was put back up in the original location. In a prepared statement, Jeff Schwilk said:

Twenty-eight days after a Federal Judge ruled that Caltrans did “irreparable harm” to the Constitutional rights of the San Diego Minutemen by unlawfully revoking our legal adopt-a-highway permit, thereby squelching our free speech, Caltrans finally put our sign back up….

Congratulations to these folk are in order, and to all the citizens in battles large and small across the country, who expend their own time and resources to preserve the rights that our founding fathers fought for. Our federal government should be fighting these battles for us, but since it has “dropped the ball” on matters of illegal immigration, it falls to ordinary citizens to preserve our country.

The value of freedom of expression, in a country whose governance is democratic, is the potential for a very well informed electorate. The hope is that in open discussion all the facts will be exposed, all the nuances will be explored. The voters can then make the best possible choices among candidates for election to public office. Also, the savvy citizens can give the most cogent advice and feedback to their representatives in government. In short, free speech should optimize the selection of officials and the quality of the letters, faxes, emails and phone calls we send to them while they are in office.

What does free speech include? To support the goal of winnowing out every hidden negative about potential candidates or pending legislation, or of estimating every possible positive outcome, everything should be on the table. In a civilized society, understandable exceptions can be made for extreme pornography, incitement to hurtful behavior, advocacy of crime, exposure of government classified material, and so on. Legal prohibitions are made for slander and libel. The public discourse should occur in the full range of territory that remains after these taboos are emplaced.

However, there is another practical limitation on what may be written or said. That is the fact that most of the channels for reaching wide audiences are financially supported through the sponsorship of commercial products and services, by advertising. So those media outlets will not want to carry material that offends the audience demographic that purchases their advertised products. Some recent examples of retracted material include:

1. Don Imus’ remarks about Adam “Pacman” Jones’ race
2. Absolut’s vodka advertisement showing Mexico taking a large portion of US territory
3. a Heinz Deli Mayo ad showing two men kissing — the portrayal of a family unit parented by two homosexual males drew numerous complaints

You can check out the Heinz Deli Mayo ad and decide for yourself:

The rise of the Internet has provided a path around the problem of commercial sponsorship, particularly among the growing segment of web surfers who develop their politcal outlook by reading and commenting in the Blogosphere. The bloggers have also forcibly reformed the mainstream media, exposing forgery and doctored imagery.

But the American public has been mesmerized into accepting a self-imposed limitation on necessary political debate without even realizing that they have been mentally shackled. We evaluate our options within the intellectual straitjacket of political correctness. This is a tool used by so-called minorities (often large segments of the population) who first claim some sort of victimhood and then protest bitterly when they are identified with their personal demographic. The consummate practitioner of PC is Al Sharpton, although the Islamofascist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations comes in a close second. Women, actually a majority of our national population, have worked this to death and largely moved on, except perhaps for Nancy Pelosi who still feels the sting of sexism.

Two current dustups in the public conversation this week show us that PC is alive, well and very limiting. First, there is the flap over at NRO’s The Corner about this insensitive cartoon:

And then there is all of the Hullabaloo about remarks made by John McCain’s advisor Charlie Black. Would a terrorist attack on the United States just before the election be good for McCain? Most likely, since Obama comes across as a wet-behind-the-ears peacenik and John McCain has the persona of a seasoned warrior. But supposedly we are not allowed to say such things.

The most egregious instance of political correctness to date is the January 1999 Niggardly Controversy from Washington DC. The word niggardly is right along there with cheap, mean, miserly, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, stingy, and tightfisted. It’s way worse than frugal. Grammatically, semantically, linguistically it has absolutely no racial connotations whatsoever. But when a white aide to then Mayor Anthony Williams (somewhat black) used the word IN AN APPROPRIATE CONTEXT IN A PRIVATE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING, he lost his job! The reason — he used a word that sounded like nigger.

The insidious mental manipulation of the American public by the power brokers behind the media and other institutions that shape public thought, especially our schools, has gone on so long that most people have no idea how distorted their perceptions have become. Again and again, we see people criticized and even fired for saying something that is perfectly factually true, but about subjects which the PC police have conditioned us not to see accurately, and we do not blink.

At least in the Blogosphere, we should be able to reclaim our right to free speech. On every subject of discussion, we can assemble all pertinant data, without arbitrarily excluding any. We can lay every bit of it on the table, and we can talk openly about all of it. I hope.

UPDATE, very early Wednesday morning — Marc Ambinder says Charlie Black’s Position Is Secure, For Now

This could very well turn into a horror scene for anyone who isn’t a Marxist. From the Washington Times:

Dialing up to reregulation
By James C. Miller III  |  May 13, 2008

One thing President Reagan taught us all is that government regulations often restrain economic activity and restrict personal freedom. Or one would have thought.

The Federal Communications Commission has just proposed reimposing content regulations on radio broadcasters similar to ones the Reagan FCC repudiated in the early 1980s.

The rationale for the original content regulations (imposed over several decades) is that radio broadcasters tend to lose touch with the local populations they were intended to serve under their “public service obligation.” The theory (never really proven) is that, since they typically faced little competition from other broadcasters, they would respond only to narrow commercial interests, not the public as a whole. This led to quotas for certain types of government-preferred, non-entertainment programming.

The same reasoning led to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which throttled real debate and almost strangled talk radio in its infancy. The result was that broadcasters not only had to fill out a lot of paperwork no one ever read, but the public was saddled with messages and formats they really didn’t want….

According to the FCC’s press release of last December, radio stations would have to “establish permanent advisory boards … with which to consult periodically on community needs and issues.” Also, ominously, the commission would adopt license renewal procedures to “ensure that all broadcasters provide some locally-oriented programming.” And who determines what qualifies as acceptable locally produced programming? Why, the FCC of course!….

Everyone who is concerned about free speech and opposed to censorship should take the time to read all of this article.

‘Things fall apart, the center cannot hold….’

W. B. Yeats sounded the alarm, and now, ‘As the best lack all conviction/And the worst [Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright?] are full of passionate intensity’………………

• The Rodham of Clinton goes on ‘right-wing conspiracy’ Fox News with Bill O’Reilly.
• Media icon Don Imus, still sheltered in foxhole with his race-hustling tormenter Reverend Tawana Sharpton, endorses ‘Satan’ (The Rodham) over Charisma Barry (while saying he’ll still vote for John McCain in the general.)
• The increasingly deranged Democrats and progressives hope to convince someone that the unpopular Georgie Bush is running against their black proggy or their female proggy in 2008.
• Our new member of GAB (Gringo Advisory Board), gringoBro, an Obama stalwart, likes ‘egg fool young’ but does not want to open up “a Chinee fortune cookie that say, ‘USA, Game Over.’”
• Georgie Bush’s Great Black Hope, Condy Rice, has ordered a politically correct gag on the State Department: NO mention of Jihad OR Islamic terrorist OR anything else that will offend the muslims. (Entire U.S. Government must and will follow suit, exactly like the Euro pc-ers.)

John McCain still dares to use ‘Islamic’ as an adjective with ‘terror’.

As many of you know, the pc police now consider this to be an adjectival crime, or certainly a transgression. No less than Georgie Bush’s Condoleeza Rice, the SecState herself, now forbids the pairing of ‘Islamic’ with ‘terror,’ just as the very mention of ‘jihad’ is now verboten to anyone on Government payroll.

Question: In light of enormous pressure from muslims, Saudi gold dinars, Free Trade Republican wussies doing Sheikh deals, Free Trade Democratic dhimmis doing Sheikh deals, and the media’s cowardly little Christian bashers, not to mention the fact that McCain will be getting Government funds for his election campaign, how much longer will Johnny Boy stand firm on ‘Islamic terror?’

Will he continue to ‘offend’ and transgress?

Or is the more cogent question: When will he buckle?

Many Republicans, especially the Beltway type like our President, view Islam as “a religion of peace.” On this issue they are just as politically correct as any liberal or Democrat or self-styled “progressive.”

And so, it will be very interesting to see who sides with who in this new flare-up over the use of “Islamic” for terrorists and assassins like the Osamatons, the suicide-bombers, the Obama-friendly Hamas etc etc.

John McCain, presumed warrior and soon-to-be-nominated Republican candidate for President, is currently ruffling muslim feathers, or head-dress, or hijabs. How? The “muslim community” demands that he stop using “Islamic” to describe these Allah-fervent fanatics who read the Koran and blow up innocent human beings. From the Washington Times:

A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective “Islamic” to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.

Note: It will be most interesting to see whether Johnny Boy backs down from this concentrated barrage of muslims (less than 3% of the U.S. population, so far) who are now, in effect, “demanding” a speech code for the US electoral process — a procedure that was born in a revolt against what Thomas Jefferson called “every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

But we live in Free Trade times. Should we ask: How soon will Johnny back down under this billionaire-backed pressure? (We know what Georgie Bush would do, in consultation with the State Department and “moderate” oil sheikhs.)

Anyone taking bets?

Congress is poised to take away our right to free speech under the guise of preventing hate crimes. In the House of Representatives, the relevant legislation is HR 254 — the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. As commenter Harmony Grant notes:

If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened…. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what’s on it.

In the Senate, Ted Kennedy is leading a pack of liberals who introduced SA 2067 as an amendment to the federal defense bill, HR 1585 (you have to look in the comments section of this reference for the text of the amendment — it is hard to find on the internet). According to the Reverend Ted Pike:

Hoping to avoid detection from opponents in the religious right, Senators Edward Kennedy and Gordon Smith have quietly moved the federal hate crimes bill into the Senate. The Senate will vote … on whether to include it as a “rider” on the huge federal defense bill, HR 1585. Now designated SA 2067, the new Senate hate bill is about half the length of the House version which passed the House earlier this year. But it gives its primary supporters … everything they need to end free speech in America, establishing a mammoth federal “thought crimes” bureaucracy….

Another wake-up call comes from Representative Wally Herger (R-CA 2nd) who says:

‘Hate’ Bill Goes Ahead in Senate

Nothing about getting rid of hate…really is getting rid of our freedoms!!

I oppose..as I Love Freedom!!

The Family Research Council notes a warning by Chuck Colson:

We must not be deceived, as Chuck Colson warns, “the bill is not about crime prevention or even about civil rights. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech….”

Related articles:

URGENT ALERT – Hate Billl Moves Forward In Senate

National Prayer Network – What’s Wrong with Hate Laws?

The total establishment suffered a crushing defeat last Thursday at the hands of an outraged American public with the failure of the “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation in the Senate. And that defeat was historically unprecedented, with the sheer volume of incoming calls from an aroused electorate crashing the Senate switchboard for the first time.

All of the traditional information sources — the President of the United States, the bigwigs in both political parties, most of the mainstream media, big business and most national religious leaders — were supporting the amnesty for illegal aliens. So how did Middle America find out what was going on behind the closed elitist Washington doors? They got the facts from a handful of determined advocacy groups, from the bloggers, and from conservative cable news and talk radio programs.

Stung by the ability of the American public to get at the truth despite their best efforts to ram the S.1639 bill through without even committee exposure, the politicians set about trying to muzzle talk radio. While most of us were preoccupied with the battle on the Senate floor, on that very same day in the House they were trying to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine.”

This isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats. It’s about the establishment versus the American people, and the elitists of both parties were in support of government control of programming.

• From Trent Lott — “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
• From Diane Feinstein — “…in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information….I’m looking at [reviving the Fairness Doctrine] … because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”
• From John Kerry — “I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back….These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye….”

Here’s the story as reported in The Hill:

Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115
By Alexander Bolton

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio….

And here’s an excellent analysis of the subject from About.com:

Opinionated Talk Radio: Is it Fair to Require a Rebuttal?
From Corey Deitz

Let me ask you a question: if you stand on a corner with a sign that says, “I don’t support cabbage!” should somebody be required to stand next to you with a sign that says, “I’m in favor of cabbage!”?

Most reasonable people will answer “No.” Why? Because most of us know that the guy who supports cabbage is expressing his opinion – his 1st Amendment right – and the rest of us who don’t agree can look away or ignore him….

What this comes down to is simply this: liberals have not been able to compete with conservative talk radio as well as hoped. So, instead of playing a better game (i.e., create more compelling programming), they want the rules changed to make it easier for them to WIN the game. Maybe we should call this new movement about talk radio “No Party Left Behind”….

Also read Talk Radio Is a Business:

Why is talk radio conservative? …. The best answer is that conservative talk radio has listeners and liberal talk radio does not….

At the end of the day, privately owned radio stations respond to listeners and the advertisers. Radio is a business….Why blame conservatives? Blame the liberals who are not supporting liberal hosts!