By Florida Bill
Florida Professor James Tracy was satisfied that he could say almost anything, no matter how outrageous and unpatriotic, and that he would sleep well knowing that the privilege of "free speech" was there to protect him.
In the USA, free speech is a right which commands respect and maximum protection. It is owned by everyone--the sensible and the nut jobs. It protects a speaker against reprisals and retaliation by government, and there are no prior restraints on one's dialogue.
Surprisingly, freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by most nations to its citizens. It is even a part of the charter of the United Nations. But America is different from other nations. Here, it is sacred, and without prior restraint. Consequences in America are based on common sense. Like screaming "fire" as a joke in a crowded theater--that can earn the speaker a fine, maybe even incarceration. Words designed to incite violence can also trigger a consequence for the speaker.
In Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East, prior restraint on speech is the law. There, for example, criticism or blasphemy of Islam can bring the death penalty.
Free speech can cause controversy. Burning the American flag is considered free speech, although millions want the conduct punished. Parading in a Jewish neighborhood with Nazi flags also is protected. Mouthing obscenities on the air waves might be penalized, but generally it is given a pass. The late George Carlin was advised to avoid his "seven dirty words," but sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't.
Without concern of citizens who were troubled by conspiracy talk, Professor Tracy expounded on his theory that the Sandy Hook school room massacre of 26 persons was an "elaborate hoax" cooked up by the government. Lots of complaints, but no real worry for Dr. Tracy. After all, he was a tenured faculty member at Florida Atlantic University, an untouchable, you could say. He had a doctorate in history from the respected University of Iowa and he knew his rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights.
His conspiratorial baloney flowed fast and loose from his mouth following the shooting of 20 children and six adults in the Connecticut classroom in December of 2012 by a 20-year-old interloper. Inside the university classrooms where he taught communications, and in his blog, he opined that Sandy Hook never happened and was arranged by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to promote a push for gun control, which was a priority of the Obama administration.
His conspiratorial theory led to a fiery and offensive disagreement with the father of a 6-year-old pupil killed, and Tracy tormented the father in his blog, observing that parents were making use of the "hoax" to make money.
University officials wanted him out. Americans were peeved and annoyed with his hokum. The school was proscribed from firing him and shutting down his conspiratorial babble because of his right of "free speech"--but was there another way around that barn?
They took Al Capone down for tax evasion, not murder, and OJ was sent away for a "robbery." Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who said that 9-11 was the work of "Little Eichmanns" in the USA, he was kicked off the faculty for "repeated intentional scholarly misconduct." It took eight years to flush out Churchill, and five to remove Dr. Tracy.
In January of 2016, the University regents gave Tracy his pink slip on grounds that he had neglected to fill in annual faculty forms seeking information on his outside employment and professional activities. Ridiculous, said Tracy, and he sued for violation of his civil right to speak freely without fear of censorship or reprisal.
He contended that the stated grounds of failing to complete routine faculty forms after repeated requests was a ruse and a smoke screen. The real reason, he argued, was the content of his blog and his public statements concerning Sandy Hook, and that stepped upon his constitutional rights.
In December of 2017, a jury heard the evidence and upheld the action of the university. His conspiratorial writings were not a factor. Simply put, he was terminated for thumbing his nose at university regulations applicable to all faculty members. "He just didn't follow the rules," said one official of the University. Tracy says that he will appeal to a higher court.
Tracy, 52, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and a father of three, had been a faculty member at FAU since 2002, and was granted tenure in 2008. Yes, free speech is an inviolable right found in the first amendment of the Constitution. In America, it is absolutely sacred--- but there is always a second way to skin a rat.
xxx
l,
By Florida Bill
On December 7, Minnesota's Al Franken announced that he would be resigning from the U.S. Senate. Currently, he has reset the date of his exit to January 2 at which time he can commence collecting his annual benefits of $122,000 and perks.
Meanwhile, colleagues that had pushed him to hand in his resignation are now asking him to reconsider and allow allegations against him that he is a harasser of women to be investigated by the Ethics committee. If he decides on that course, he will remain a Democrat member of that august body, as the last time that the Ethics committee expelled anyone was in 1861.
Who would be surprised if Franken, elected in 2008, opted to remain as a senator? He is really an empty suit who votes the party line and endorses a left-wing, anti-Trump philosophy. His replacement will be a carbon copy. Franken's troubles began when seven or eight women claimed that he hit on them in a sexual way--kissing them and pushing his tongue into their mouths. One woman said that he pawed her as she took a nap, and then he was so amused with his tom foolery that he had a photo made of his smiling face with his cupped hands on the woman's breasts so as to memorialize the moment.
It is certainly not the worst story of sexual harassment and it really does not make the 67-year-old Franken into a monster predator. A useless senator--yes. A predator--no. It doesn't rise to the level of the charge of rape made against Bill Clinton or his infamous blue-dress moment; nor the abuses endured by the comely staffers of U.S. Reps Conyers and Hastings and other congressmen.
Thirty-six other Democratic senators initially called for Franken to resign, and he acquiesced with an announcement that he would leave in the coming weeks. It was a "painful " matter to watch, said Sen. Dick Durbin, assistant minority leader in the senate. He was "my friend," he added.
In announcing his intention to resign in the coming weeks, Franken never acknowledged any improper behavior toward his lady friends, and he never apologized. He was leaving, he said, but will remain "an activist" in promoting a left-wing agenda for the nation.
Personally, I look upon Franken as a dim bulb and one of the most inept and unlikeable senators in Washington, but it makes no real difference if he quits or stays. If he stays in the senate and allows the Ethics committee to review the matter, he might be censured or reprimanded, but expelled--never. The last senator to be expelled from the senate was during the Civil War.
Gov. Mark Dayton has announced that he will appoint the female Lieutenant Governor, Tina Smith, to take Franken's place until a special election can be held. Smith, like the grinning Franken, is a Democrat who shares the anti-Trump agenda on all matters, and the fact that she is a woman suggests Democrats' endorsement of the "MeToo" fad.
Franken has a background as a "funny man" on TVs "Saturday Night Live." Also, he has appeared in some movies, including "Trading Places" in which he played a simple-minded baggage handler on a train who tended to an ape being transported. He was elected eight years ago to the Senate by a margin of 312 votes over the Republican incumbent, and was reelected two years ago.
Franken's alleged misbehavior with women was boorish, but Franken saw himself as a comedian and figured that that is the way he should act. No doubt, he figured that he was increasing his popularity by patting women on theirs butts and delivering an unwelcome kiss, but he did not walk about in his shorts as did another congressman who reportedly had women brought to his office to provide him the sexual relief he needed. He never dropped his drawers to display his package as some celebs and newsmen have done.
At one point, Franken has said that he would allow the Ethics committee to investigate the charges made against him and that he will cooperate fully. In past years, congressional ethics committees in both the House and the Senate have been kind and forgiving of members who came under fire. Ted Kennedy, for example, was the "Lion of the Senate" despite his felonious conduct in the death of a young woman he was driving home in Chappaquiddick some years ago. Robert Byrd, a KKK leader who wrote prolifically of his dislike for Blacks, was welcomed into the Senate from West Virginia and hailed for his greatness.
In the House, the former Massachusetts Representative, Barney Frank, was reprimanded by the Ethics committee for fixing 33 traffic tickets for his homosexual lover with whom he lived, but was given a pass for the operation of a gay brothel being operated out of the basement of his residence. He retired with a package of more than $100,000 per year, and perks.
Yes, Franken is a fool who should never have been elected to the Senate because he had nothing to contribute, and has contributed nothing. It appears that not a single piece of legislation with any guts or any amendment to important legislation carries his name. He is simply an obsequious know-nothing who votes as he is told, whether good or bad for citizens.
Will Franken seek forgiveness and get teary-eyed as he announces that he will remain a senator? We'll have to see.
xxx
By Florida Bill
Inspector General Michael Horowitz...Come out from behind that rock and tell Americans the results of your investigation into the conduct of James Comey as you promised you would do.
Is the former FBI director a "fix" artist and a leaker of privileged documents who supervised a "sham" investigation into the alleged misdeeds of Hillary Clinton?
What is already pretty clear is that Comey lied in public statements after being sworn to tell the truth; that he forwarded privileged documents to the Washington Post newspaper, and that he sought to protect Hillary Clinton from negative attacks. Is the time coming where citizens will hear the truth, unfiltered by a biased media hellbent on destroying President Trump?
FBI Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump in June and confirmed by the Senate in September, testified recently before the House Judiciary Committee, and assured everyone that Horowitz is assessing the conduct of the former FBI chief in his investigation of Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of classified emails. Wray also indicated that he, along with everybody else, would like to see some movement on the part of the IG.
We will await his findings and then take the appropriate and necessary action if warranted, Wray told Congressmen on the committee.
Wray is the FBI chief who replaced Comey who was fired by President Trump on May 9. Wray was grilled for several hours by U.S. Representatives who demanded to know the fate of Comey. There are many who believe Comey "tanked" his investigation of Hillary Clinton, ignored her criminal misdeeds, and then conspired with Democrats and biased FBI agents to promote her candidacy for president.
On Jan. 12, eight days before President Trump was sworn into office, Horowitz announced at a news conference that he would examine the behavior of Comey for possible misconduct in his investigation of Mrs. Clinton and use of her private email server in her basement while she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration. If misconduct is found, Horowitz said he would not hesitate to recommend prosecution. He promised a written report at the conclusion of his work.
IG Horowitz was appointed in 2012 with confirmation by the Senate to provide oversight of the sprawling Department of Justice, which includes the FBI as its key component. The IG supervises a nationwide work force of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors and attorneys with a mission of detecting fraud and mismanagement. The announcement by the IG of his investigation of Comey's probe of Mrs. Clinton, came in the midst of a firestorm of complaints about Comey, and of the "get out of jail free" card which he gave to Mrs. Clinton despite evidence indicating her criminal behavior in the handling of classified emails; and her corrupt supervision of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation.
Following President Trump's victory, Democrats came out swinging. They demanded Comey's resignation, blaming him for Hillary Clinton's failed candidacy because of his bizarre and questionable investigative techniques. Republicans, on the other hand, saw Comey as a manipulator who conducted a "sham" investigation of Clinton, sans a grand jury, predetermined that Clinton would be adjudged innocent of any misdeeds and would ultimately be elected President.
Soon after Trump discharged Comey using his constitutional authority, embittered Democrats sought to turn the tables on President Trump and shift attention away from Comey and his questionable exoneration of Mrs. Clinton.
To accomplish that, and with the assistance of the "fake news" media, Trump was accused of "collusion" with the Russians. Subsequently, a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a personal friend of the embattled Comey, was appointed to that post. Currently, Mueller's investigation is spinning its wheels, but has not produced an iota of evidence of "collusion," and Mueller, himself, has failed to live up to his reputation as a professional who will be fair and unbiased. Because of apparent conflicts, and a troubling close friendship with Comey, the respected Wall Street Journal newspaper, and Judicial Watch, a bipartisan government watchdog organization, along with several congressmen, have called upon Mueller to resign as special counsel. At the same time, there have been calls for President Trump to fire him.
The case against Comey is strong, and it would be virtually impossible to envision a path taken by Horowitz that does not identify missteps and misconduct by the former FBI chief as he ran interference for Mrs. Clinton. Comey has even acknowledged in public statements that he downplayed the seriousness of her criminal investigation saying he did so at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Was the investigation of Mrs. Clinton a "sham"? Horowitz has that question in front of him. Among the facts for him to consider are that Comey never empanelled a grand jury and never questioned Mrs. Clinton under oath and had prepared a statement exonerating her of any misdeeds months before the investigation came to an end.
Director Comey looked the other way as Mrs. Clinton ignored subpoenas for documents and emails, including 33,000 which were scrubbed permanently from her computer. Grants of immunity were provided by Comey to her closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for unknown reasons. Thousands of Clinton emails were later discovered on the computer of Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, an ex New York congressman now serving a prison sentence as a sex offender.
Comey has also been said to have ignored allegations of Mrs. Clinton's allegedly corrupt practices in directing the operations of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation which was receiving donations from foreign officials while she was Secretary of State. In one case, the foundation received $145 million dollars from Russians who had gained access to 20 per cent of America's uranium reserves after Mrs. Clinton approved the transfer.
Horowitz has been silent concerning his investigation. In November, he was ordered to appear before a congressional committee, where he reported that his investigative team had interviewed many witnesses and would complete its work by March or April of next year, and written conclusions will be provided at that time.
xxx
By Florida Bill
In this "MeToo" revolution, a U.S. Senator and two U.S. Representatives have resigned their offices as a consequence of their unwelcome sexual advances directed at female associates and members of their staffs.
Perhaps these resignations are just the tip of the problem in view of the revelation of the existence of the Congressional Office of Compliance (COC) which has doled out some $17 million since 1997 in resolving and papering over the indiscretions of congressmen, many of them believed to be sexual in nature.
A few days ago, it was disclosed that in 2014, the COC paid $220,000 to a woman who had sued the suave, liberal, silver-bearded Congressman, Alcee Lamar Hastings, for hitting on her sexually, demanding rendezvouses at a hotel and hugs; and for inquiring of her as to the type of underwear she had on, and how often she changed it. The Ethics committee got involved, but found that the indiscretions didn't rise to the level of being in contempt of Congress, and that $220,000 would make things right and wipe the book of any problems. Taxpayers are a generous lot, no question about that.
In the 435-member House of Representatives, the 81-year-old Hastings, a Democrat, is said to be Sui Generis, legalese for "the only one of a kind." He is not unique for pushing important legislation or for his sexual aggressiveness, but because he is a disgraced federal district judge who was thrown off the bench for bribery, and then was elected a congressman in South Florida and welcomed with a seat in that same august body which had impeached him for dishonesty. Despite those rather shameful credentials, Hasting has risen to occupy chairs of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is resigning after eight years in office in the face of accusations that he was a sexual predator and in response to demands from 36 Democratic colleagues that he quit. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, a veteran of 52 years in Congress, also is resigning, accused by a staffer of harassing her. He gave his accuser $27,000 as reparation, and was pressured by colleagues into quitting. No one is asking Hastings to quit, but if any legislator should be shown the door, it is the disingenuous Hastings.
Hastings, represents the 20th congressional district in South Florida. He was accused and sued for sexual harassment by Ms. Winsome Packer, a staffer on a congressional commission which Hastings chaired. He called the accusations 'ludicrous" and insisted that at the time the money was paid out, he had no knowledge of the settlement. He adds his opinion that the money was "needlessly paid to Packer." Until a few days ago, no one had even been aware of the accusation of his sexual misconduct, and of the big check from a hush fund to make it all go away.
Hastings was appointed a federal district judge in 1979 by President Carter. In 1981, he was accused of accepting a $150,000 bribe, and in 1988 he was impeached by the House of Representatives by a vote of 413-3, convicted by the Senate and removed from the bench. The US. Supreme Court affirmed the congressional decision. With that, Hasting acquired the distinction of being the 6th federal district judge impeached and thrown off the bench in about 250 years.
With his judicial career in rags, Hastings turned to politics. He ran unsuccessfully for Florida Secretary of State in 1991, but the following year he ran for Congress and was elected, and has been reelected 12 times since then. At one point Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker, considered naming her fellow Democrat as the head of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but declined in the face of opposition.
A few years ago, Rep. Hastings, with his golden tongue, was in the forefront of an unsuccessful congressional move to increase their annual $174,000 salary. The proposal fostered an uproar and Hastings was castigated for his "arrogance" and "insensitivity." One man observed that with the country's shaky economy and a median American household income of $51,000 a year, the congressional cry of poverty over a $174,000 salary was grossly misplaced.
Hastings employs his girl friend Patricia Williams on his staff and she has earned several million dollars for her staff assistance since 1993. Ms. Williams was his counsel and companion during his trial and impeachment proceedings. In 2012, Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization, upbraided Hastings for his "nepotism" on Capitol Hill, having paid Williams $622,000 between 2007 and 2010. Hastings did not quibble about the amount of her earnings, but argued that since she was a girl friend, and not a family member, it did not equate to "nepotism." Williams' present annual salary is reported as $168,000.
During the recent swearing in of Donald Trump as America's 45th President, Hastings declined to attend the ceremony and he excoriated the republican president for failing to embrace the values and tenets of the Constitution. Trump's behavior, asserted Hastings, prohibits him from occupying the highest office in the land, and with his Russian connections, he will never keep this country safe. There shall be "no harsher critic (of him) than me."
Perhaps beating the anti-Trump drum, a popular tune these days, will keep Hastings safe from the same fate that fellow Democrats John Conyers and Al Franken suffered. Congress certainly has its pets, and Rep. Hastings is one of them.
xxx
