Jumping into Birfer pool again:





http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... stery.html


It's kinda long with excerpts from Hillbuzz and quotes from others. and pictures. yay!

Does Pammy really believe that religion is listed on a Hawaiian BC?

"You keep using that word ... irrefutable ... I do not think it means what you think it means..."

The very first paragraph has two interesting things of note.

The first is that Pam Geller is STILL flogging "TechDude" as a source and expert. Something almost no other birther does.

The second is that she claims that she's covered this subject since May 2008. But all she offers is a Technorati tag to ALL articles tagged with "Birth Certificate". I checked all her May 2008 articles, and not a single mention is found.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... s/2008/05/

This is interesting because the earliest mention I ever found about anything to do with Obama's birth certificate was a 9 June 2008 article in the National Review, and that was due to rumours his middle name was "Muhammed".

Geller is flat out lying.

Oh, BIG. Surprise.

Oh, granted Geller is lying. But this is a very open and blatant lie, based on the hope that nobody will call her on it and her followers will accept it uncritically and absolutely.

What's even more funny to me though is the fact she's about the only person still claiming "TechDude" has any validity.

Even if it did, it would prove nothing. Religion can change on a whim, and a newborn baby certainly cannot be held to a specific religion for his entire life. The idea is absurd.

Pammy wants to run an ad on NYC buses and subways, and threatens to sue the MTA if it's not approved:

But yet a few Muslim's can't open a mosque in NYC, which is also a First Amendment issue.

These bigots make my head hurt.

i am amazed that they ran some of the ads that they did.

New York Magazine sued The MTA over this same sort of issue a number of years back and won. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that because the NYM ads were commercial in nature, The MTA violated NYM's free speech rights in denying them advertising spots on the buses.



The reason The MTA rejected this ad in the first place is because it hurt Rudy Guiliani's fee fees. Seriously.

Anyhow, I don't think this applies to Geller's issue with The MTA, because her ads are clearly not commercial in nature.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 79511.html

Hmm, not exactly what that case is saying, methinks. The NYM court 1) held that the side of a MTA bus is a public forum as the MTA has opened it up to both commercial and political speech 2) Applied a "strict scrutiny" standard in evaluating the "prior restraint" of refusing to run the ad, 3) found that refusal to run the ad was more extensive than was necessary to protect the government's legitimate interests, 4) opined that this standard should apply to a mixture of both commercial and political speech.

In many settings, commercial speech has less protection from governmental regulation than political speech, which enjoys the greatest protection under the Constitution. But here, the court expressly declined to apply a lesser standard to a message that mixed political and commercial speech. Finding a "skeptical attitude" toward government in the ad, the court applied the higher standard of protection. The court went even further than SCOTUS however, declaring that it could see no reason why it should not "require procedural safeguards for prior restraints even where commercial speech is involved."

Geller's ads are political in nature and the MTA is operating a public forum (as held in this case). To avoid running the ads, the MTA will need to identify one of the "narrowly defined exceptions to the prohibition against prior restraints, and have "procedural safeguards that reduce the danger of suppressing constitutionally protected speech".

That could be a tall order.

What Geller proposes comes under my classification as "hate speech." In fact, much of what Geller writes is hate speech. I am slowly being converted to the view that the best remedy for hate speech is more speech.

How about a campaign to place counter-advertisements on those MTA buses pointing out the hatred?

That seems to be the plan. See the article at the link at the discussion of 18 anti and 18 pro Israel posters.

I don't think the MTA could be held to the same standards of "clear and present danger" that would be required if one were going to, say, censor someone's picket signs or prevent a newspaper from being published. I seriously doubt the MTA would run afoul of the First Amendment if they were to decline to run ads for a cross-burning from the Ku Klux Klan, or an ad that consisted entirely of clearly libelous material, such as accusing a private person of being a child molester.

Geller's ad, like pretty much everything she says, explicitly targets a group with hate speech who is compelled to view it if they use the MTA, a public service. The degree to which speech to a "captive audience" is subject to First Amendment protections is considerably less.

It was not anti-Israel ads of which I was thinking. I was thinking of ads that emphasize that Geller's ad is hate speech.

Well, the ball's in Pammy'scourt"

From chron.com



Tea Party’s event on Islam booted from Sugar Land hotel



full (and long) article at link

If the face is the window to the soul, ice cold harridan.

You should see that face in motion. It becomes a shrieking harpy.

Actually, there are three ugly things Pam never misses a chance to get before the public ... her face and her titz.

The ugliest thing she shows the public is her mind.

But but but, she's wearing a necklace that says, "LOVE." How can she not be a nice person?

FIFY.

Pam Geller has a soul?