The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Censorship by “Example”

Dinesh
D’Souza, the prominent conservative writer, has been arrested and indicted on
trumped-up Federal Election Law charges.
Why?
Just
as Leona Helmsley was charged and tried for tax evasion, and Wall Street
maverick Michael Milken was charged and indicted for “racketeering,” political
enemies can be quashed by fiat law. They were back-stabbed by the envious and
the disgruntled. D’Souza has been targeted for punishment for having criticized
the Obama administration in the least flattering terms. Just as opponents of
Hitler’s régime were crushed, not principally by Nazi-legislated laws, but by laws
passed during the Weimar Republic, President Barack Obama is resorting to laws
passed long before anyone had ever heard of him. The one this time is the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002
, which amended the 1971Federal Campaign Act.
It’s
all perfectly “legal,” you see. Obama has simply put on the brass-weighted
gloves that Congress had already prepared for him.
D’Souza
was often in the limelight, having written controversial books critical of Obama’s
policies, and having made one relatively successful political film (“2016:
Obama’s America
“) and will debut another next July
To
qualify for having a brass glove knock one’s jaw to the back of one’s cranium,
to invite the wrath of such Nazi or Stalinist persecution, one must be a
“name,” a celebrity, in the public eye, a non-submissive personality
who eschews political correctness and has never exhibited signs of unreserved
esteem for an establishment more and more governed by the fiat laws that
emanate daily from Washington D.C. In this instance, D’Souza allegedly flouted
federal campaign finance laws. He contributed to the war chest of a local
candidate whom he happened to have known during her campaign.
I
am not a fan of D’Souza, first, because he is of the Christian right, and also
because he claims that Islam, a totalitarian ideology, can be “tamed”
in the name of religious tolerance, when it is inherently the most intolerant
creed in existence. However, my differences with D’Souza are not the subject
here. I have no power and no desire to silence him.
The
federal government has both.
The
Washington
Post
reported on January 24th:
Conservative activist Dinesh
D’Souza has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of violating
campaign finance laws in contributions to a Senate candidate.
D’Souza was charged with making
$20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to an unnamed candidate, which
carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
In 2012, D’Souza reimbursed
people who he had told to contribute amounts totaling $20,000 to a candidate’s
campaign, according to the indictment. The candidate was not named in the
indictment.
In 2012, D’Souza supported Wendy
Long, New York’s Republican candidate for the Senate. Democrat Kirsten
Gillibrand won re-election. New York elections records show D’Souza donated to
Long’s campaign in 2012.
D’Souza is also charged with
causing false statements to be made to the FEC, which carries a maximum
sentence of five years in prison. Federal law during the time his contributions
were made allowed individual campaign contributions up to a total of $5,000.
You
know this is a trumped-up charge because so many politicians are guilty of the
same offenses, including Obama, whose own campaign finances, which deserve
scrutiny especially in light of suspected massive illegal foreign contributions
to both his presidential campaigns, yet escape the noose for political reasons because
they are not considered serious enemies (most Republicans) or because they are
“friends” of the White House and of the Left.
 Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer in his January 27th
FrontPage column, “The
D’Souza Arrest: Obama Adopts the Stalinist Style
,” wrote that while he
and D’Souza “locked horns” over, among other things, the latter’s
charge of “Islamophobia” against Spencer, D’Souza’s indictment
represents a new level of political persecution of the Left’s opponents.
Arresting prominent members of
the opposition is the kind of behavior we have seen from the likes of Joseph
Stalin and Adolf Hitler; it is a hallmark of authoritarianism, not (until now)
of politics in the United States. Of course, Stalin and Hitler didn’t stop with
arresting their foes; they had them murdered as well, usually after a show
trial. Obama is not doing that, but is even one step down this road one that Americans
want to take?
Perhaps
Spencer has forgotten the fate of Nakoula
Basseley Nakoula
, the Coptic filmmaker whose YouTube video
trailer
of “The Innocence of Muslims,” was blamed for the September
11th, 2012 attacks in Benghazi in which four Americans were killed. He
remains in jail, without bail. Even the jihadists who participated in that
attack deny that the film had anything to do with the assult. If that isn’t incarceration
for political reasons, I don’t know what is.  
Helmsley’s
offense was that nobody liked her, and that she was billing her husband’s real
estate company for personal expenses. Well, that’s the byzantine, thousand-page
tax law at work. Before enactment of the 16th Amendment, I’m sure
countless individuals, likeable or not, conducted their business the same way
and it was no one’s business but their own. The government couldn’t hold their
feet to the fire over it.
Michael
Milken’s offense was that he was a successful pioneer of a new field of finance
which ran afoul of federal “racketeering” law and the ambitions of
Rudolph Giuliani, U.S. Attorney for the Soutehrn District of New York, to make
a name for himself. Craig Roberts, writing for Business
Week
in 1995, noted:
Milken was a victim of his
success. His financing strategy, which focused on future performance rather
than past results, enabled upstart companies and those with weak credit
histories to go through reorganizations that made them major players. Although
Milken himself did not organize hostile takeovers, junk bonds made them
possible, thus exposing the underperforming corporate Establishment to pink
slips. Corporate fear and hatred, together with Wall Street’s envy of the
tremendous profitability of Drexel Burnham Lambert’s high-yield bond division,
created a lynch mob.
Paul
Craig Roberts, writing on Lewis
Rockwell
about Milken and Giuliani in 2008, quotes Giuliani boasting of his
method:
Giuliani once bragged that by
giving negative treatment to his targets, “the media does the job for
me.” Giuliani certainly had no difficulty manipulating Wall Street Journal
reporters James B. Stewart, Daniel Hertzberg and Laurie Cohen or The
Predators’ Ball
author Connie Bruck. Milken, who had done nothing except
make a lot of money by proving Wall Street wrong about non-investment grade
bonds, was branded the “Cosa Nostra of the securities world.”
Milken’s attorneys concluded that Giuliani, lacking
any case, was far out on a limb and desperate for a face-saving plea. They
worked out a plea to six minor technical offenses that had never carried any
prison time. But Giuliani was determined to have his victim, and Milken was
double-crossed by sentencing judge, Kimba “Bimbo” Wood, and spent two
years of his life in prison.
I
have yet to hear any outraged leftist call for Obama being charged under those
same racketeering laws for all his failed green energy and solar programs,
generously funded by the federal government.
D’Souza’s
offense is that he violated more fiat law, and because he has rubbed Obama the
wrong way too many times with his best-selling books and in film. A
hypothetical Pew Poll comparing Obama’s plunging popularity numbers to D’Souza’s
steady ones would leave Obama eating D’Souza’s dust. He is being made an
“example” of. Obama is saying: “Here is what is going to happen
to you if you incur my anger and contribute in any way to my plummeting
popularity. You are going to pay.”  
D’Souza’s
bail at $500,000 is considerably higher than that set for definable criminals. The
Blaz
e listed a number of violent crimes whose perpetrators’ bail was set
far less than that of non-violent criminal Dinesh D’Souza. These include rape,
robbery, combinations of rape and robbery, and attempted murder.
And
what were D’Souza’s offenses? Of violating the wholly arbitrary contribution amounts
allowed to an individual by the campaign finance law to state, district, and
local party committees during a federal election cycle, which is now $10,000. D’Souza
exceeded that amount, and further, donated more via “straw donors” to
the campaign of Wendy Long, who was running for Hillary Clinton’s vacated New
York U.S. Senate seat (she lost to a Marxist). Why just $10,000? Why just
$5,000? Why not $10, or $10 million? Why not just a nickel or twenty grand? These
are the consequences of Congressional numerology tables and crystal ball
reading. They are policed
by the Federal
Election Commission
.  The numbers
have no basis in reality.
D’Souza’s
indictment is probably good news for Obama’s political pal, Bill Ayers, who was
scheduled to debate D’Souza at Dartmouth College this Thursday, January 30, on
the subject, “What’s so Great About America?” The event, writes
Meghan Pierce of the Union
Leader
:
Before his arrest, conservative
political commentator and author Dinesh D’Souza was scheduled to debate 60s-era
antiwar activist Bill Ayers at Dartmouth College on Thursday.

The event headlined “What’s So Great About America?” is being
promoted as “the ultimate fight between left and right.”
…”We’re actually unsure
about that at this moment,” said Stuart A. Allan, president of The
Dartmouth Review.
Allan said his office has reached
out to D’Souza to find out if his schedule has changed because of his arrest,
but has not yet heard back from him.
Personally,
I would not deign to debate an aging Marxist like Ayers, or a Marxist of any
age. While Bill Clinton has earned the sobriquet “Slick Willy,” Ayers
can be dubbed “Slick Billy.”  He
is too adept at weaseling his way out of tight argumentative corners.  But Ayers, who planted bombs in order to kill
people, must be breathing a sigh of relief that he might not be debating a guy
who planted ideational bombs that can kill no one.
America
is joining that roster of rogue régimes that persecute, incarcerate, and make
an “example” of anyone dissenting against a government’s oppressive policies.
These “examples” are meant to frighten average Americans into
mechanical obedience, submission and deference to arbitrary authority. The message
of these “examples” is: Say or write anything nasty but true about anyone
wielding fiat power, and you will probably be frog-walked in cuffs to jail and
to penury. Is it worth the trouble for the sake of uttering the truth?

Previous

“Studied” Censorship

Next

The Affordable Cell Phone Care Act

3 Comments

  1. Joe

    This is bone chilling, Ed.

  2. Blogger

    You might be eligible for a new government solar rebate program.
    Click here to discover if you are eligble now!

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén