The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on August 10, 2009, 06:45:55 AM
-
By Michael Kruse, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Monday, August 10, 2009
BROOKSVILLE — From his small studio at the small radio station in this small town, chain-smoking, caffeine-swallowing longtime talk radio host Bob Haa uses his morning show to pit conservatives against what he calls "the leftists," "the Marxists" and "the fruitcakes."
If you live in Tampa, St. Petersburg or even parts of Pasco County, chances are you've never heard of him. But on WWJB-AM 1450 here in Hernando County, he's loved by some, loathed by others — and listened to by many.
Haa (pronounced HAY) says his aim isn't to mediate. It is to agitate. He has done this five days a week, three-and-a-half hours a day, for a quarter century.
Two Fridays ago, though, he might have gone too far.
Shortly after 10, some of his listeners heard him have a conversation with a caller who mentioned ammunition, target practice and Barack Obama. It was enough to lead to a meeting with an agent from the Secret Service.
Haa and his show are a tiny piece of a much wider reality: The political divide these days is less different sides and more opposing corners. Reasonable political debate is out. Finger-pointing frenzy is in. Discourse is down. Dukes are up.
Was what Haa said a legitimate threat or on-air theater?
It's a difficult distinction to draw at this national moment marked by such spittle-lipped outrage.
• • •
Haa lives in an octagonal house on a lime rock road in rural northwest Hernando with 10 birds, two cats, one dog and his third wife. He is 61. He has worked in radio — Maryland, Alabama, Florida, rock jock, ad man, morning guy — since a week before he graduated from high school.
He moved here in 1983 because one of his ex-wives moved with two of his four kids to nearby Sumter County. WWJB at the time was playing mostly country music. Haa wanted to do talk. He was hired.
He started talking, and talking, and talking.
County commissioners: incompetent.
Taxes: enough already.
Big Brother: watching you.
This might be a good time to recall something he said in a story in the Times in 1992: "After a period of time," he explained, "we all start moving closer and closer together in our philosophies. That's spooky. That's worse than spooky."
It's bad for business.
Better for business?
Either/or, black/white, love him/hate him.
In 2001 the Hernando County administrator's office got calls from two people saying Haa was on the air promoting violence against the commissioners.
It caused enough concern that the sheriff's office set out to investigate.
Kind of. Some deputies asked some other deputies who were regular listeners whether Haa had said that stuff. They decided he had not.
Jeff Stabins, current Hernando County commissioner, and like Haa a registered Republican: "He's just a pathetic, pathetic excuse for a human being."
Murray Grubbs, former head of the Hernando County Republican Executive Committee: "Very forthright. My kind of man. We need more like him."
Brian Moore, Spring Hill resident, the Socialist Party's candidate for president last year: "His show is a hate fest. And it's been escalating."
Steve Manuel, general manager, WWJB: "Talk shows are just that. Shows. Bob likes to stir the pot to get people to call. That's just something you have to do."
• • •
Which gets us to that call that Friday.
What was said?
There's no tape. It's hard to believe. It's 2009. Practically nothing leaves no trace. But that's what the station bosses say.
Craig Bolton is a frequent listener, though, and he heard.
"I'll paraphrase," he said.
"A caller calls in, and man this guy is torqued. He says, 'Man, I'm ticked and frustrated at Obama, I'm loading up on ammunition, I'm going to be practicing.' And Haa says, 'Don't be wasting it on targets. Save it for the administration.' "
Bolton called the main number for the county administrator. He got a woman named JoJo DiViccaro on the line. DiViccaro got at least half a dozen similar calls, she said last week, maybe as many as 10. There were men, and there were women, and they pretty much said the same thing, she said: "threats against the president."
Agent John Joyce from the Secret Service's Tampa office met with Haa at the station Tuesday.
The investigation is not over.
"I really can't get into it," Joyce said. "We're trying to figure out what was said."
Aren't we all.
On Thursday morning, during the commercials, Haa stood outside and sucked down cigarettes.
First he said: "Never was said."
Then he said: "I don't remember."
And then he said: "It's possible somebody actually thought they heard that. It's possible someone misunderstood something and really was concerned."
On the air, all week long, his callers told him to "hang tough."
"You keep on truckin'."
"You now have a badge of honor in my opinion."
"All they did," Haa said on the air at one point, "was get me a lot more listeners."
Off the air, outside during smoke breaks, he said that the man from the Secret Service was "not pushy or threatening," but that the whole investigation was "nonsense," "childish" and "moronic."
He snuffed out another cigarette and went back inside. He walked back down the hallway toward the studio. He stopped at the door and turned.
"What if I actually had said that?" he asked. "So what? This is America!"
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1026150.ece
Emphasis (bold) mine. Comments at link
-
RELATED - POLL
Tampabay.com reader asks: Is freedom of speech one-sided now?
The U.S. Secret Service says that it has opened an investigation into Brooksville radio talk show host Bob Haa following a number of complaints about his Friday morning broadcast.
Haa, conservative host of the Haa Wire show on WWJB-AM 1450 in Brooksville, became the subject of an investigation after authorities were alerted to complaints that incendiary comments were made on the show.
"We're looking into what was allegedly said," said John Joyce, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's field office in Tampa. "We have yet to determine what was actually said that day."
The story has sparked a lively discussion among tampabay.com readers about freedom of speech. Read the story, then tell us: Which reader comment do you agree with?
http://blogs.tampabay.com/talk/2009/08/conservative-talk-show-host-investigated-is-freedom-of-speech-onesided.html
POLL AT LINK
-
Lets assume that Haa did say what was alleged. as he said: ""What if I actually had said that?" he asked. "So what? This is America!"
This raises an interesting legal point. The Court has long held that not all speech is protected. Slander "fighting words" (a dead letter) obscenity, shouting fire in a theatre and advocacy (urging illegal acts) are not protected.
The latter is where Haa might get into trouble. Advocating crimes has never been protected speech. What constitues advocacy though? In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v Ohio, the Court laid down a four part test. Intent, Immediacy, Likliehood and Specificity. This means that if you give a speech saying we should get Haz, you're fine (you've only met two of the tests). On the other hand, if you give it to a group of cat haters and say we should get Haz on Tuesday after work, and you in the front bring a gun, you have a problem. The question is whether this loose test applies to threats against the president, which are by statute a crime. I do feel bad for the guy though, as anytime a Con law prof looks at your case and thinks "Gee, this an interesting Constitutional question", it sucks to be you.
FQ13
-
Lets assume that Haa did say what was alleged. as he said: ""What if I actually had said that?" he asked. "So what? This is America!"
This raises an interesting legal point. The Court has long held that not all speech is protected. Slander "fighting words" (a dead letter) obscenity, shouting fire in a theatre and advocacy (urging illegal acts) are not protected.
The latter is where Haa might get into trouble. Advocating crimes has never been protected speech. What constitues advocacy though? In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v Ohio, the Court laid down a four part test. Intent, Immediacy, Likliehood and Specificity. This means that if you give a speech saying we should get Haz, you're fine (you've only met two of the tests). On the other hand, if you give it to a group of cat haters and say we should get Haz on Tuesday after work, and you in the front bring a gun, you have a problem. The question is whether this loose test applies to threats against the president, which are by statute a crime. I do feel bad for the guy though, as anytime a Con law prof looks at your case and thinks "Gee, this an interesting Constitutional question", it sucks to be you.
FQ13
That's all well and good FQ, BUT, resistance to tyrannical or abusive government is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Also he was not calling for violence against any individual but a group that has been described on the floor of Congress as a "gangster Government".
The only grounds for charges that ever were available to the Govt. were the sedition laws that were over turned by Jefferson over 200 years ago.
-
That's all well and good FQ, BUT, resistance to tyrannical or abusive government is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Also he was not calling for violence against any individual but a group that has been described on the floor of Congress as a "gangster Government".
The only grounds for charges that ever were available to the Govt. were the sedition laws that were over turned by Jefferson over 200 years ago.
Actually they were revived by Wilson with the sedition act of 1918 during the 1st red scare which made Macarthy look like a fluffy bunny. The Patriot Act and the Omnibus Drug Control Act of 1986 also have some very scary language (note to the wise, whenever any bill has the word Omnibus in front of it be very, very afraid because sure as hell no one has read it, let alone had time to think the implications through). The only charge that I personally think is appropriate is conspiracy. This requires one overt act, which he didn't commit and thus he should be in no trouble. I'm pretty much an absolutist on 1A and so I personally don't see a problem. BUT the feds disagree. The Drug Control Act I mentioned is exhibit A. It loses the "overt act" requirement for conspiracy. So if the feds tape me saying "Hey Tom, lets go rob a liquor store" and you say "great idea", we are fine as long as it goes no further. Its covered under 1A. If however, I say "Tom, lets go sell some pot" and you reply in the affirmative, we are prison bound for conspiracy to distribute, even if we don't have a joint between us. What should be and what is are two very different things, and the scary laws span both presidents and parties.
FQ13
-
Actually they were revived by Wilson with the sedition act of 1918 during the 1st red scare which made Macarthy look like a fluffy bunny. The Patriot Act and the Omnibus Drug Control Act of 1986 also have some very scary language (note to the wise, whenever any bill has the word Omnibus in front of it be very, very afraid because sure as hell no one has read it, let alone had time to think the implications through). The only charge that I personally think is appropriate is conspiracy. This requires one overt act, which he didn't commit and thus he should be in no trouble. I'm pretty much an absolutist on 1A and so I personally don't see a problem. BUT the feds disagree. The Drug Control Act I mentioned is exhibit A. It loses the "overt act" requirement for conspiracy. So if the feds tape me saying "Hey Tom, lets go rob a liquor store" and you say "great idea", we are fine as long as it goes no further. Its covered under 1A. If however, I say "Tom, lets go sell some pot" and you reply in the affirmative, we are prison bound for conspiracy to distribute, even if we don't have a joint between us. What should be and what is are two very different things, and the scary laws span both presidents and parties.
FQ13
This is one I'm up on ;D
That was the birth of the so called "RICO" statutes, that Rudy Giuliani used in the big Mafia trials in NY.
If you get taped saying , lets get together with Haz and TAB and rob a bank, no big deal, it requires what they call a "Predicate act". But if you then (having forgot all about the conversation) buy a ski mask for a skiing trip, or even if TAB or Haz do it, that supplies the "predicate act" and ALL 4 of us get hung for conspiracy even though 2 never had any knowledge of it. In application so far Judges have required an illegal act to serve as the catalyst, but the way it is written that is not mandatory.
Omnibus = A bunch of sh!t we don't want to have to explain.
-
Actually they were revived by Wilson with the sedition act of 1918 during the 1st red scare which made Macarthy look like a fluffy bunny. The Patriot Act and the Omnibus Drug Control Act of 1986 also have some very scary language (note to the wise, whenever any bill has the word Omnibus in front of it be very, very afraid because sure as hell no one has read it, let alone had time to think the implications through). The only charge that I personally think is appropriate is conspiracy. This requires one overt act, which he didn't commit and thus he should be in no trouble. I'm pretty much an absolutist on 1A and so I personally don't see a problem. BUT the feds disagree. The Drug Control Act I mentioned is exhibit A. It loses the "overt act" requirement for conspiracy. So if the feds tape me saying "Hey Tom, lets go rob a liquor store" and you say "great idea", we are fine as long as it goes no further. Its covered under 1A. If however, I say "Tom, lets go sell some pot" and you reply in the affirmative, we are prison bound for conspiracy to distribute, even if we don't have a joint between us. What should be and what is are two very different things, and the scary laws span both presidents and parties.
FQ13
McCarthy was right, BTW. He may have been a jerk, he may have had other ulterior motives, but he was right.
Anyone care to debate this today, with all going on in SC? Anyone care to debate this with knowing about the socialist lifers in the fed gummint who sabotaged and thwarted anything they didn't like - like free markets, freedom, liberty and personal achievements?
I ran across a very interesting magazine called "Living Cowboy Ethics", published by the Paragon Foundation. The Foundationw as established to protect property rights, especially in the west where various forces - US military, The Nature Conservancy, and others, are working daily to destroy private ownership. This is their mission statement:
" Our Mission
The PARAGON Foundation provides for education, research and the exchange of ideas in an effort to promote and support Constitutional principles, individual freedoms, private property rights and the continuation of rural customs and culture - all with the intent of celebrating and continuing our Founding Fathers' vision for America.
The PARAGON Foundation, a 501-C(3) not-for-profit organization, was created in 1996 to support the advancement of the fundamental principals articulated by the United States founding fathers in both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
This was the vision of PARAGON’s founding father, Tom Linebery, an early leader in the property rights movement and a staunch advocate of ranchers and landowners. A proud American, Tom believed that it was the responsibility of government to protect the rights of fellow Americans, as written in the Constitution. Furthermore, he also believed that it was the responsibility of every American to make sure the government remained true to its purpose. Tom understood that knowledge was power and he sought to arm fellow landowners with the information and negotiating skills necessary to protect their property.
In this same spirit, PARAGON pledges to work diligently to bring individuals and organizations together in the hopes of developing effective tactics and strategies that will assist in disseminating knowledge and information to those who will best benefit."
You can find them at http://www.paragonfoundation.org/ (http://www.paragonfoundation.org/). Based on what I have seen, they are worthy of your support as well.
-
My biggest fear is the current administration with create an event that will result in marshall law, like Hitler did to seize control.
Next is members of the police, military...... that do not know the constitution and will " Just follow orders"
-
That's all well and good FQ, BUT, resistance to tyrannical or abusive government is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Also he was not calling for violence against any individual but a group that has been described on the floor of Congress as a "gangster Government".
The only grounds for charges that ever were available to the Govt. were the sedition laws that were over turned by Jefferson over 200 years ago.
I will point out that investigation of what was said by Haa is due process. The complaint might be nefarious in nature and harmful in intent. However, that is our process.
While we have “free speech” saying certain things are restricted. The classic example is that you can’t yell fire in a theater. You can’t threaten the life of the President. Today we have the issue of “terroristic threats” causing trouble.
You may be able to say something but what you say “can and will be held against you.”
I know you know this but it bears repeating. Even though “resistance to tyrannical or abusive government is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence,” the process our founders set up to address these issues is an orderly one. You proceed through the Judicial Branch.
In our society the Founders set up the courts as the arbiter of these disputes rather than resort to physical conflict.
-
I will point out that investigation of what was said by Haa is due process. The complaint might be nefarious in nature and harmful in intent. However, that is our process.
While we have “free speech” saying certain things are restricted. The classic example is that you can’t yell fire in a theater. You can’t threaten the life of the President. Today we have the issue of “terroristic threats” causing trouble.
You may be able to say something but what you say “can and will be held against you.”
I know you know this but it bears repeating. Even though “resistance to tyrannical or abusive government is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence,” the process our founders set up to address these issues is an orderly one. You proceed through the Judicial Branch.
In our society the Founders set up the courts as the arbiter of these disputes rather than resort to physical conflict.
That may be true in YOUR State, but in NH and Kentucky we have the Constitutional right to armed rebellion.
-
That may be true in YOUR State, but in NH and Kentucky we have the Constitutional right to armed rebellion.
While it may your constitutional right to have an armed rebellion I think you could expect an armed response from someone in charge someplace. I suspect that there may be case law in Hew Hampshire that says all available means of redress must have taken place before you can exercise your right to revolution. I don’t think you would get too far running through the streets declaring revolution. Of course, as long as you are prepared to pay the personal price feel free to begin any time.
-
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/newhamp.txt
Art 10th Government being instituted for the common benefit, pro-
tection, and security, of the whole community, and not for
the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or
class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are
perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all
other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and
of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new govern-
ment. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary pow-
er, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of
the good and happiness of mankind.
-
While it may your constitutional right to have an armed rebellion I think you could expect an armed response from someone in charge someplace. I suspect that there may be case law in Hew Hampshire that says all available means of redress must have taken place before you can exercise your right to revolution. I don’t think you would get too far running through the streets declaring revolution. Of course, as long as you are prepared to pay the personal price feel free to begin any time.
Just like there is case law for "reasonable" gun control laws, "reasonable" restrictions on free speech, "reasonable" implementations of eminent domain, "reasonable" restrictions on peaceable assembly, and a whole host of other "reasonable" laws. The pre-eminent law says otherwise, however.
-
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/newhamp.txt
Art 10th Government being instituted for the common benefit, pro-
tection, and security, of the whole community, and not for
the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or
class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are
perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all
other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and
of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new govern-
ment. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary pow-
er, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of
the good and happiness of mankind.
I'm not disagreeing that you have the right of revolution. I'm saying it is foolish to think no one would object to tombogan exercising your right to revolution. If you think otherwise, Good Luck! I hope you have a lot of body armor, can run real fast and, if you survive, a good attorney who can assist you plead temporary insanity.
Case Law: NH Right to Revolution
http://books.google.com/books?id=IPiyYUjHYq8C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=case+law+new+hampshire+right+to+revolution&source=bl&ots=A-hD8xXlTF&sig=gga_8LbaKazoMfCOv_ewj4fur0I&hl=en&ei=6Y-ASsaZCYjiMLHpvekC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
-
Some more interesting quotes I found while reading through it:
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/newhamp.txt
Art 2 All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights
- among which are, the enjoying and defending life and lib-
erty:
Art 7th The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right
of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and indepen-
dent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise
and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining
thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them
expressly delegated to the United States of America in
congress assembled.
Art 11 No
person shall have the right to vote under the constitution
of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or
any willful violation of the election laws of this state or
of the United States;
Art 30th The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either This one kind of shoots some holes in the "limited free speach"
house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of Comments in other threads
the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action,
complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place
whatsoever
Art 34th No person can, in any case, be subjected to law martial, or
to any pains or penalties by virtue of that law, except
those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia
in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.
Art 36th Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, espec-
ially in a young one, no pension shall be granted, but in
consideration of actual services; and such pensions ought to
be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never
for more than one year at a time.
Art 38th A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the
constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, modera-
tion, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social
virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the bless-
ings of liberty and good government;
-
The link didn't work, I tried Googling it but got everything but.
I'm thinking that the unruly "Town hall meetings" and Tea parties (which have NOT been unruly ) may to some extent fall under this article as well as a couple others.
As to body armor, I think you need to wake up and sniff the political winds. You don't need much body armor with the type of support I see growing for radical change.
If you check your history books you will see that radical change generally sees the former regime exiled or dead.
-
Just like there is case law for "reasonable" gun control laws, "reasonable" restrictions on free speech, "reasonable" implementations of eminent domain, "reasonable" restrictions on peaceable assembly, and a whole host of other "reasonable" laws. The pre-eminent law says otherwise, however.
Again, if ever you want to challege case law there is a process to do so. That is what Heller is doing. It is what the NRA does.
Again to go back to the OP as I said, the investigation of what was said by Haa is due process. The complaint might be nefarious in nature and harmful in intent. However, that is our process.
-
Again, if ever you want to challege case law there is a process to do so. That is what Heller is doing. It is what the NRA does.
Again to go back to the OP as I said, the investigation of what was said by Haa is due process. The complaint might be nefarious in nature and harmful in intent. However, that is our process.
But we were drifting so nicely. ;D