About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Disgraced ex-Congressman seeks to silence his critics

By Scott Tibbs, October 29, 2012

When ObamaCare passed the Congress and was signed into law, anti-abortion groups said that it was a pro-abortion law and that anyone who voted for it cast a pro-abortion vote. Barack Obama proved them right when he issued a regulation forcing employers to provide contraception - including abortifacient drugs - to their employees. Statists always work incrementally, so it is a safe bet that this mandate will eventually include surgical abortions.

But statists do not like having their records exposed, so they will seek to use the force of government to silence those who criticize them. This is the whole point of "campaign finance reform." But that's not the end of the Left's effort to silence free speech they dislike, as one radical Leftist in Ohio has filed a frivolous lawsuit seeking to silence an anti-abortion group for telling the truth about his vote for ObamaCare.

The lawsuit by disgraced ex-Congressman Steve Driehaus has no merit and it is a failure of the legal system that a lawsuit so obviously frivolous was even allowed to proceed. In a sane and just society, Driehaus would be laughed out of court and his shyster of an attorney would be disbarred. Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane or just society.

But it is worse than a simple frivolous lawsuit - FoxNews.com reports that Driehaus even went to the extreme of threatening Lamar Advertising with criminal prosecution! That's right. A disgraced ex-member of the United States Congress attempted to pervert the criminal justice system to silence criticisms of his record in the context of a campaign for elective office. This frightening attack on our Constitution must not be allowed to stand.

Driehaus whined pathetically about "loss of livelihood." This is so laughable that it does not merit a serious refutation, much like Driehaus himself does not deserve any respect. Driehaus does not have a divine right to elective office. If the voters choose to remove him, for whatever reason, that is their right.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in the first paragraph of this post, voting for ObamaCare was a pro-abortion vote. Disgraced ex-Congressman Driehaus does not have a case, because no false statements were made by the Susan B. Anthony List. Driehaus simply does not want to have his record exposed and is trying to use the power of government to silence his critics - an action that proves his values are foreign.

We know that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, so any effort to attack free speech provides aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. What exactly does that make disgraced ex-Congressman Driehaus, according to Article III, Section III of our Constitution? The answer seems pretty clear to me.