Leftists beware: Supreme Court upholds Terrorist Support Law

            A Reuters article posted at 12:34pm EDT is entitled "Supreme Court upholds terrorism support law) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4B420100621

            As was discussed in my recent postings, Leftists agree in a practical sense with the Islamists, aka "Radical Islam" which among other things practices "terrorism."  In recent discussions we saw how Leftists opposed Israel but supported one Terrorist organization (Hezbollah) delivering goods of an unknown nature to another Terrorist organization (Hamas). 

            The Left doesn't seem to know the difference between "notional" and "practical" support and thus might get into trouble later on.  They support Israel "notionally" (meaning theoretically) but support Radical Islam "practically" at least in their arguments. 

            The law bars "knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist." (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm ).

            Various terms in this law are abstract and need to be worked out in the court later on, but those challenging the law argued that it violated the "constitutional rights of free speech and association," so verbal support has been under consideration.  Thus, if Billy Blogblather supports Hamas, claiming that it is the duly elected party ruling in Palestine, he may still be in violation of this law because Hamas is on the State Department's list.  Blogblather shed practical tears for poor Hamas in Gaza (number 13 on the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations) because Israel (not on the List) wanted to examine all materials Hizballah (number 16 on the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations) wanted to deliver to Hamas.

            In a Pragmatic sense, Blogblather was providing a "practical" argument in support of two groups on the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist organizations and thus liable to prosecution.

            In a L.A. Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-terror-20100622,0,5090110.story ) we read "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Fertig and the others are free to speak on their own on behalf of the Kurds. However, they are in danger of criminal prosecution, he said, if these advocates work with the PKK in giving legal advice.
            "Providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization," Roberts said."

            Lest Blogblather argue that this is some sort of "far right" plot, let me point out that the aforementioned list was established by Madeleine Albright during the Clinton Administration and argued before the current Supreme Court by lawyers representing the Obama Administration.  Maybe my membership in the "far right" is in jeopardy here (in Blogblather's eyes), but I think both the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration were correct in their opposition of Islamist organizations.

            But here, I suspect, is where Blogblather declares a pox on all American political parties and declares himself a died-in-the-wool Chomsky Anarchist.  Well that is what those on the Far Left like to do when their Democratic Party disappoints them.  Only a "revolution" will solve America's problems, they argue from time to time, notionally of course.  They have no idea what they want their "revolution" to accomplish in a practical sense.  They just know they can't stand America as it is and want "progress."  Not me.  I believe in opposing America's enemies and am heartened that the Obama administration feels the same way.