President Obama’s foreign policy speech was stopped multiple times by Code Pink heckling, and Lois Lerner was suspended from the her position at the IRS.

On the international stage, two men in the United Kingdom murdered a soldier in the streets of London.

Here’s a recap, or wrap, of the week that was from The Washington Times.

• Lois Lerner second IRS figure removed amid scandal

The woman at the center of the IRS scandal was put on paid administrative leave Thursday, marking the second agency official to be removed over the inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups.

The news came even as two top senators called for Lois Lerner to be suspended on accusations of misleading their investigation into the tax-exempt organizations division of the IRS, which she led, and as new details emerged about her past.

• Senate panel OKs tax-welfare benefits for newly legal immigrants

The SenateJudiciary Committee voted Monday to allow illegal immigrants who get legal status to begin collecting tax-welfare payments, as the panel spent a fourth day working through amendments to the massive immigration bill and party-line splits began to emerge.

• Ron Paul: Fix IRS by shutting it ‘once and for all’

Former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called the recent IRS fiasco troubling — but writes that the only way Congress can protect the freedoms of Americans from a long pattern of suspected IRS abuse is to “shutter the doors” of the agency “once and for all.”

The longtime GOP congressman writes that IRS agents in the 1930s were essentially “hit squads” against opponents of the New Deal, and that allegations of IRS abuse spanned the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton and George W. Bush.

• Mayor Bloomberg to cabbie: ‘I’ll destroy your [expletive] industry’

Mayor Michael Bloomberg cursed out the chief executive officer of a taxi company who won a court case against the city and pledged a post-mayoral revenge against the entire industry, the CEO and one witness said.

“[I will] destroy your [expletive] industry,” Mr. Bloomberg said to Taxi Club Management CEO Gene Freidman, The New York Post reported.

• CBS’ Bob Schieffer unleashes on White House official: ‘Why are you here today?’

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Hillary Clinton was only a wife of the politician…”

IMHO, that case was wrongly decided.   But you don’t correct for a wrong decision by continuing to make wrong decisions.

Mike, the difference between Brad Pitt and Ron Paul is that Brad Pitt is a subject of interest for purely commercial reasons.   Trademark law exists in tension with the First Amendment.  The First Amendment says, “say what you like”.  Trademark law says, “you can’t say certain things in the context of commercial speech.”

Given that the First Amendment’s core purpose is to allow, first and foremost, unfettered political speech, the tension comes to the fore in what are almost always “blended” political and commercial contexts.  Often, nothing falls clearly on one side or the other of a bright line somewhere.

A good case for exploring the topic involves former California Governor Schwarzenegger.  California, as may be expected, has a lot of protections around commercial rights of publicity.  But Mr. Schwarzenegger’s career had something of a dual character.  On the one hand, his rights in his name as a commercial brand were substantial.  On the other hand, as a political figure, he was fair game for commentary.

So, what happened is that someone was selling action figures showing Mr. Schwarzenegger as “The Governator”.   The court had a really tough time trying to sort out whether this activity was primarily a political comment playing off the duality of his reputation as a politician and actor, or primarily a commercial enterprise free-riding on the value of the Terminator franchise.  The case is a good read, though.

The UDRP is a bad fit for a lot of “right of publicity” claims in personal names as opposed to purely trademark claims.   Where the line is drawn depends, in a lot of cases, on the particular evidence and arguments in front of the panel.   One way to approach whether a name acts primarily as a “mark” is in the distinction between saying:

1.  “I saw a movie directed by Steven Spielberg.”

2.  “I saw a Steven Spielberg movie.”

In statement 1, “Steven Spielberg” is used as a proper noun – the name of the person who directed the movie.

In statement 2, “Steven Spielberg” is used as an adjective to define a “type” of movie as a “Steven Spielberg” brand movie.

So, as noted above, Ron Paul has written a number of books.   As the decision notes, the question is whether people buy those books as “Ron Paul books”, because “Ron Paul” indicates a certain type or quality of book, or whether they buy them because the books express the political views of Mr. Paul.

That’s a subtle, but important, distinction.   There are people who love “Stephen King novels”, for example, or “a movie based on a Stephen King novel” where, as above, “Stephen King” is known to represent a certain genre and quality of authorship, going well beyond the fact that it is his personal name.  One might even compare a book by someone else by saying, “It’s not as good as a Stephen King novel” or “It’s a lot like a Stephen King novel.”

It’s not a matter of simply saying, “oh they write books with their name on the cover, so it is a trademark for books”.   It’s a question of whether that name has gained secondary meaning as a mark.

That’s where the Hillary Clinton decision, in my opinion, went wrong, and this one got it right.  The UDRP decision explores the function of “Ron Paul” as a designator for books.   Does it say to a person buying books, “this is a type of book – a Ron Paul book” or does it say “this book expresses the views of Ron Paul.”  I don’t know what, specifically, was in front of the panelist, but that is the line of thought the panelist went through.

I know the resident “black helicopter” crew will never wrap their heads around the idea that there are people who try to make the best decisions they can on the papers in front of them, and are not constantly obsessing over a political agenda.  It helps to get out and enjoy some sunshine, go for a walk or a bike ride, call an old friend, do something fun, and otherwise enjoy one’s short time on earth once in a while, instead of being in a state of perpetual outrage in front of cable television and the internet.

As I blogged back in February, Ron Paul angered some of his fans by relying on a UN-sponsored dispute resolution mechanism, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to try to claim he should legally own the domain names RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org, not the people who currently did. 

WIPO has now decided against Paul and for the current name holders. Their full decision on the .org challenge specifically.

The core of WIPO’s reasoning:

First, Respondent [current owners] has used the Domain Name to link it to an independent and legitimate fan site. As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s [Ron Paul] authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue.

Moreover, Respondent has submitted evidence that there are multiple, very clear disclaimers on the website to which the Domain Name links, indicating that the site is not Complainant’s official site. In regards to Complainant’s arguments that the website is actually a “pretext for commercial advantage”, the Panel finds the website linked to the Domain Name is primarily a noncommercial service, while the products advertised and sold are ancillary to the site’s primary purpose as a source of news and information about Ron Paul, and serving as political forum…..

The website is offering goods and services that promote Ron Paul and sells only goods that promote Ron Paul. The site goes far to dispel any confusion that Respondent or JNR might have a relationship to Complainant, including use of multiple, prominently placed disclaimers. Finally, related to Respondent’s second main point, there is no evidence that Respondent has attempted to corner the market of domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged RON PAUL mark in a domain name. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that in 2013 Respondent offered to give Complainant the <ronpaul.org> Domain Name for free.  

My book on Ron Paul and his fans, Ron Paul’s Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

It’s people like Michelle Malkin that give conservatives a bad name.

During a spoon-fed diatribe with Sean Hannity about the recent slaying of a British soldier by a terrorist, Malkin said. . .

“…in large part, unfortunately, in British culture, among the progressives there, they brought it on themselves in some ways because of lax deportation policies, and an unwillingness to screen out and profile Islamic militants who are now doing this in a homegrown manner on British soil.”

I can’t believe they still let this woman talk in public!

No, just like here in the US, they brought it on themselves by starting unethical wars in foreign lands.

Malkin wants to talk about terrorism being the result of faulty border policies? Give me a break.

Acts of terror against the US and England exist because we think we have the right to march into foreign lands, steal resources and convert political and philosophical ideologies.

Quite frankly, the words that spilled from the mouth of the terrorist responsible for the gruesome death of that British soldier make a lot more sense than the fake conservative rhetoric Malkin parades around as truth.

Caught on amateur video, he said. . .

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you unless you leave us alone. I apologize that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. “So get rid of them. Tell them to bring your troops back so can all live in peace.”

Certainly I don’t condone his actions, and my heart goes out to the victim’s family. But here’s the bottom line: If we continue to act as if we have somehow been given the authority by a higher power to treat the planet like our own personal playground and battlefield, then we will continue to fight a never-ending war waged by power-hungry elitists, while the rest of us spill our blood and treasure under the illusion of freedom and righteousness.

Below you’ll find a segment from that Malkin rant. But before you watch it, let me share with you some very wise words from Ron Paul. . .

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy. I see the motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Now for the wrong approach. . .

Media / Interview Requests? Click Here.

There’s nothing like a man in uniform—Ron Paul, specifically, in uniform circa 1963 on a red bike with his towhead son Rand Paul. The former GOP presidential candidate looks like he’s living the American dream in a grassy, cookie-cutter suburban town in what is likely Texas, or perhaps a suburb of Pittsburgh, where the Pauls lived before they moved to the Lone Star State. He also sort of resembles Don Draper, posing in a photograph that makes him seem like the perfect father even though he’s never changed a diaper in his life. Then again, we could be reading way too much into this, but it’s Thursday and we’re in love with vintage Ron Paul.

Former politician denied relief in dispute over two Ron Paul domain names.

Ron Paul has lost two separate domain name disputes filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The two cases covered RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org, and were part of a public spat between the domain owners, who say they are Ron Paul supporters, and the politician.

The owner of RonPaul.com offered to sell the domain name to Paul, or to give him the .org version for free. The domain owner claimed the value it was seeking in the sale was from its mailing list of Ron Paul supporters.

According to whois, there are two different owners for the .com and .org domains. However, given the communications, they are clearly linked in some way.

Both domain names are owned by groups in Panama.

The decisions have not been posted yet, and I will update the story when they are.

It’s possible that the complaints were denied on the basis of laches, in that Paul had not disputed the ownership of the domains while the registrants built of a significant web presence on the domains. It was only after he exited congress that he went after the domains.

Nevertheless, the domain owners have made money selling Ron Paul merchandise and tried to sell the .com domain to Paul.

I’m not aware of any pending lawsuits that would have led WIPO to terminate the proceedings.

Tags: ron paul, ronpaul.com, ronpaul.org, udrp

Federal Reserve Chariman, Ben Bernanke, gave testimony on the U.S. economy to the congressional Joint Economic Committee today.

In his testimony, Bernanke testified to the current economic conditions, fiscal policy and monetary policy.

Photo/US Congress

Some key elements of the Chairman’s testimony include the following statements:

“Economic growth has continued at a moderate pace so far this year. Economic growth in the first quarter was supported by continued expansion in demand by U.S. households and businesses, which more than offset the drag from declines in government spending, especially defense spending.”

“Conditions in the job market have shown some improvement recently. The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent in April, has declined more than 1/2 percentage point since last summer.”

“Consumer price inflation has been low. The price index for personal consumption expenditures rose only 1 percent over the 12 months ending in March, down from about 2-1/4 percent during the previous 12 months.”

“Federal fiscal policy, taking into account both discretionary actions and so-called automatic stabilizers, was, on net, quite expansionary during the recession and early in the recovery. However, a substantial part of this impetus was offset by spending cuts and tax increases by state and local governments, most of which are subject to balanced-budget requirements, and by subsequent fiscal tightening at the federal level.”

“The second policy tool now in use is large-scale purchases of longer-term Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). These purchases put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, including mortgage rates. For some months, the FOMC has been buying longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month and agency MBS at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee has said that it will continue its securities purchases until the outlook for the labor market has improved substantially in a context of price stability.”

Bernanke closes by saying:

Because only a healthy economy can deliver sustainably high real rates of return to savers and investors, the best way to achieve higher returns in the medium term and beyond is for the Federal Reserve–consistent with its congressional mandate–to provide policy accommodation as needed to foster maximum employment and price stability. Of course, we will do so with due regard for the efficacy and costs of our policy actions and in a way that is responsive to the evolution of the economic outlook.

Campaign for Liberty Chairman and long time Fed critic, Ron Paul, released the following statement today:

“Today Chairman Bernanke testified that our nation’s long term economic outlook has improved and that consumer inflation is a modest one percent. Chairman Bernanke is grossly misleading the American people when he calls inflation ‘subdued.’

“Just yesterday, it was reported that the median home price in Houston is at an all-time high, having risen 14.5 percent in the last year alone. Americans are struggling with soaring food and energy prices that the federal government conveniently chooses to ignore in its measure of inflation in order to hide the true effects of its policies from the American people.

“The real measure of inflation is the increase in the monetary supply, and the Federal Reserve has increased the Federal Reserve credit by 17.4 percent in the last year alone. The reality is, the Federal Reserve’s policy of monetary expansion through the buying of up to $100 billion of securities each month may help the big-spenders in Congress and their cronies in the banking sector, but it is harming the rest of America.

“Make no mistake, despite Chairman Bernanke’s claims; the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented monetary expansion has created a significant amount of pent-up inflation that, when released, will cause prices to rise even higher and the average American’s standard of living to decline.

“Until our leaders understand that we cannot print our way to prosperity, the American people will continue to suffer the disastrous effects of higher prices, higher unemployment, and lower standards of living and qualities of life for years to come.”

Check out The Global Dispatch Facebook page here

Follow The Global Dispatch on Twitter here