By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2020
You'll note the left keeps talking about power, and empowering, etc. They never talk about, nor promote liberty and freedom. They are openly attacking freedom of speech, they want the left to be able to censor those who dare speak something the left doesn't approve, and completely cancel any who dare speak against the left.
The hate free speech, as they realize the if they have the power to control speech, they have power over the masses. They don't want liberty, equality, and freedom for everybody equally, they simply want power.
They have finally succeeded in ending valid scientific research. Getting scientists whose findings don't support their narative fired. So scientists now know that if they do research, it doesn't matter what the actual data says, or with the objective truth exposes, their results must support the mob or the scientist will be canceled.
After the Wall Street Journal that cited the study the mob attacked at UM were “complications” on campus and outraged wokesters demanded that the profs be flogged, or something else terrible.
Professor Hsu told the WSJ: “The MSU professor who conducted that work, psychologist Joe Cesario, tells me that ‘we had no idea what the data was going to be, what the outcome was going to be, before we did this study.’ Mr. Cesario has collected evidence from a simulator and from real-world interactions between police and citizens. He concluded that ‘the nature of the interaction really matters the most, and officers were not more likely to be ready to shoot upon encountering a black versus white citizen.’ Pofessor Hsu has been Canceled.
Michigan State University leaders have successfully pressured Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation after the Graduate Employees Union launched a campaign to oust him from his role.
Once the professor was forced out, the other scientists who worked on the paper are trying to get the paper withdrawn to save their carriers.
The left wants a war against objective truth, and freedom of speech, because both get in the way of them being in power.
Remember all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say and do nothing. This shows that just doing your job and telling the truth will get you attacked by the mob.
If you tolerate SJW's at work, and don't speak up, and keep your head down, just hope and pray, you don't have to tell the truth that the mob doesn't like, or worse yet, you were merely on a "team" that produced results the mob didn't want, or didn't want others to know about. You too will be canceled.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2020
Friday, January 4, 2019
Libertarianism 101: Your Speech Rights
By Tom Rhodes, 1/4/2018
As long as speech doesn't specifically call for violence, is legally libel, etc. except in exceptional circumstances, as in a state of war, your speech is protected. Prior restraint is an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement. The Supreme Court consistently rules that prior restraint is unconstitutional. According to multiple Supreme Court rulings, the following are all considered protected speech:
There are no rulings or laws or amendments that say speech must be fair, nice, or approved by society at large. Speech is protected not your feelings, not your ideas, as such:
Your only right to not hear "hate speech," or any other "speech" you don't like, is to walk away, turn the channel, close the web page, etc.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Marco Rubio Sponsors Bill to Fine You $1Million if You Trade with Israel
By Tom Rhodes, 7/21/2017
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Portland Mayor calls for the End of Freedom of Speech.
by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2017
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Citizens United is a Red Herring
By Tom Rhodes 12/20/2016
This Election proved one thing. Citizens United is a Red Herring. Corporate money in politics has little or no effect. Big Oil backed Clinton, not Trump. The Stock Market backed Clinton, not Trump.
Hillary spent double what Trump did on the election. That means with ½ the money Trump got 1/3 more electoral votes. Money doesn’t matter, spending big money on TV is a waste of money. Things have changed. A virtually free tweet is worth more than a 30 second spot on ABC, NBC, and CBS during prime time combined. People can and do fast forward and skip the commercials. Things have changed and limits on spending money on “electioneering” are clearly wasted and restrictive for no benefit.
YouTube Twitter, Facebook, blogs, GAB, etc. are all more effective today than, old-line network audiences. A good tweet is more effective than $Millions on TV. TV audiences are far smaller technology allows people to skip TV ads altogether. The Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate political communications, is utterly beside the point. The fact is major corporations don't take partisan sides. If they do public relations departments always pick the PC choice.
The people are so tired of being told what they can and can’t say, not being politically correct and saying what you feel can and will win votes over carefully crafted politically correct pablum. Hillary wasted a lot of dollars pointing out that Trump is a man, and in private talks like other men. Yawn, nobody cared.
Big money on polling with polls carefully crafted to shape a message also proved to be another waste of money. The polls were wrong and most of the country won’t even participate in what they know are polls rigged by big money.
The Democrats continued whining about big money in politics is just a Red Herring designed to keep people distracted form their desire to control everybody from cradle to grave and not have any opposing ideas heard or shared. That’s why they want to control the news, and label as “fake” anything they don’t think you should know or hear about. They are up in arms about Russia, but have yet to prove anything they exposed is false. Why exactly wont’ the FBI tell congress the details of how they came to change their mind and support the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked the US elections. The same CIA who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thought waterboarding was OK, etc.
From the US Presidential Election to the Hugo Awards, the events of 2016 proved that Freedom of Speech and the Press are more powerful than big money. Government restrictions only and always support what big money wants. So why does big money want to restrict small money speech? This election proved Big Money no longer works and was proof that liberty and protecting the rights of all people to equally, provides the best way for more people to be heard and ideas to be shared.
This Election proved one thing. Citizens United is a Red Herring. Corporate money in politics has little or no effect. Big Oil backed Clinton, not Trump. The Stock Market backed Clinton, not Trump.
Hillary spent double what Trump did on the election. That means with ½ the money Trump got 1/3 more electoral votes. Money doesn’t matter, spending big money on TV is a waste of money. Things have changed. A virtually free tweet is worth more than a 30 second spot on ABC, NBC, and CBS during prime time combined. People can and do fast forward and skip the commercials. Things have changed and limits on spending money on “electioneering” are clearly wasted and restrictive for no benefit.
YouTube Twitter, Facebook, blogs, GAB, etc. are all more effective today than, old-line network audiences. A good tweet is more effective than $Millions on TV. TV audiences are far smaller technology allows people to skip TV ads altogether. The Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate political communications, is utterly beside the point. The fact is major corporations don't take partisan sides. If they do public relations departments always pick the PC choice.
The people are so tired of being told what they can and can’t say, not being politically correct and saying what you feel can and will win votes over carefully crafted politically correct pablum. Hillary wasted a lot of dollars pointing out that Trump is a man, and in private talks like other men. Yawn, nobody cared.
Big money on polling with polls carefully crafted to shape a message also proved to be another waste of money. The polls were wrong and most of the country won’t even participate in what they know are polls rigged by big money.
The Democrats continued whining about big money in politics is just a Red Herring designed to keep people distracted form their desire to control everybody from cradle to grave and not have any opposing ideas heard or shared. That’s why they want to control the news, and label as “fake” anything they don’t think you should know or hear about. They are up in arms about Russia, but have yet to prove anything they exposed is false. Why exactly wont’ the FBI tell congress the details of how they came to change their mind and support the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked the US elections. The same CIA who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thought waterboarding was OK, etc.
From the US Presidential Election to the Hugo Awards, the events of 2016 proved that Freedom of Speech and the Press are more powerful than big money. Government restrictions only and always support what big money wants. So why does big money want to restrict small money speech? This election proved Big Money no longer works and was proof that liberty and protecting the rights of all people to equally, provides the best way for more people to be heard and ideas to be shared.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Tolerance Of Totalitarianism Is Not A Virtue, It Is Surrender
By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2015
Fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, or whatever ugly term progressives use to disqualify those who dare utter ideas they disapprove, has silenced many in America. Progressives also routinely dehumanize any who don’t follow their beliefs. They are effectively eliminating freedom of speech. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) have created and used effective tactics to silence those who don’t accept their ideas. This tactic has proved effective. Time to go on the offensive and use their tactic against them. This is proving effective in many social media discussions.
First let’s identify the issue, I’ll use some stuff Dr. Walter Williams wrote in a recent article on “micro-aggression,” that correctly identifies and labels the actions of SJW’s
Compromise, rationality, and working with SJW’s doesn’t work. Facts and figures are useless, they dismiss any data that doesn’t support their position, lie, and attack the person who brings it up with dehumanizing labels. These evil bastards go so far as to destroy any who don’t toe the progressive line. Look at Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who in 2014 forced to resign. Although none of his actions at the company were ever anti-gay, and he never talked about his personal beliefs at Mozilla. The fact that years earlier he donated money to a political cause to protect marriage, he was forced to resign.
When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal. "I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."
SJW’s are tyrannical thought police, seek to punish and crush any who dare not believe what they dictate. Progressive SJW professors, physically attack students who express ideas they don’t like, and then claim to be victim because those ideas hurt their psyche.
SJW’s have in essence created the new battle lines and rules. Time to use their tactics against them. They should be given no quarter and crushed as ruthlessly as they have tried to crush others. Refer to them a the totalitarian thought police, fascist nazi’s etc. whenever and wherever they try to silence ideas they don’t like. Don’t try rational discourse, it won’t work. Attack. They are totalitarian, anti-freedom hate mongers. Taking the game to them is proving to work where the people have the guts to stand up to them. Look up Gamergate and Rabid Puppies. SJW’s are a cancer that must be eliminated.
For years the Hugo Awards (Science Fiction writing award) have been silenced by SJW’s. They disqualified any writer whose ideas aren’t politically correct, saying “That there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X.” X being racist, sexist, etc. The popularity of Science Fiction books has been dropping for the past couple decades. The great works of Heinlein, Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Lovecraft, would not get past most Politically Correct editors today and even get published. There is a de facto exclusion from the sci-fi community of noted authors: David Drake, David Weber, L.E Modesitt Jr, Kevn J. Anderson, Eric Flint. Even Orson Scott Card — the creator of the world-famous Ender’s Game, which was recently adapted into a successful movie. Despite his phenomenal success, Scott Card has been ostracized by sci-fi’s inner circle thanks to his opposition to gay marriage.
SJW’s changed the Hugo awards to choosing based on the beliefs of the author not the quality of the work. A rebellion started with the Hugo Awards, and playing by the rules a group of people managed to nominate a slate of works that are not politically correct, using the tactics of SJW’s. The results were entire categories of Hugo awards are not going to go to the politically correct. Read about it here.
The article notes, “It seems that fandoms and online communities everywhere are waking up to the new menace of political intolerance, authoritarianism, ostracism and so-called ‘social justice.’ … Ordinary people are utterly fed up with the dominance of cliquish culture warriors whose bizarre opinions do not reflect those of the majority. They are fed up with being told what to do, what to believe, and whom to exclude. Wherever and whoever they may be, crusaders for political and social conformity are in the midst of a storm. And that storm is only just beginning.”
The Geeks, Comic Book Fans, Gamers, are showing the way to defeat SJW’s. Never accept their assertions, attack and demonize SJW’s for the totalitarian thought police that they are. This will work in politics as well. Trump is showing the tactic works. Unlike the MSM, on the internet and in today’s world, we have access to the same shaming, social exclusion, finger waging, to create a backlash against the authoritarian left.
Quit arguing with the totalitarian thought police, call them out for being anti-liberty, label them as the totalitarian elitists they are. Be defiant, bold, and challenging for their clear hatred of liberty. They are totalitarian. SJW’s be they feminists, gay rights activists, or race mongers don’t care about tolerance, diversity, or inclusion, those are just tools to get what they want, power. Trying to coexist with them, or tolerate their presence is not going to work, they are totalitarians. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender.
Fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, or whatever ugly term progressives use to disqualify those who dare utter ideas they disapprove, has silenced many in America. Progressives also routinely dehumanize any who don’t follow their beliefs. They are effectively eliminating freedom of speech. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) have created and used effective tactics to silence those who don’t accept their ideas. This tactic has proved effective. Time to go on the offensive and use their tactic against them. This is proving effective in many social media discussions.
First let’s identify the issue, I’ll use some stuff Dr. Walter Williams wrote in a recent article on “micro-aggression,” that correctly identifies and labels the actions of SJW’s
"...
From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Free speech is a basic tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.
...
Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality before the law with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation. Leftist ideas are a cancer on our society. Ironically, we not only are timid in response, but also nourish those ideas with our tax dollars and charitable donations."
~ Dr. Walter Williams
Compromise, rationality, and working with SJW’s doesn’t work. Facts and figures are useless, they dismiss any data that doesn’t support their position, lie, and attack the person who brings it up with dehumanizing labels. These evil bastards go so far as to destroy any who don’t toe the progressive line. Look at Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who in 2014 forced to resign. Although none of his actions at the company were ever anti-gay, and he never talked about his personal beliefs at Mozilla. The fact that years earlier he donated money to a political cause to protect marriage, he was forced to resign.
When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal. "I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."
SJW’s are tyrannical thought police, seek to punish and crush any who dare not believe what they dictate. Progressive SJW professors, physically attack students who express ideas they don’t like, and then claim to be victim because those ideas hurt their psyche.
SJW’s have in essence created the new battle lines and rules. Time to use their tactics against them. They should be given no quarter and crushed as ruthlessly as they have tried to crush others. Refer to them a the totalitarian thought police, fascist nazi’s etc. whenever and wherever they try to silence ideas they don’t like. Don’t try rational discourse, it won’t work. Attack. They are totalitarian, anti-freedom hate mongers. Taking the game to them is proving to work where the people have the guts to stand up to them. Look up Gamergate and Rabid Puppies. SJW’s are a cancer that must be eliminated.
For years the Hugo Awards (Science Fiction writing award) have been silenced by SJW’s. They disqualified any writer whose ideas aren’t politically correct, saying “That there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X.” X being racist, sexist, etc. The popularity of Science Fiction books has been dropping for the past couple decades. The great works of Heinlein, Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Lovecraft, would not get past most Politically Correct editors today and even get published. There is a de facto exclusion from the sci-fi community of noted authors: David Drake, David Weber, L.E Modesitt Jr, Kevn J. Anderson, Eric Flint. Even Orson Scott Card — the creator of the world-famous Ender’s Game, which was recently adapted into a successful movie. Despite his phenomenal success, Scott Card has been ostracized by sci-fi’s inner circle thanks to his opposition to gay marriage.
SJW’s changed the Hugo awards to choosing based on the beliefs of the author not the quality of the work. A rebellion started with the Hugo Awards, and playing by the rules a group of people managed to nominate a slate of works that are not politically correct, using the tactics of SJW’s. The results were entire categories of Hugo awards are not going to go to the politically correct. Read about it here.
The article notes, “It seems that fandoms and online communities everywhere are waking up to the new menace of political intolerance, authoritarianism, ostracism and so-called ‘social justice.’ … Ordinary people are utterly fed up with the dominance of cliquish culture warriors whose bizarre opinions do not reflect those of the majority. They are fed up with being told what to do, what to believe, and whom to exclude. Wherever and whoever they may be, crusaders for political and social conformity are in the midst of a storm. And that storm is only just beginning.”
The Geeks, Comic Book Fans, Gamers, are showing the way to defeat SJW’s. Never accept their assertions, attack and demonize SJW’s for the totalitarian thought police that they are. This will work in politics as well. Trump is showing the tactic works. Unlike the MSM, on the internet and in today’s world, we have access to the same shaming, social exclusion, finger waging, to create a backlash against the authoritarian left.
Quit arguing with the totalitarian thought police, call them out for being anti-liberty, label them as the totalitarian elitists they are. Be defiant, bold, and challenging for their clear hatred of liberty. They are totalitarian. SJW’s be they feminists, gay rights activists, or race mongers don’t care about tolerance, diversity, or inclusion, those are just tools to get what they want, power. Trying to coexist with them, or tolerate their presence is not going to work, they are totalitarians. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Freedom of Speech and Bill of Rights Will Be Dead in a Generation
By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2015
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Feds Require You to Get Permission before Blogging or Posting on the Internet.
By Tom Rhodes, 6/8/2015
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Net Neutrality is Simply the Liberal Response to Gruber
By Tom Rhodes, 11/24/2014
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
US Government Silences Political Speech
US Government Silences Political Speech
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014
A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.
What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.
Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.
During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.
What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.
That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.
Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.
Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.
We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.
Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014
A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.
What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.
Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.
During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.
What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.
That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.
Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.
Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.
We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.
Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Mike Adam's Free Speech College Entrance Exam
Mike Adams is a college professor who recently won a first amendment case aganst the University of North Carolina. They denied him tenure because he was not liberal and chose to exercise his freedom of speech. In hopes of preventing other such free speech problems from infecting college campuses he's offered the follwoing solution.
College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.
We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:
1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).
2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.
3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.
4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.
5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.
6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.
7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.
10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.
The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:
1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.
2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.
3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.
After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.
In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.
The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.
College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.
We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:
1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).
2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.
3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.
4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.
5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.
6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.
7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.
10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.
The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:
1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.
2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.
3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.
After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.
In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.
The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Freedom of Speech in the USA is Dead
By Tom Rhodes, 4/30/2014
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.
In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?
His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?
It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.
Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.
Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?
If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.
Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?
It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.
In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?
His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?
It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.
Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.
Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?
If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.
Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?
It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Free Speech Victory in Seminole Co.
By Tom Rhodes 5/23/2012
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Tuesday a judge ruled that flashing your headlights to warn others of a speed trap is protected speech.
It’s a small victory but it is a step in protecting liberty over statism.
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Tuesday a judge ruled that flashing your headlights to warn others of a speed trap is protected speech.
It’s a small victory but it is a step in protecting liberty over statism.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Day of Silence
By Tom Rhodes, 4/19/12
The Day of Silence (DOS), is an attack on free speech and yet another reason why the government should get out of the public school business. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sponsors Friday's "Day of Silence". Their goal is to have thousands of public high school and even middle school students to be silent for an entire day. The protest is to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals. The goal is simple and strait forward, destroy traditional values through the suppression of freedom of speech and religion. The purpose is clear and is not to promote tolerance, but is to undermine traditional beliefs including the eons old belief that homosexuality is immoral.
GLSEN is not proposing disrupting school instruction time, saying that Students do not have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. This position by GLSEN is the only acceptable position they have. The libertarian position is the toleration of their other positions, not a call for them to be silenced.
Schools which assert that DOS merely promotes acceptance, never define what the students are accepting. If it is to accept diverse opinions and beliefs then time should be given to those who opinions and beliefs are more traditional. The actions of schools who permit instructional time to be interrupted and degraded by the DOS, are saying that the opinion that homosexuality is moral is more valuable and deserves promotion even if it interupts instructional time than the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. It is a clear moral teaching by the school system. It is clearly appropriate to teach acceptance, if that means teaching that we should treat all people equally and with civility. But is it totally inappropriate to even suggest that students should or must accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral - Legal yes - Moral Not! It is also totally inappropriate to even suggest that students cannot nor should not express strong moral opinions.
Most Americans take the libertarian stance that people are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The vast majority of Americans tolerates and in fact is non-judgmental of homosexuality. Like sleeping around with lots of people, smoking dope, or hanging around with lawyers and bankers, most Americans think it is immoral but tolerate and such behavior and are not judgmental about it; Americans clearly don't want laws making such actions illegal. This is the rub, GLSEN and the LGBT community, don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everybody who chooses to engage in homosexual acts to not just be tolerated but not even feel "uncomfortable" about their choice. They want to silence all those who would make statements which morally condemn the practice and make them feel "uncomfortable". They are trying to redefine comfort as safety. Saying that when students make moral statements about homosexuality is the equivalent of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that those statements of moral conviction should not be allowed for reasons of "safety." GLSEN says the goal is to foster "respect difference within the school community and society as a whole." The truth is that they do not want any respect or tolerance of differences if those differences reflect a moral conviction they don't approve. The promotion and support of the DOS is an example of how GLSEN is actively working at silencing differences they don't approve.
If school administrations consistently applied the logic and reasoning of GLSEN, then every single statement that disapproved of anybody's activities would be prohibited. There is a clear double standard on freedom of speech. While I and all Libertarians, support the right of GLSEN to promote the DOS and would do nothing to try and make the DOS illegal, this is not acceptance of their position. I strongly disagree with the goals of GLSEN, but I will defend to the death their right to have them, promote them, and say them. The difference is that GLSEN and a large part of the LBGT community don't share the American belief in Freedom of Speech. Not only will they not defend the rights of people to publicly make moral statements they don't approve, they try to suppress speech they don't approve.
Pro-gay statements and open acts of homosexual affection, makes many people with traditional values feel uncomfortable and bullied to remain silent. GLSEN and other groups like them are bullying those who don't agree with them. Although GLSEN has the right to free speech, anybody in America who values that right should not only not support them but should actively work at counter protesting the DOS; making it clear that silencing ideas you don't agree with is not tolerance; silencing ideas you don't like is un-American; silencing ideas you don't like will is not an acceptable solution.
The issue here isn't gay rights, nobody is campaigning or calling to make activities between consenting adults illegal. That is not the same as condoning such activities or accepting them as moral and proper. Regardless of how you "feel" about prostitution, it like homosexual activities is an action between consenting adults, which is legal in much of the world including parts of the USA. That doesn't make prostitution a morally or socially acceptable activity. The legal activities of our Secret Service in Columbia should be condemned on moral and social grounds, and those agents should be held accountable to their employer if they in fact broke contractual rules of their employment or contractual obligations to another, like their spouse. If they in fact broke no laws or contracts, then there should be no legal consequences to their actions. They should however be publicly condemned as immoral, unthinking rubes and socially ostracized. Condemnation of immoral activity without legal consequences should be the appropriate response to immoral but legal acts.
How do you think it makes an alcoholic feel if he hears somebody condemning drunkards? How do you think it makes a adulterer feel when they are exposed on "Cheaters"? How do you think an metabolically challenged person feels when they see pictures of similar people showing rolls of fat at the "People of Wal-Mart" website? Do you think that it makes them feel "uncomfortable"? Do the way drunks, cheaters, and gluttons feel about having their sins exposed either directly or indirectly justifies silencing the speech of others to talk about those sins? If it does then, every environmentalist who denounces owners of BIG SUV's should be silenced because it may make SUV owners feel uncomfortable. Every PETA member should have their speech curtailed because their intolerance for meat-eaters makes meat eaters feel oppressed, harassed, and bullied. Those are absurd examples, but that is exactly what gay rights activists support; suppression of freedom of speech. To sum it up. if I cannot say things that make you feel uncomfortable about your life choices, then you can't say things that make me feel uncomfortable about my life choices.
Libertarians believe that prostitution, like homosexuality should be legal, that position does not even infer that they are morally or socially acceptable. We believe that freedom and liberty should be protected, even the freedom of speech of those we disagree. The same cannot be said for statists, and especially for a huge part of the LBGT community as represented by GLSEN, who believe that speech they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable", should be suppressed. Freedom of belief, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are the issue. Those who would suppress the speech of others and label mere speech as harassment or discrimination and attempt to outlaw such speech with significant consequences, just because they don't like that speech are the people we should denounce.
The solution to GLSEN's campaign to suppress speech they don't like, isn't suppressing GLSEN, but more speech. Make no doubt about it, the DOS is not about protecting gay rights it is about suppressing the free speech rights of those who don't conform to the LBGT agenda. Homosexuality is a sin, just like prostitution, being a drunkard, cursing, gluttony, etc. Because none of these activities involve force of fraud against another or infringe upon another's rights they should be and are generally legal (prostitution is legal so long as you trade dinner, a show, drinks and maybe a nice pair of ear-rings for sex instead of cash). It doesn't mean that people who engage in legal but immoral behavior have the right to suppress the condemnation by others. Just because an action is legal doesn't grant those who engage in that action the right to silence criticism by those who don't.
Our government run schools should neither support nor suppress the DOS, and should be neutral on student's opinions of legal actions including homosexuality. Supporting either a pro or anti position on homosexual activity, is in fact establishing a religion. Government schools supporting homosexuality and its moral acceptance while suppressing the speech of those who believe that it is a abominable sin and should be condemned, is in effect establishing a religion and is the suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. Forcing texts and curriculum to support homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality is clearly forcing the suppression of religious beliefs and opinions. This is just another example of government schools, and the government in general wanting control over the people, even as to what they think and what ideas they are allowed to express.
Support of the DOS is supporting suppression of free speech. In protest to this, I urge every parent to encourage their high school student to verbally make as many moral condemnations of the abominable social behavior of homosexuality, during the DOS, even if you just don't care about homosexuality, do it to fight suppression of free speech. Such statements as "Homosexuality is a Sin" are not discriminatory, not harassment, not illegal, and not even uncivil. Such statements are constitutionally protected. To promote free speech have your kid, wear an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo, wear a T-shirt with pictures of armed soldiers carrying big guns at memorial Day, wear a PETA shirt (People Eating Tasty Animals) on World Vegan Day, November 1st, wear a black arm band to protest the wars, wear T-shirts with controversial bible verses any day they can, or even wear T-Shirts with controversial Islamic verses, etc. etc. etc. Freedom of speech is worth defending, say something, wear something, express something somehow that will stir up statists who want their speech heard but not those they oppose, but don't do nothing.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmond Burke
The Day of Silence (DOS), is an attack on free speech and yet another reason why the government should get out of the public school business. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sponsors Friday's "Day of Silence". Their goal is to have thousands of public high school and even middle school students to be silent for an entire day. The protest is to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals. The goal is simple and strait forward, destroy traditional values through the suppression of freedom of speech and religion. The purpose is clear and is not to promote tolerance, but is to undermine traditional beliefs including the eons old belief that homosexuality is immoral.
GLSEN is not proposing disrupting school instruction time, saying that Students do not have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. This position by GLSEN is the only acceptable position they have. The libertarian position is the toleration of their other positions, not a call for them to be silenced.
Schools which assert that DOS merely promotes acceptance, never define what the students are accepting. If it is to accept diverse opinions and beliefs then time should be given to those who opinions and beliefs are more traditional. The actions of schools who permit instructional time to be interrupted and degraded by the DOS, are saying that the opinion that homosexuality is moral is more valuable and deserves promotion even if it interupts instructional time than the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. It is a clear moral teaching by the school system. It is clearly appropriate to teach acceptance, if that means teaching that we should treat all people equally and with civility. But is it totally inappropriate to even suggest that students should or must accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral - Legal yes - Moral Not! It is also totally inappropriate to even suggest that students cannot nor should not express strong moral opinions.
Most Americans take the libertarian stance that people are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The vast majority of Americans tolerates and in fact is non-judgmental of homosexuality. Like sleeping around with lots of people, smoking dope, or hanging around with lawyers and bankers, most Americans think it is immoral but tolerate and such behavior and are not judgmental about it; Americans clearly don't want laws making such actions illegal. This is the rub, GLSEN and the LGBT community, don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everybody who chooses to engage in homosexual acts to not just be tolerated but not even feel "uncomfortable" about their choice. They want to silence all those who would make statements which morally condemn the practice and make them feel "uncomfortable". They are trying to redefine comfort as safety. Saying that when students make moral statements about homosexuality is the equivalent of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that those statements of moral conviction should not be allowed for reasons of "safety." GLSEN says the goal is to foster "respect difference within the school community and society as a whole." The truth is that they do not want any respect or tolerance of differences if those differences reflect a moral conviction they don't approve. The promotion and support of the DOS is an example of how GLSEN is actively working at silencing differences they don't approve.
If school administrations consistently applied the logic and reasoning of GLSEN, then every single statement that disapproved of anybody's activities would be prohibited. There is a clear double standard on freedom of speech. While I and all Libertarians, support the right of GLSEN to promote the DOS and would do nothing to try and make the DOS illegal, this is not acceptance of their position. I strongly disagree with the goals of GLSEN, but I will defend to the death their right to have them, promote them, and say them. The difference is that GLSEN and a large part of the LBGT community don't share the American belief in Freedom of Speech. Not only will they not defend the rights of people to publicly make moral statements they don't approve, they try to suppress speech they don't approve.
Pro-gay statements and open acts of homosexual affection, makes many people with traditional values feel uncomfortable and bullied to remain silent. GLSEN and other groups like them are bullying those who don't agree with them. Although GLSEN has the right to free speech, anybody in America who values that right should not only not support them but should actively work at counter protesting the DOS; making it clear that silencing ideas you don't agree with is not tolerance; silencing ideas you don't like is un-American; silencing ideas you don't like will is not an acceptable solution.
The issue here isn't gay rights, nobody is campaigning or calling to make activities between consenting adults illegal. That is not the same as condoning such activities or accepting them as moral and proper. Regardless of how you "feel" about prostitution, it like homosexual activities is an action between consenting adults, which is legal in much of the world including parts of the USA. That doesn't make prostitution a morally or socially acceptable activity. The legal activities of our Secret Service in Columbia should be condemned on moral and social grounds, and those agents should be held accountable to their employer if they in fact broke contractual rules of their employment or contractual obligations to another, like their spouse. If they in fact broke no laws or contracts, then there should be no legal consequences to their actions. They should however be publicly condemned as immoral, unthinking rubes and socially ostracized. Condemnation of immoral activity without legal consequences should be the appropriate response to immoral but legal acts.
How do you think it makes an alcoholic feel if he hears somebody condemning drunkards? How do you think it makes a adulterer feel when they are exposed on "Cheaters"? How do you think an metabolically challenged person feels when they see pictures of similar people showing rolls of fat at the "People of Wal-Mart" website? Do you think that it makes them feel "uncomfortable"? Do the way drunks, cheaters, and gluttons feel about having their sins exposed either directly or indirectly justifies silencing the speech of others to talk about those sins? If it does then, every environmentalist who denounces owners of BIG SUV's should be silenced because it may make SUV owners feel uncomfortable. Every PETA member should have their speech curtailed because their intolerance for meat-eaters makes meat eaters feel oppressed, harassed, and bullied. Those are absurd examples, but that is exactly what gay rights activists support; suppression of freedom of speech. To sum it up. if I cannot say things that make you feel uncomfortable about your life choices, then you can't say things that make me feel uncomfortable about my life choices.
Libertarians believe that prostitution, like homosexuality should be legal, that position does not even infer that they are morally or socially acceptable. We believe that freedom and liberty should be protected, even the freedom of speech of those we disagree. The same cannot be said for statists, and especially for a huge part of the LBGT community as represented by GLSEN, who believe that speech they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable", should be suppressed. Freedom of belief, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are the issue. Those who would suppress the speech of others and label mere speech as harassment or discrimination and attempt to outlaw such speech with significant consequences, just because they don't like that speech are the people we should denounce.
The solution to GLSEN's campaign to suppress speech they don't like, isn't suppressing GLSEN, but more speech. Make no doubt about it, the DOS is not about protecting gay rights it is about suppressing the free speech rights of those who don't conform to the LBGT agenda. Homosexuality is a sin, just like prostitution, being a drunkard, cursing, gluttony, etc. Because none of these activities involve force of fraud against another or infringe upon another's rights they should be and are generally legal (prostitution is legal so long as you trade dinner, a show, drinks and maybe a nice pair of ear-rings for sex instead of cash). It doesn't mean that people who engage in legal but immoral behavior have the right to suppress the condemnation by others. Just because an action is legal doesn't grant those who engage in that action the right to silence criticism by those who don't.
Our government run schools should neither support nor suppress the DOS, and should be neutral on student's opinions of legal actions including homosexuality. Supporting either a pro or anti position on homosexual activity, is in fact establishing a religion. Government schools supporting homosexuality and its moral acceptance while suppressing the speech of those who believe that it is a abominable sin and should be condemned, is in effect establishing a religion and is the suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. Forcing texts and curriculum to support homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality is clearly forcing the suppression of religious beliefs and opinions. This is just another example of government schools, and the government in general wanting control over the people, even as to what they think and what ideas they are allowed to express.
Support of the DOS is supporting suppression of free speech. In protest to this, I urge every parent to encourage their high school student to verbally make as many moral condemnations of the abominable social behavior of homosexuality, during the DOS, even if you just don't care about homosexuality, do it to fight suppression of free speech. Such statements as "Homosexuality is a Sin" are not discriminatory, not harassment, not illegal, and not even uncivil. Such statements are constitutionally protected. To promote free speech have your kid, wear an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo, wear a T-shirt with pictures of armed soldiers carrying big guns at memorial Day, wear a PETA shirt (People Eating Tasty Animals) on World Vegan Day, November 1st, wear a black arm band to protest the wars, wear T-shirts with controversial bible verses any day they can, or even wear T-Shirts with controversial Islamic verses, etc. etc. etc. Freedom of speech is worth defending, say something, wear something, express something somehow that will stir up statists who want their speech heard but not those they oppose, but don't do nothing.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmond Burke
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Simple Difference
By Tom Rhodes 4/6/2012
When a libertarian hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say an NPR Editorial or a Strasburg Waltz, he turns the channel; exercising free will and choosing not to listen to what they want without infringing on other peoples free choice to listen. When a Liberal rears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say a Rush Editorial or a Lee Greenwood moldy oldy they try to create a law like the “Fairness Doctrine” or take some other actions so that nobody has the choice to listen to what liberals don’t want to hear.
The difference is simple and clear. Liberals don’t want people to be allowed to exercise free will if people don’t exercise freedom in a way liberals don’t like.
This can be seen in a huge variety of liberal positions. Take education, liberals are against any programs that actually offer parents choices in how their children are educated. They are anti-voucher, anti-charter schools, and anti-homeschooling. They simply don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what they think is best for their children because they want control and allowing people freedom means that the government doesn’t have control.
Consider something as simple as housing. Liberals and totalitarians worldwide are trying to force “sustainable” development rules on the world. They want concentrations of people renting, they do not want “sprawl” it doesn’t matter what people freely want to choose for themselves. Private property, and the free choice of people to have and use private property as they see fit is not even a consideration of liberals. They don’t want to allow individuals to exercise free will, but instead want some ruling elite to determine what is best and dictate how to live. Freedom of individuals to live as they see fit isn’t even considered. In fact they have such disdain for individual that they routinely claim that “most” people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Those who believe in liberty, libertarians, also know that with the exercise of free will comes the responsibility to live with the results of your choices. This is why liberals hate liberty; it has associated responsibility. They don’t want themselves or others to be responsible for the consequences of free will. Health care is a perfect example, they do not want people to have to be responsible for their life choices, and want those who make responsible choices to have to pay and care for those who don’t. They call it wealth redistribution, but it is a simple matter of not wanting anybody to suffer the consequences of exercising free will. They think that somebody who smokes, over eats, and never exercises should have the same affordable health care as somebody who doesn’t smoke, exercises regularly, and is careful about what they eat.
This is also why they are generally anti-Christian. Christianity is at its heart the exercise of free will. Christians believe that there is only one way, and that everybody has free will to choose or not choose the path to salvation. Liberals hate the fact that the exercise of free will and making a bad choice means eternal damnation. They hate free will, because some people might not make the right choice. The ultimate expression of freedom is in Christianity, where a person can be free from the guilt and punishment of a lifetime of sins by simply exercising free will. Of course that acknowledges the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that decision. Exercising free will has consequences, liberals have some child like idea that nobody should suffer for anything, and that nobody should have to live with the consequences of making bad choices, hence they hate free will and liberty.
In Wyoming officials admitted that they infringed upon the first amendment rights of a Christian group. Their solution, rather than stop discriminating against one view point, is to silence all viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the exercise of expression that they don’t like, they choose to install rules that mean nobody is allowed to communicate any ideas. (LINK)
It is so bad that in the people’s republic of Massachusetts school officials went so far as to change the words of Lee Greenwood’s 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” that little kids would be singing. Once the outcry from the general public, and Greenwood exercised his copyrights telling them that they couldn’t take God out of his song because as he said, "it’s the most important part", the liberal government types in Massachusetts took the predicted mode and just canceling the entire concert.
The simple difference between liberals and libertarians is tolerance. Liberals do not and will not tolerate any ideas or even the expression of ideas they don’t like, their actions and words clearly reflect this. Go look at or join in some political discussion groups on Facebook, you will clearly see that it is liberals that call for the removal of those they don’t agree, or when liberal government types run a discussion group they are the first to remove people whose ideas they don’t like. The actual evidence is clear, liberal government types cannot stand and don’t tolerate ideas they don’t like, ideas like free will, and liberty.
Now do you want people whose actions repeatedly demonstrate that that believe that is preferable to silence everybody than allow expressions they don’t agree, making your laws? Voting for a liberal government type that is exactly what you get. Be the liberal government type named Obama, or Romney, voting for them is a vote to restrict your rights and a vote against tolerance.
When a libertarian hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say an NPR Editorial or a Strasburg Waltz, he turns the channel; exercising free will and choosing not to listen to what they want without infringing on other peoples free choice to listen. When a Liberal rears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say a Rush Editorial or a Lee Greenwood moldy oldy they try to create a law like the “Fairness Doctrine” or take some other actions so that nobody has the choice to listen to what liberals don’t want to hear.
The difference is simple and clear. Liberals don’t want people to be allowed to exercise free will if people don’t exercise freedom in a way liberals don’t like.
This can be seen in a huge variety of liberal positions. Take education, liberals are against any programs that actually offer parents choices in how their children are educated. They are anti-voucher, anti-charter schools, and anti-homeschooling. They simply don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what they think is best for their children because they want control and allowing people freedom means that the government doesn’t have control.
Consider something as simple as housing. Liberals and totalitarians worldwide are trying to force “sustainable” development rules on the world. They want concentrations of people renting, they do not want “sprawl” it doesn’t matter what people freely want to choose for themselves. Private property, and the free choice of people to have and use private property as they see fit is not even a consideration of liberals. They don’t want to allow individuals to exercise free will, but instead want some ruling elite to determine what is best and dictate how to live. Freedom of individuals to live as they see fit isn’t even considered. In fact they have such disdain for individual that they routinely claim that “most” people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Those who believe in liberty, libertarians, also know that with the exercise of free will comes the responsibility to live with the results of your choices. This is why liberals hate liberty; it has associated responsibility. They don’t want themselves or others to be responsible for the consequences of free will. Health care is a perfect example, they do not want people to have to be responsible for their life choices, and want those who make responsible choices to have to pay and care for those who don’t. They call it wealth redistribution, but it is a simple matter of not wanting anybody to suffer the consequences of exercising free will. They think that somebody who smokes, over eats, and never exercises should have the same affordable health care as somebody who doesn’t smoke, exercises regularly, and is careful about what they eat.
This is also why they are generally anti-Christian. Christianity is at its heart the exercise of free will. Christians believe that there is only one way, and that everybody has free will to choose or not choose the path to salvation. Liberals hate the fact that the exercise of free will and making a bad choice means eternal damnation. They hate free will, because some people might not make the right choice. The ultimate expression of freedom is in Christianity, where a person can be free from the guilt and punishment of a lifetime of sins by simply exercising free will. Of course that acknowledges the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that decision. Exercising free will has consequences, liberals have some child like idea that nobody should suffer for anything, and that nobody should have to live with the consequences of making bad choices, hence they hate free will and liberty.
In Wyoming officials admitted that they infringed upon the first amendment rights of a Christian group. Their solution, rather than stop discriminating against one view point, is to silence all viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the exercise of expression that they don’t like, they choose to install rules that mean nobody is allowed to communicate any ideas. (LINK)
It is so bad that in the people’s republic of Massachusetts school officials went so far as to change the words of Lee Greenwood’s 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” that little kids would be singing. Once the outcry from the general public, and Greenwood exercised his copyrights telling them that they couldn’t take God out of his song because as he said, "it’s the most important part", the liberal government types in Massachusetts took the predicted mode and just canceling the entire concert.
The simple difference between liberals and libertarians is tolerance. Liberals do not and will not tolerate any ideas or even the expression of ideas they don’t like, their actions and words clearly reflect this. Go look at or join in some political discussion groups on Facebook, you will clearly see that it is liberals that call for the removal of those they don’t agree, or when liberal government types run a discussion group they are the first to remove people whose ideas they don’t like. The actual evidence is clear, liberal government types cannot stand and don’t tolerate ideas they don’t like, ideas like free will, and liberty.
Now do you want people whose actions repeatedly demonstrate that that believe that is preferable to silence everybody than allow expressions they don’t agree, making your laws? Voting for a liberal government type that is exactly what you get. Be the liberal government type named Obama, or Romney, voting for them is a vote to restrict your rights and a vote against tolerance.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
We are Teaching Our Youth to Accept Totalitarianism
It starts out the very first class in Kindergarten, because there are not unlimited funds, the kids are given a list of things the class needs, and everybody is expected to bring: safety scissors, crayons, etc. Now because not all kids can afford those things a note is added that asks if you can that you also buy enough for another student. Generously that happens and usually there is extra. So far so good, the kids see charity and voluntary caring for those less fortunate. Then the Kindergarten teacher gets all socialist. Rather than let each student keep and use the property they brought in, and give the extras to those who couldn’t afford any, demonstrating that Americans can and will voluntarily help those less fortunate, all the supplies get combined into individual tubs, all the scissors in one tub, crayons in another, they all become everybody’s community property. This way the kid who’s parents bought the best Crayola crayons doesn’t have something better than the kid who’s parents could only afford the cheap generic ones. It’s not “fair” that some have nicer things than others and we are trying to teach that community property is better than private property. In fact private property rights of children are suppressed and treated as evil.
Next year in first grade when the parents get the list almost all of them purchases the cheapest stuff they can, because since it all becomes community property, there is no reason to provide the best you can, your kid will probably not benefit from your added expense, since there is no ownership, there is incentive to provide the best. Since nobody will see that there is charity to those who are less fortunate, few parents provide extra for the community, and often there is not enough to go around, so some of last year’s old worn out supplies are recycled, or pleas for more support are issued. It’s not “fair” that some get better, or have more, etc. so right from the start the first lesson our schools teach is community property, and it’s not fair that some have more than others. Although not said our actions in school teach socialism.
When our children go to middle and high school, the Bill of Rights is barely mentioned, but the actions of the school are that the “Authority” has the right to search you whenever they want; force you to testify against yourself, you have no right to defend yourself, you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy, you have no right to a fair hearing or trial, and due process is what the authorities say it is. Arbitrary rules with no basis in fact can and are abusively enforced. If at lunch you use a plastic knife to spread peanut butter on your crackers; you’re expelled for having a knife on campus. Imagine a 15 yr old girl expelled for having a Mydol to relieve cramps from her monthly friend. Or an 8 year old boy suspended for drawing a soldier with a gun (his dad’s in the National Guard). How about throwing both the bully and the victim out of school for fighting, doesn’t matter who started it if you hit back and defend yourself your suspended or expelled, you have no right to either due process or self defense.
When two Norview High School teachers distributed classroom materials to a 12th grade government class, which gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped, they were placed on paid administrative leave because the materials where “unauthorized.” They’d shown a video from Flex Your Rights which explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. Clearly it’s unauthorized to teach students when and how they can tell authorities no. (Watch the Video)
The results are that our students know that the authorities can abuse them and that bucking authority has swift arbitrary punishment without due process, and although they may have “rights” the reality is they are subjects to authoritarian rule. Worse is the fact that they are ignorant of their rights and how our government works. In a national survey of high school students it was revealed that only:
2% can identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
35% know that "we the people" are the first three words of the U.S. Constitution
1.8% know that James Madison is considered the father of the U.S. Constitution
25% know that the Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self incrimination, among other legal rights.
Think it gets better in college, visit http://www.thefire.org and review the legal cases they have fought. Look at all the cases they have exposed where due process is denied and the arbitrary dictates of University Leaders are the law, and students have no rights except not to be offended. They give most Florida Universities a red light on protecting individual rights. Just note that at the University of Florida examples of Prohibited Conduct Include, but Are Not Limited To:
Writing or displaying letters, notes, or e-mails which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status.
Making comments, slurs, or jokes which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status. ...
Making gestures or displaying pictures, cartoons, posters, or magazines which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status ....
I guess if you’re a college student at UF, you have to watch South Park in secret. The First Amendment at this publicly funded university is not even a consideration. Again we teach that the authorities have the right to control what you say and do.
Is it a wonder that since from the day kids start school until the graduate college the actions of our schools hammer into them the fact that those in power can control you, and we don’t teach by action or word what unalienable rights are, or the founding principles of our country and government, that there is no outcry when our President acts like a third world despot. Due process and the rule of law are not discussed and definitely not demonstrated by our schools to our children.
Look at our public elementary and secondary schools, they look like prisons, bared doors, armed polices wandering the halls, and nearly constant surveillance. Our student’s time in school is marked by overreaching zero tolerance policies, heightened security and surveillance and a greater emphasis on conformity. The result is the acceptance of destruction of privacy and freedom. In fact I believe we are now in The War on Kids www.thewaronkids.com
Maybe that’s been the goal all along, to change the education system to teach the people to accept totalitarianism. It is the results.
How else do you explain the people of this country accepting the third world like despotism of Obama extorting 20 billion from BP without due process? When did Obama become Judge and Jury and get granted the power to adjudicate crime and pass sentences on private corporations? He’s not a judge. When did Obama get the power and authority to create laws that allows the federal government to take the assets of a private company and determine how best to distribute them to people the private company may have hurt without a trial? He’s no longer a Senator. What law granted Obama the power and authority to deny BP due process? When did the USA become a totalitarian state with the President having the powers to dictate the actions of private companies? When we took teaching civics and the bill of rights out of our schools and taught socialism and totalitarianism by example.
Obama is acting like a King not a president. Our schools have taught our children to accept totalitarianism. Imagine if they were teaching what a few decades ago was common. We must change what and how our schools teach our children about civil rights and government. Graduating high school students don’t even know as much as kids who watched Saturday morning TV did in the 70’s. When was the last time you heard or saw a School House Rock video? I’ll close with the lyrics of the School House Rock song No More Kings (Watch Here)
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
and it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
Next year in first grade when the parents get the list almost all of them purchases the cheapest stuff they can, because since it all becomes community property, there is no reason to provide the best you can, your kid will probably not benefit from your added expense, since there is no ownership, there is incentive to provide the best. Since nobody will see that there is charity to those who are less fortunate, few parents provide extra for the community, and often there is not enough to go around, so some of last year’s old worn out supplies are recycled, or pleas for more support are issued. It’s not “fair” that some get better, or have more, etc. so right from the start the first lesson our schools teach is community property, and it’s not fair that some have more than others. Although not said our actions in school teach socialism.
When our children go to middle and high school, the Bill of Rights is barely mentioned, but the actions of the school are that the “Authority” has the right to search you whenever they want; force you to testify against yourself, you have no right to defend yourself, you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy, you have no right to a fair hearing or trial, and due process is what the authorities say it is. Arbitrary rules with no basis in fact can and are abusively enforced. If at lunch you use a plastic knife to spread peanut butter on your crackers; you’re expelled for having a knife on campus. Imagine a 15 yr old girl expelled for having a Mydol to relieve cramps from her monthly friend. Or an 8 year old boy suspended for drawing a soldier with a gun (his dad’s in the National Guard). How about throwing both the bully and the victim out of school for fighting, doesn’t matter who started it if you hit back and defend yourself your suspended or expelled, you have no right to either due process or self defense.
When two Norview High School teachers distributed classroom materials to a 12th grade government class, which gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped, they were placed on paid administrative leave because the materials where “unauthorized.” They’d shown a video from Flex Your Rights which explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. Clearly it’s unauthorized to teach students when and how they can tell authorities no. (Watch the Video)
The results are that our students know that the authorities can abuse them and that bucking authority has swift arbitrary punishment without due process, and although they may have “rights” the reality is they are subjects to authoritarian rule. Worse is the fact that they are ignorant of their rights and how our government works. In a national survey of high school students it was revealed that only:
Think it gets better in college, visit http://www.thefire.org and review the legal cases they have fought. Look at all the cases they have exposed where due process is denied and the arbitrary dictates of University Leaders are the law, and students have no rights except not to be offended. They give most Florida Universities a red light on protecting individual rights. Just note that at the University of Florida examples of Prohibited Conduct Include, but Are Not Limited To:
I guess if you’re a college student at UF, you have to watch South Park in secret. The First Amendment at this publicly funded university is not even a consideration. Again we teach that the authorities have the right to control what you say and do.
Is it a wonder that since from the day kids start school until the graduate college the actions of our schools hammer into them the fact that those in power can control you, and we don’t teach by action or word what unalienable rights are, or the founding principles of our country and government, that there is no outcry when our President acts like a third world despot. Due process and the rule of law are not discussed and definitely not demonstrated by our schools to our children.
Look at our public elementary and secondary schools, they look like prisons, bared doors, armed polices wandering the halls, and nearly constant surveillance. Our student’s time in school is marked by overreaching zero tolerance policies, heightened security and surveillance and a greater emphasis on conformity. The result is the acceptance of destruction of privacy and freedom. In fact I believe we are now in The War on Kids www.thewaronkids.com
Maybe that’s been the goal all along, to change the education system to teach the people to accept totalitarianism. It is the results.
How else do you explain the people of this country accepting the third world like despotism of Obama extorting 20 billion from BP without due process? When did Obama become Judge and Jury and get granted the power to adjudicate crime and pass sentences on private corporations? He’s not a judge. When did Obama get the power and authority to create laws that allows the federal government to take the assets of a private company and determine how best to distribute them to people the private company may have hurt without a trial? He’s no longer a Senator. What law granted Obama the power and authority to deny BP due process? When did the USA become a totalitarian state with the President having the powers to dictate the actions of private companies? When we took teaching civics and the bill of rights out of our schools and taught socialism and totalitarianism by example.
Obama is acting like a King not a president. Our schools have taught our children to accept totalitarianism. Imagine if they were teaching what a few decades ago was common. We must change what and how our schools teach our children about civil rights and government. Graduating high school students don’t even know as much as kids who watched Saturday morning TV did in the 70’s. When was the last time you heard or saw a School House Rock video? I’ll close with the lyrics of the School House Rock song No More Kings (Watch Here)
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
and it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Elites hate Citizen Journalism
The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Of Sports, Free Speech and Liberty
My preference for sports, like most Americans, is that they include speed and some element of danger. The Winter Olympics has much of that, but to be honest I have trouble thinking of curling as a sport. I was enthralled with the women’s snowboard cross during the Olympics. Speed, jumps, falls, completion, drama, everything a good sporting event should have, unfortunately NBC paired it with the Men’s figure skating short program.
To be fair, if I use that criterion, which allowed me to enjoy the snowboard cross, the criteria which includes such sports as football, basketball, even motocross, I have to include figure skating. Acknowledging that the estrogen-fest that was the men’s figure skating short program is a sport is difficult. But hell, just like pro-wrestling it even includes death threats, but unlike the phony rigged acting of professional wrestling, the threats made in men’s figure skating were real and credible. Part of what makes accepting men’s figure skating as a sport revolting is my personal bias; I find flaming effeminate men disturbing and revolting. Johnny Weir typifies this type of person.
The fact is, Johnny Weir is a free man, and has the same liberties as the rest of us. As much as his appearance, actions, manners and speech offend me, none of them restrict or infringe upon my rights. I don’t have a right not to be offended. There are some, who because of Weirs dress and speech have threatened his life. He has had to remain in the secure Olympic campus for his own safety. No it is not a bunch of butch homophobes in flannel shirts trying to string up the flaming fruitcake persona of Johnny Weir, it’s leftist radicals, who want to determine control the free choices he and everyone else can make.
The heinous “crime” which warrants Weir’s death is that he wore a piece of fox fur on his costume, and didn’t capitulate to the PETA crowd, saying the right things. To quote Johnny Weir, he “Loves Wearing Dead Animals,” and calls animal rights activists “Crazy Fur People”. I don’t know if I’ll ever live down the shame o f using, and agreeing with quotes from such a sissy. Unlike libertarians, PETA and the extremists it attracts typify the left. If you can’t persuade people to do what you want them to do, if you can’t elect representatives to make the law you want, then use force. They don’t use violence in their own self defense, but to force their beliefs on others. This is morally corrupt. Weir hasn’t proposed or promoted anything illegal, or anything that infringes upon the rights of another. Because he enjoys what the left finds as offensive, they are willing to force him to change his behavior.
Johnny Weir, like everybody should be free to express himself as he wishes and not to be threatened with violence for those expressions. Because leftist extremist groups like PETA have a history of using violence, Weir changed his behavior. Why is it that the left, statists in general, think that they should have the right to force others to live the way they think is best? Johnny Weir is and should remain at liberty to act how he wants, so long as his expression does not infringe on the rights of another. Although I find him disturbing, and will avoid any product or company who choose to use him as a spokesperson, I would and do defend his right to express himself as he sees fit.
Why can’t the liberals do the same? Not only will they not defend the right of others to express their ideas, they work at silencing others who express different ideas. When their ideas fail because the people reject them yet they are more than willing to use force, to make people accept them. Consider talk radio; conservative idea’s and spokesmen sell commercials (Rush, Beck, etc); to a lesser extent libertarian ideas and spokesmen sell commercials (Boortz, Savage, etc). Conservative and Libertarian ideas sell because people freely choose to listen to those ideas. Liberal ideas don’t sell commercials; Air America went bankrupt, as when people are given a free choice, they choose not to listen to them. The only place liberal radio is alive is at NPR, which is paid for by tax dollars, and where liberal ideas don’t have to compete. Unlike conservative or libertarian talk radio, NPR doesn’t take callers and doesn’t try to argue their points, it dictates a view, it doesn’t defend a view. When liberal ideas are given freedom, and have to compete, they are rejected. This is why the left is trying to re-instate the “fairness” doctrine, and use the force of government to make people hear and accept their ideas.
Maybe this is why so many liberals hate competition; competition is so un-fair, because with competition there is always a winner and a loser. The politically correct view of the Olympics is that it is a platform to teach respect for self and others; fair play; excellence; joy in effort; and balance of body, mind, and will. That is crap, look at the NBC coverage, and you’ll see it’s about winning, losing, competition, and the worlds thirst to attempt to be the best. The medal counts we watch every day to see who is best, in a fair even handed competition, with the same rules applied to everybody. We reward those who excel, acknowledge those who try, and ignore those who don’t compete. The left isn’t willing to have the same rules for everybody, because there will be winners and losers, and those who don’t compete will be left behind. Ask why your school no longer has dodge ball or a valedictorian.
Why does it take street gang methods to implement liberal ideas? Johnny Weir didn’t take the fur off his costume because he was convinced by the competing idea that people shouldn’t use animal furs. He did so because he didn’t want his Olympic performance tainted by extremists throwing blood on the ice, and because he feared for his well being. The PETA crowd made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Liberals like street gangs work on the principle of eliminating completion, allowing people to freely choose over competing ideas is not a consideration. Liberty is being free to compete fairly for the rewards offered by your fellow man. In the competition for ideas Johnny Weir’s liberty was never a consideration.
To be fair, if I use that criterion, which allowed me to enjoy the snowboard cross, the criteria which includes such sports as football, basketball, even motocross, I have to include figure skating. Acknowledging that the estrogen-fest that was the men’s figure skating short program is a sport is difficult. But hell, just like pro-wrestling it even includes death threats, but unlike the phony rigged acting of professional wrestling, the threats made in men’s figure skating were real and credible. Part of what makes accepting men’s figure skating as a sport revolting is my personal bias; I find flaming effeminate men disturbing and revolting. Johnny Weir typifies this type of person.
The fact is, Johnny Weir is a free man, and has the same liberties as the rest of us. As much as his appearance, actions, manners and speech offend me, none of them restrict or infringe upon my rights. I don’t have a right not to be offended. There are some, who because of Weirs dress and speech have threatened his life. He has had to remain in the secure Olympic campus for his own safety. No it is not a bunch of butch homophobes in flannel shirts trying to string up the flaming fruitcake persona of Johnny Weir, it’s leftist radicals, who want to determine control the free choices he and everyone else can make. The heinous “crime” which warrants Weir’s death is that he wore a piece of fox fur on his costume, and didn’t capitulate to the PETA crowd, saying the right things. To quote Johnny Weir, he “Loves Wearing Dead Animals,” and calls animal rights activists “Crazy Fur People”. I don’t know if I’ll ever live down the shame o f using, and agreeing with quotes from such a sissy. Unlike libertarians, PETA and the extremists it attracts typify the left. If you can’t persuade people to do what you want them to do, if you can’t elect representatives to make the law you want, then use force. They don’t use violence in their own self defense, but to force their beliefs on others. This is morally corrupt. Weir hasn’t proposed or promoted anything illegal, or anything that infringes upon the rights of another. Because he enjoys what the left finds as offensive, they are willing to force him to change his behavior.
Johnny Weir, like everybody should be free to express himself as he wishes and not to be threatened with violence for those expressions. Because leftist extremist groups like PETA have a history of using violence, Weir changed his behavior. Why is it that the left, statists in general, think that they should have the right to force others to live the way they think is best? Johnny Weir is and should remain at liberty to act how he wants, so long as his expression does not infringe on the rights of another. Although I find him disturbing, and will avoid any product or company who choose to use him as a spokesperson, I would and do defend his right to express himself as he sees fit.
Why can’t the liberals do the same? Not only will they not defend the right of others to express their ideas, they work at silencing others who express different ideas. When their ideas fail because the people reject them yet they are more than willing to use force, to make people accept them. Consider talk radio; conservative idea’s and spokesmen sell commercials (Rush, Beck, etc); to a lesser extent libertarian ideas and spokesmen sell commercials (Boortz, Savage, etc). Conservative and Libertarian ideas sell because people freely choose to listen to those ideas. Liberal ideas don’t sell commercials; Air America went bankrupt, as when people are given a free choice, they choose not to listen to them. The only place liberal radio is alive is at NPR, which is paid for by tax dollars, and where liberal ideas don’t have to compete. Unlike conservative or libertarian talk radio, NPR doesn’t take callers and doesn’t try to argue their points, it dictates a view, it doesn’t defend a view. When liberal ideas are given freedom, and have to compete, they are rejected. This is why the left is trying to re-instate the “fairness” doctrine, and use the force of government to make people hear and accept their ideas.
Maybe this is why so many liberals hate competition; competition is so un-fair, because with competition there is always a winner and a loser. The politically correct view of the Olympics is that it is a platform to teach respect for self and others; fair play; excellence; joy in effort; and balance of body, mind, and will. That is crap, look at the NBC coverage, and you’ll see it’s about winning, losing, competition, and the worlds thirst to attempt to be the best. The medal counts we watch every day to see who is best, in a fair even handed competition, with the same rules applied to everybody. We reward those who excel, acknowledge those who try, and ignore those who don’t compete. The left isn’t willing to have the same rules for everybody, because there will be winners and losers, and those who don’t compete will be left behind. Ask why your school no longer has dodge ball or a valedictorian.
Why does it take street gang methods to implement liberal ideas? Johnny Weir didn’t take the fur off his costume because he was convinced by the competing idea that people shouldn’t use animal furs. He did so because he didn’t want his Olympic performance tainted by extremists throwing blood on the ice, and because he feared for his well being. The PETA crowd made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Liberals like street gangs work on the principle of eliminating completion, allowing people to freely choose over competing ideas is not a consideration. Liberty is being free to compete fairly for the rewards offered by your fellow man. In the competition for ideas Johnny Weir’s liberty was never a consideration.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama Declares War on Free Speech
If you’ve been listening, you’ll realize that the First Amendment, our Freedom of Speech, is under attack by no less than the President of the United States. During the State of the Union Speech the president declared war on the first amendment attacking the Supreme Court of the United States and the press.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of speech, for all not just some, Obama declared it a priority to fight to limit what and when powerful unions can speak. Concerning the SCOTUS’ decision to allow Labor Unions and other groups of people to express political speech near elections, Obama said, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” WOW! The act of individual people pooling their money together to finance political speech during election season is “devastating to the public interest.” Isn’t that exactly what the first amendment is supposed to protect?
Obama listed some of his enemies in the State of the Union speech last night. His enemies are not Islamists who vow to destroy western civilization and the USA specifically; he declared that “TV pundits” are the enemy.
I’m at a loss for words to describe my feelings when the President of the United States says people freely expressing their political opinions are enemies. “TV Pundits” have no real power, they don’t have an army, they are not calling for violence, they can’t make laws, they can’t put people in jail, they can’t change taxes, and they aren’t trying to silence those who don’t agree with them, they are people in America exercising their first amendment rights. The only power TV pundits have is the power of thier Ideas. If your opinions, looks and personality are popular enough that others are willing to pay you to broadcast them, and the President doesn't like what you say, then you’re an enemy.
This whole enemies list smacks of leftist governments like the Cuba, China and former regimes like USSR, socialist Japan, and Fascist Germany, which do everything they can to control the media and what ideas people are exposed. The last American president to declare the media as enemies was Nixon, who was routinely called and considered a fascist by the pundits. Nixon considered pundits enemies because he knew if he was exposed he would be out of a job and powerless. What is Obama hiding if he has to declare that those who don’t agree with him are enemies?
If his ideas, policies, and actions cannot stand criticism, maybe it’s because they are not what the people want. Obama has ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the NY Times, and most other major newspapers all promoting leftist ideas. Considering the huge left tilt of mass media, if the ideas expressed by one TV network and a dozen talk radio hosts can influence enough people to effectively stop his agenda, then maybe he should consider that the country doesn’t want his fascist implementation of European socialism. In the battlefield of ideas, Obama’s ideas, and the left’s ideas in general are losing. Declaring TV pundits “enemies”, during the State of the Union, is the act of a desperate man who has lost control of the message, and fears being exposed.
Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all, that includes TV Pundits, or bloggers, or even corporations and labor unions.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of speech, for all not just some, Obama declared it a priority to fight to limit what and when powerful unions can speak. Concerning the SCOTUS’ decision to allow Labor Unions and other groups of people to express political speech near elections, Obama said, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” WOW! The act of individual people pooling their money together to finance political speech during election season is “devastating to the public interest.” Isn’t that exactly what the first amendment is supposed to protect?
Obama listed some of his enemies in the State of the Union speech last night. His enemies are not Islamists who vow to destroy western civilization and the USA specifically; he declared that “TV pundits” are the enemy.
I’m at a loss for words to describe my feelings when the President of the United States says people freely expressing their political opinions are enemies. “TV Pundits” have no real power, they don’t have an army, they are not calling for violence, they can’t make laws, they can’t put people in jail, they can’t change taxes, and they aren’t trying to silence those who don’t agree with them, they are people in America exercising their first amendment rights. The only power TV pundits have is the power of thier Ideas. If your opinions, looks and personality are popular enough that others are willing to pay you to broadcast them, and the President doesn't like what you say, then you’re an enemy.
This whole enemies list smacks of leftist governments like the Cuba, China and former regimes like USSR, socialist Japan, and Fascist Germany, which do everything they can to control the media and what ideas people are exposed. The last American president to declare the media as enemies was Nixon, who was routinely called and considered a fascist by the pundits. Nixon considered pundits enemies because he knew if he was exposed he would be out of a job and powerless. What is Obama hiding if he has to declare that those who don’t agree with him are enemies?
If his ideas, policies, and actions cannot stand criticism, maybe it’s because they are not what the people want. Obama has ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the NY Times, and most other major newspapers all promoting leftist ideas. Considering the huge left tilt of mass media, if the ideas expressed by one TV network and a dozen talk radio hosts can influence enough people to effectively stop his agenda, then maybe he should consider that the country doesn’t want his fascist implementation of European socialism. In the battlefield of ideas, Obama’s ideas, and the left’s ideas in general are losing. Declaring TV pundits “enemies”, during the State of the Union, is the act of a desperate man who has lost control of the message, and fears being exposed.
Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all, that includes TV Pundits, or bloggers, or even corporations and labor unions.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Victory for Free Speech
Why is yesterdays Supreme Court ruling saying that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections, so controversial?
The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Justice Kennedy got it right in his opinion where he said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The SCOTUS got it right, and overturned McCain-Feingold.
Justice Kennedy also wrote in the majority opinion, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Justice Kennedy got it right in his opinion where he said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The SCOTUS got it right, and overturned McCain-Feingold.
Justice Kennedy also wrote in the majority opinion, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
