Quote du jour

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances*.

*Unless, of course, there's a pandemic with a 99% survival rate!

-First Amendment to the Constitution

New Yorker Cartoonist Targeted for Jihad

Political epiphanies are not always instantaneous. Or if they are, there may be a drawn out period of gestation before it springs upon you, like Venus from the half shell. Such it was with me. I was reading Mark Steyn on the lame and execrable New Yorker cover:


...depicting seven apparently white Republican men (although two of the seven are in fact Hispanic), while poor Hillary has to stand outside the clubhouse door looking in. The glaring absence of three Republican minority candidates, a black, a woman and an Indian-American, along with the inaccurate depiction of the two Hispanic candidates, suggests that reality did not fit the cartoonist's meme of "white male privilege", or the fact that Hillary had let herself into her own clubhouse, built, owned and operated by the Clinton Foundation through a series of dummy corporations and cut outs.

Suddenly it hit me: I was offended by this cartoon. No, I mean: I WAS OFFENDED BY THIS CARTOON! I had seen it several times before. In fact, over the years I have seen a number of cartoons that were offensive: cartoons of Condoleeza Rice as a Negro slave comes to mind. But as offensive as some of these cartoons was, I was never "offended". Not officially anyway.

So I thought back to all the lessons I had learned from similar offenses in the news recently. Certainly, this fellow Mark Ulriksen of the New Yorker has the 1st. Amendment right to draw it, but that does not trump my right to be offended by it. He was clearly doing it intentionally to provoke a controversy. "Punching down" in the Doonesbury vernacular.

How do rational people respond to such provocation? Obviously, it is to declare a fatwa upon him, hunt him down and kill him*.

Which brings me to my problem. Two men recently set the example by driving 1000 miles to carry out a similar jihad**. I live in California. Assuming this Mark Ulriksen actually does live in new York, that's closer to 3,000 miles. President Obama has impressed upon us that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism. So, in order to keep my carbon footprint manageable, do any of you know Mark, who could maybe convince him to meet me half way? Failing that, is anyone else out there OFFENDED who would be interested in car pooling? (Going halfsies on ammunition would be appreciated, too, but not mandatory.)

If there were any middle ground, any at all, acceptable to men of reason, and peace and goodwill, I would obviously be open to that, but, the predominant view, worldwide, is that this is the preferable and most frequently used recourse.

If only there were another way!




*If you cannot fathom the concepts of hyperbole or satire, please stop reading now.

**Well, attempt one anyway!

John Kerry to Media: Don't Cover Tea Party

Senator Lurch coming out against the First Amendment:



Via Real Clear Politics:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual. It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do."

First of all, Senator Kerry, shame on you! It's "the media have...". You'd think someone married to Teresa Heinz could afford a good English tutor!

Second, the Tea Party, as it is loosely associated, stands for fiscal responsibility and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. Are those the "absolutely absurd notions" you don't want the public to hear about? Are their ideas not "legitimate" because they differ from yours? In a society that prizes freedom of speech, exactly whom would you make the arbiter over what is or is not a "legitimate idea"?

Oh, and by the way, did you realize that John Kerry served in Viet Nam?


H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

On the Denair Flag Controversy

Nothing like "Old Glory" to prime the pump of discussions over what it means to be an American. I've been keeping my powder dry over this latest controversy in Denair, California, over whether or not Cody Alicea could fly the American flag on his bicycle on school grounds.
Just last May, you might recall, California students were sent home for wearing American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. This seemed to be just more of the same.



First of all, for those of you contemplating home schooling, go with your gut. A lot of indoctrination takes place in lieu of actual learning in government schools. That a 13-year-old boy would be more cognizant of his Constitutional rights than the educational establishment where he is putatively going to be educated is a sad state of affairs.

If the sight of the American flag is going to "cause trouble", then why not deal with the trouble makers? Has appeasement taken such a foothold in our public institutions that we are no longer able to take a stand and say, "This is what we believe. If that offends you, too bad"?

People who are proud of their ethnic heritage should be free to do so, but their freedom does not trump the freedom of others in the process. I sometimes like to call myself a Native American. I was born here. I have that right. My flag is the American flag. It is a part of my ethnic heritage and that of my children.

If the school district wants to ban students from bringing any other flag onto campus, be it Gadsden or Mexican, I don't have a problem with that. But the one they themselves display prominently in front of the school, that was once displayed prominently in every classroom, and allegiance pledged to it on a daily basis, should be exempt from any arbitrary rules as long as this nation stands.

If anyone abuses the flag, then deal with the abuse. Did you notice in the video the care with which he correctly folded his flag? If not, go back and watch it again.

Cody Alicea and others like him, are the hope for the future of our country. The Neville Chamberlain wing of the educational establishment needs to learn that.

BTW, according to a report on KTXL last night, the school district is saying that this was a "misunderstanding". I'll say!

Video via Fleece Me

Time for a Little Political and Social Jiu Jitsu

Jiu Jitsu has been described as a method of using one's opponent's strength against him. And if there's one thing we know about liberals, it's that they very strongly hate cigarettes!

If burning the flag in public is protected free speech saying "I hate this country", why wouldn't burning a small tube of tobacco, wrapped in paper be protected free speech saying "I like tobacco"? They both produce toxic fumes and smoke. Why is one protected and the other not?

I have never been of the opinion that burning a flag was "free speech". And even if that particular action could be denoted as speech, it would have to fall under the category of "fighting words".

Under protected free speech, you may say that you hate this country and that you despise our flag. We get that. Once you cross the line to take the literally inflammatory action of setting Old Glory on fire in public, it goes beyond mere speech, IMHO.

But, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em! I will concede that burning the flag in public is free speech if liberals concede that burning cigarettes in public is free speech.

Full disclosure: I am not a smoker, nor have I ever smoked. My dad passed away from heart failure and emphysema brought about by a two pack a day habit. I think it is a filthy practice and one I encourage people walk away from, if nothing else, for the sake of their loved ones. But if people can burn flags and call it "speech" why discriminate against tobacco, just because the one doing the burning has something different to say?

In that case, what would we do about all those laws prohibiting the "free speech" of smokers in public buildings, hmm? You can't have it both ways!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus

Barack Obama Surprisingly Mute on "Teachable Moment"

interview with Kenneth Gladney

"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot", or WTF? comes to mind when contemplating the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. It wasn't that long ago, that the President interjected himself into a small and local police matter, where he admitted that he did not have all the facts, to have a national "teachable moment" about racism when Henry Louis Gates Jr. was taken into custody, without a hair on his head being harmed.
This last week, Kenneth Gladney, a black man was beaten and kicked, apparently by white men, for merely exercising his freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Kenneth Gladney was selling Gadsden flags, the historic symbol "Don't tread on me", when he was tread upon by union thugs, who assaulted him severely enough to put him in the hospital. They also called him by the "N" word, which would constitute a "hate crime" according to most good liberals, yet, somehow, this did not rise to what President Obama considers a "teachable moment"! Has Obama uttered public word one on Mr. Gladney and the treatment he received? If you are aware of any such pronouncement, please let me know. The silence is deafening.

It seems the difference in whether or not this is a "teachable moment" depends on whether or not you are a friend of the President, or whether the friends of the President are kicking the crap out of you!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Just Desserts - Moonbat Style!

Berkeley tree huggers to be fined for illegal activities.

LGF points to the story at SF Gate:

Berkeley's infamous tree-sitters have been hit with a rude surprise since they came down to earth: Judges are socking them with thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees. Ironically, much of the money - which could total more than $10,000 per sitter - is going straight to the University of California, the very institution the tree-sitters were protesting as they tried to save a grove of trees outside Memorial Stadium.

Sounds to me they're getting off cheap when you consider the following:

...UC Berkeley estimates it spent more than $800,000 on police and other security measures during the 22 months sitters were up in the trees. The university spent $40,000 alone on the scaffolding that went up around the final tree during the last day of the protest this month.

Now, the school wants its pound of flesh. So far, most of the 15 to 20 protesters arrested in the past year have been hit with fines of about $100 for trespassing and little or no jail time.

Once they were back on the street, however, the university hauled them back into court on contempt charges for violating an order issued in October by Judge Richard Keller of Alameda County Superior Court that banned people from sitting in the trees or doing anything to help the protesters already up in the branches.

And finally, a little bit of irrefutable logic in the case:

Lawyers on both sides said the tree-sitters' chances of beating the contempt charges are slim.

As Cunningham noted, "You were either up in the trees or not. What's to argue?"

Cross Posted at Say Anything

When Moonbats Attack -Coming Soon to Fox!

See how moonbat wackadoos value free speech by mindlessly shouting the same things over and over so that their opponents cannot be heard!

See who comes out the better for this exchange: Michelle Malkin or the blowhard, Alex Jones?

bats
Hat tip Stop the ACLU
Cross posted at Say Anything

"Great Global Warming Swindle" Back in the News

Back in March of last year, over in the Say Anything Reader Blogs, an up and coming new blogger wrote on the British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Rob graciously linked to the video here.

Well, it's back in the news again, after fifteen months, because of a complaint filed with "the UK's media regulator", which sounds a bit Orwellian, but it seems that British Channel 4 is to be censured for the way it represented some of the scientists in the documentary. The Guardian has the details:

Watchdog finds documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers

...it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.

...The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, but that his views were accurately represented within it. Durkin, who had previously made other controversial documentaries, including Against Nature and the Rise and Fall of GM, vigorously defended the broadcast.

"The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," he wrote.

Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.

I wonder how Michael Moore would stand up if he were to be reviewed by a media regulator on the content of his docuimaginaries?

Cross Posted at Say Anything

ACLU Wants to Ban Lunch Time Prayer at Naval Academy

The ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberties Union) wants to overthrow a 163 year old tradition at the US Naval Academy.

The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to sue the U.S. Naval Academy unless it abolishes its daily lunchtime prayer, saying that some midshipmen have felt pressured to participate.

Pressured? Pressured?? Something tells me that if these young men can’t stand up to the pressure of opting out of a religious practice they may not hold to, how are they going to withstand the pressures of combat? Torture? Interrogation? Having Code Pink say rude things about you??? Sheesh!

I think these guys are made of sterner stuff than that. If not, I’m sure there’s always an Ivy League school more suited to their tender sensibilities! Heh.

The Naval Academy rejected the ACLU’s request that the prayer be eliminated.
“The academy does not intend to change its practice of offering midshipmen an opportunity for prayer or devotional thought during noon meal announcements,” the university said in a statement. It said that some form of prayer has been offered for midshipmen at meals since the school’s founding, in 1845, and that it is “consistent with other practices throughout the Navy.”

Or if I may interpret: “Go piss up a rope!”

Hat tip Anna
Cross posted at Say Anything

Obama's Followers Value Freedom of Speech

...just not for anyone who has the temerity to actually disagree with them! Wow! Folks are getting thrown under more than one bus!!

Over at the Nobama blog spot, there's a tale of dirty tricks (what Christians would call "bearing false witness") for a number of blogs that are less than flattering to Barack H. "Bob" Obama.

Last night I received an email from Blogger:

Your blog, at http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. For an explanation of what spam blogs are, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577
You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog. To request a review, please fill out the form found here: (removed)
We will take a look at your blog and unlock it within four business days.

So, if the thugs, er, zealous campaign workers for Obama don't like your point of view, they attempt to silence you? Nice! Remind me again...is this "Hope" or "Change"?
(...or Blogstallnacht?)*

Hat tip LGF
Cross Posted at Say Anything
*updated