Free Speech Under Attack by the Left....

polifrog

An example from the UK:

For making those comments, the young man was swiftly given a two-month prison sentence, upheld on appeal last week.

At his original trial, he had pleaded guilty to ‘racially aggravated public disorder’ by ‘inciting racial hatred’ through posting his comments. In upholding his sentence, the presiding magistrate at the appeal justified it by saying of the man that:

He was intending to say what he said and was intending to produce the effect that he did.

And in Canada where free speech was upheld:

Alberta judge rules that it is legal to disagree with homosexuality:

When I first heard the term "Hate Crime" in my youth, I thought it odd that thought or feeling was being criminalized. If fact, it wasn't being criminalized at the time.

What the terminology did, though, was to open the door to accepting thought, feeling, and ultimately speech as criminal acts. In the years since my first introduction to the term my first impression has been proven correct.

We now defend free speech from liberalism.




out

Liberal Arrogance on Parade ...

polifrog



PrairiePundit:

Liberals have this conceit that if you were really smart you would be a liberal. So they tend not to listen or comprehend arguments they disagree with. That is why they were so shocked by what happened at the Supreme Court. They discovered that they had not give their advocates much to work with so they stumbled through the questions of the court. You could also tell from the liberals on the court that they thought the law would be found unconstitutional and they were trying desperately to save parts of it.

It was not so much a matter of conservatives on the court being political, although liberals losers are already starting to suggest this. It was the force of the reason within their questions that had supporters of the law reeling.

I have noticed this in common conversation whether it be face to face or via the anonymity of blog discussion sites. Total arrogance.




out

Chapel Hill approves cell-phone ban 5-4

polifrog



News-Record:

Chapel Hill has approved the ban despite an opinion from the state attorney general's office stating that a ban is outside the town's authority.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos wrote the state attorney general last year asking if the town had the statutory authority to regulate cell phone use.

Assistant Attorney General Jess Mekeel said no.

This includes hands free devices.  I wonder of passengers, falling under hands free conversation, would be included?

Imagine the enforcement for something that can easily be seen as talking to one's self.

Sigh... They claim conservatives wish to tell people how to live their lives. Uh, no. That is the exclusive provence of liberalism doing those things they feel is best for the commune.

I'm glad I left Chapel Hill.



out

Chris Rock's Liberal Tolerance in Action...

polifrog



Shows us your open mind, Chris:







out

Bev Perdue (D) Ignores the Override of Her Veto of the NC Budget With an Executive Order...

polifrog





Phil Berger (R):

What Perdue has done is “completely contrary to a budget that was passed, was adopted according to law and that she has a constitutional obligation to carry out,” said Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, adding she’s “acting in a way that I don’t believe a governor of North Carolina ever in the past would have contemplated acting.”

Legislation by way of executive order...





out

ObamaCare Polling Over Time...

polifrog



It will be interesting what impact the Obama contraceptive edict has on the trend in the snapshot below over the coming weeks.

HuffingtonPost Interactive:

out

Good Times...

polifrog



Reuters:

Black men are half as likely to die at any given time if they're in prison than if they aren't, suggests a new study of North Carolina inmates.

When does liberal failure become apparent to a liberal?


Update: Once again welcome DailyPundit readers

out

The Taming of the Shrill....

polifrog



Although I personally avoid the disconcerting shrillness of some, Don Surber's sentiments are mine.

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me,

...

There will be no taming, the shrill will remain, and that is as it should be.



out

Earning the Hollywood Stink-Eye..

polifrog




These children can't take a roasting at a toasting.























out

A Cornucopia of Hate...

polifrog



A week ago I wrote...

...Despite repeatedly being proven wrong, inaccurate stereotypes of hate are powerful things that increasingly seem to be based on projection for most liberals.

A sad day.

[emphasis added]


...in respect to this cornucopia of progressive/liberal hate.



out

Rep. Brad Miller -- Accusing the Blameless for the Deaths in Arizona...

polifrog


How much hate must a person be consumed with to find it acceptable to blame the innocent, on the backs of the dead and injured, of the actions of the insane?

How little is a person required to think of individual responsibility before they embrace the socialization of that responsibility for political gain?

How little must a person respect the victims of the Arizona Tragedy to use their deaths in an effort to silence their opposition?

Brad Miller knows; he is currently lost in the morass of those depths.

Via NewsObserver:

Miller, a Raleigh Democrat, had sharp words for recent political rhetoric that he said has contributed to a toxic environment, saying the right especially has been more virulent in recent times.

He blamed the media for not bringing more attention to issues such as political rally signs comparing Obama to Hitler, and showing dead bodies stacked like cordwood, comparing health reform to concentration camps in the Holocaust.

Had Brad Miller included just one example of the left plying similar waters (the numerous BusHiltler signs perhaps?), I could believe his concern over political discourse, but he did not which makes his statement the epitome of a blood lust (thanks Sarah) political attack.

Brad Miller can now be included with the likes of Paul Krugman, Ed Cone, as well as many other liberal commentators, who have made it clear that they believe that responsibility for Saturday's attacks in Arizona resides not just with the insane delusions of the shooter, but with groups beyond the conscience decision to perform such a terrible act.

Should a man willing to lay blame on the innocent be a law maker?







[Edit] The original final line - "Brad Miller -- A political animal without conscience" was a step too far and has been replaced by the current final line.

out

Perhaps We Should All (Conervatives) Simply Turn The Cheek...

polifrog


In my previous post I referenced eloquence greater than mine, but in the interest of balance I now reference eloquence less than my own.

Mark Halperin suggests conservatives should simply accept the smears of the left and "turn the cheek".







out

Socializing Individual Responsibility -- Liberals Echoing the Arizona Tragedy....

polifrog

On the Arizona shooting that we are all familiar with at this point...

Although I can accept that there is some degree of violent rhetoric in politics, I refuse to accept any degree of social responsibility for the actions of an individual.

I am not sure why this is so easy for liberals to do, but I am convinced that it is the source of much of the disagreement between the right and left over yesterday's tragedy.

Ed Cone, along with many other liberal commentators, has made it clear he believes that responsibility for yesterday's tragedy lies not just with the shooter, but with groups that lie beyond the conscience decision to perform such a terrible act.

This socializing of responsibility is a grotesque form of hate in that it accuses the innocent of a tragedy on the backs of the dead and injured.

These are not the appropriate actions of an American.

Is it no wonder that the unjustly accused howl in protest?

out

A Sad Day in Arizona...

polifrog


A very sad day via another Left wing nut...

Considering the Blue Dog leanings of Gabrielle Giffords this incident is vaguely reminiscent of the nut who killed John Lennon for not being true to his beliefs by a "truer" believer.

And as commented on Edcone...

Rattled or not, like the discovery channel shooter, this nut appears to be yet another hate filled arrogant liberal assured in the propriety of his actions by the sharia like correctness of liberal dogma.




sad....

Edited due to the forgotten Edcone link.

Paul Krugman -- Liberal Arrogance Yeilds Liberal Poverty...

polifrog



From richard40 in the comments:

Its obvious he was trying to make a case that TX was broke, because lefties are getting sick of conservatives contrasting conservative TX good finances, with leftie CA and Il disastrous ones. I'm glad he failed.

There is a good lesson there. In the 60's, CA was a repub/libertarian leaning state, and was one of the most prosperous and innovative states in the country, while TX was governed by dems, and was much poorer. In the 90's CA shifted to being governed by leftist dems, and is now completely broke, while TX shifted to being governed by repubs, and is now prosperous. Not a very good testimonial for the benefit of governance by dems.

out

Reading the Constitution on the Floor of the House...

polifrog



Today the Constitution is being read on the floor of the house. I had been content to ignore this as little more than a stunt, but the uproar among Democrats has raised this stunt to something more akin to a gotcha.

Democrats have a serious problem with the Constitution...




Update:

The embedded vid above appears to be broken, but who knows, someone may come along and rethread the reels. Until then in lieu of the the vid I give two quotes below:

Powerline:

I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

And a Washington Times Editorial:

The Constitution was read at the opening of the new session of the House of Representatives yesterday. What was most remarkable about this was the almost hysterical opposition from congressional Democrats and left-wing commentators. In what should have been a united celebration of the nation's foundation document in a period of partisan rancor, liberals instead reinforced the view that they are profoundly uncomfortable with the essential truths underlying American freedom.

Some leftists smugly observed that the literal reading of the document does not convey its full meaning, which has been defined, redefined and sometimes misdefined by successive generations of courts. This argument fit neatly into liberal talking points about the new congressional majority being composed of naive bumpkins who know little of the sophisticated workings of government. Yet Washington's corrupting climate is the very basis of the conservative critique.

The country has strayed far from the artful simplicity of our original founding document. Congress, the executive and the courts all assume powers they never were intended to have. The most recent Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause - which simply was supposed to prevent states from throwing up internal tariff barriers - to give government the right to compel Americans to spend private monies on health insurance. If this power stands, there truly are no limits to the power of the bureaucratic leviathan.

Obama reacted predictably...





out

Rep. Heath Shuler and Rep. Larry Kissell Supporting the Fruit of a Tyrannical Majority -- ObamaCare...

polifrog


Conservatives in the house have put repeal of ObamaCare front and center. The vote is scheduled for Jan 12 and the 2 page bill can be found here.

To date there are two NC democrats ( Heath Shuler and Larry Kissell) who voted against ObamaCare's implementation but now refuse to vote for ObamaCare's repeal.

Rep. Larry Kissell offered this gibberish up as an excuse for his about face via The Hill:

"I am not going to vote to repeal it," Kissell told The Hill, adding that despite his opposition to the measure, Democrats "put a lot of energy into this bill."

Rep. Heath Shuler, though, gave a more honest excuse, also via The Hill:

Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.), another Democrat who voted "no" last year, told The Hill that the GOP's plan to repeal the full healthcare bill is "immoral."

“There are some very good things in this bill that have already become law: Parents can keep their kids on their insurance till they’re 26, it’s helping to close the donut hole for seniors, and children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied access to coverage. I think it is not just wrong, but immoral to take those things away," Shuler said in a statement.

So, on the one hand we have Kissell who likely retained his seat this past Nov. as a result of his rejection of ObamaCare, but who now rejects ObamaCare's repeal due to all the Democratic energy that would be wasted. Gibberish.

While on the other hand we have Rep. Heath Shuler who in a single statement traces the two year arc of the greatest dance with immoral governance our nation has known.

Those "good" things Shuler mentioned in his statement were not good enough for his yes vote in the implementation of ObamaCare, but those same "good" things are now important enough to not support ObamaCare's repeal.

What changed? ObamaCare's passage.

Shuler's statement lays bare the gamble the Democrat Party took in foisting ObamaCare on America. They gambled that ignoring the will of the people and forcing this unwanted and difficult to remove law on the citizenry would give them the long term political return that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade gave them at the small short term cost of the house and possibly the Senate.

They were willing to forsake representing the citizens of this nation and, instead, rule as a tyrannical body (a true tyranny of the majority) to force upon our nation law that empowers themselves at the cost of individual liberty.

And that is the change that has forced both Rep. Shuler and Rep. Kissell to not support the repeal of ObamaCare. It is also the Democrat gamble. ObamaCare is now law and the removal of that law will become politically unpalatable over time due what Shuler describes as "good things" within the law. It is a law that will weave its way into our society just as Social Security has and as it does it will create bureaucracies upon bureaucracies filled with government employees loyal to the Democrat Party, loyal to the very party that originally ignored the will of the people for that vote. Not only will democrat voters be created, but the tools to influence the citizenry toward the "greatest good" as defined by unaccountable bureaucrats will be in the hands of the party of social engineering.

Again, all this power and influence would go to a party willing to govern against the will of the people to gain that power.

Shuler, Kissell and all the others who voted against ObamaCare and then vote against its repeal are supporting the fruit of that tyrannical majority and are themselves practicing immoral governance.





out

Net Neutrality: "There is no market failure here. This is a pure power grab."

polifrog



Earlier last year I argued against Net Neutrality:

...Gov. is not the source of vibrancy. The current vibrancy of the internet is directly related to the lack of government regulation.

Secondly, complaints of disparities in net service seem to be sourced on nothing. Who is complaining outside of those who want to regulate? I have no problems accessing the internet. Do you? If it is financially difficult for an individual to gain access, libraries across the country offer it for free.

We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish to regulate.

But where congress failed Rep. Brad Miller and the lovers of government brokered power through regulation the FCC did not. The FCC has staked out its claim over internet regulation by classifying it a public utility, despite court cases siding against such authority.


WSJ.com sums things up nicely:








out

The Year the Mythical Democrat Was Hand Bagged by the Reality of Their Rot...

polifrog


Democrat myth was hand bagged by reality this past year.

Governance through Obama, Peosi, and Reid revealed the democrat party's true nature, and that the fabricated definitions of the democrat party by the Media, Education, and Popular Culture were myth. In the run up to this past November's election I said the following:

...Where once they were able to sell the idea they were the party of fiscal discipline, the lie to the myth has been laid bare. Where once they claimed they were the party of the people, they are now the party of government owned businesses, takeovers and bailouts with the people's money. Where once they claimed to be the party of choice, they are now the party of limiting choice in health-care. Where once they feigned compromise, they lead unilaterally. Where once they seemed to reflect the wishes of the people, they defined themselves through immigration reform, Guantanamo, ObamaCare, and the Ground Zero Mosque as above the will of the people.

They paid a price for their immoral governance this past November and will likely continue paying through several more election cycles, but it has become clear that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have a long term strategy for regaining and enhancing democrat power that called for those dues to be paid. It is a strategy that should be recognized as detrimental for our nation and any fruit it bears should be allowed to rot.

Pelosi, Obama, and Reid recognized the power of programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Militaries are periodically scaled back; not so social programs. Social programs show no history of cuts, only growth, and that growth benefits the party of big government ... democrats. Talk of cuts has historically benefited democrats, as such talk usually stems from their opposition which is quickly accused of being mean spirited our worse for political points. There are also votes of dependency to be gained. Social programs are the mother's milk of bureaucracies and bureaucracies are dependant on the party that favors their programs for their existence.

What they needed was another social program. That social program was ObamaCare. I doubt they initially entered the Obamacare debate thinking their program would be rejected by the people of America, but when it was rejected [see Scott Brown], they did not stop pursuing ObamaCare. With Scott Brown in Teddy's seat the numbers in the senate no longer allowed for the back and forth between the houses for ObamaCare that normally clenses bills. As a result, the house signed off on the poorly crafted senate bill rather than risk the failure of a better written version at the hand of a single person ... Scott Brown. Prior to the house's passing of ObamaCare Pelosi even considered using a maneuver referred to as "deem and pass" in which they would deem ObamaCare passed within a package of fixes in an effort to fix the Senate bill and garner votes through the anonymous nature of "deem and pass" votes.

Clearly the passage of ObamaCare was more important to Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the constitutional production of a quality Health-Care bill, or even the voice of the people.

Why?

Because they came to realize that the passage of ObamaCare, even against the will of the people, was worth the temporary cost to their party, that ObamaCare was an affliction on America that is unlikely (based on history) to be removed, an affliction on our nation that would strengthen their party while weakening our nation through government growth and control for decades to come.

In short, ObamaCare is the result of a tyranny of our exiting democrat majority that was willing to abuse our system of governance to saddle our nation and its people with a law that it gambled would not be repealed and would return them to power with enhanced influence over time.

The fruit of this tyranny of the majority, ObamaCare, should be allowed to rot least we see more.

Looking forward to 2011.....



out

Bev Perdue Puts 60% of NC's Budget Off the Tablefor Cuts...

polifrog


According to WTVD on the staggering NC budget shortfall:

The cuts are expected to come from every corner of government.

However, the one area Perdue says she wants to protect is education despite it making up nearly 60 percent of the state budget.

So, education makes up 60% of the NC budget yet Perdue refuses cuts to education despite the obvious diminishing returns for every dollar spent.

Creating winners and losers with our tax dollars by forcing those areas of governance outside of education to shoulder the burden of the budget cuts will fail.




out