A Statists appetite for tyranny is never sated!

Case in point? Diane Feinstein, who would silence “just bloggers” by stripping away their right to free speech. How? By allowing the government to define “journalist” so as to restrict freedom of speech AND the press as that government sees fit. Gateway Pundit has the details

Dianne Feinstein wants to regulate who can and cannot be a reporter.  The Internet’s largest disseminator of news, Matt Drudge, called her a “Fascist”.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for a “Reporter Shield Bill” which would determine who is and who isn’t a journalist.

Senator Feinstein proposed language that she said,”effectively sets up a test for establishing bona fide credentials that make one a legitimate journalist.”  Legitimate journalists will be protected.  Non-legitimate journalists, like blogs, will not.

When the First Amendment was written, there were no credentials for journalists, no journalism schools, no “professional” journalists. The press was a bunch of guys with printing presses. Benjamin Franklin was one, and he used his to great effect in the cause of freedom. Was he a “legitimate journalist”? Not by Senator Feinstein’s definition. If anything, Benjamin Franklin was more like a blogger than like Feinstein’s “legitimate journalist.”

As usual, the Founders saw despots like Feinstein coming and placed constraints on them in the Bill of Rights

As Samuel Adams said in 1768, “There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly terrible to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a free press.”

Absolutely, and evil people like Feinstein, and yes, I see people who seek to destroy our liberties as evil, would love to be able to control the media. Control the media you control the message, blogs make that impossible, so they must be silenced so that tyrants like Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin gain more power.

 

Your Daley Douchebag is Joe Scraborough

Via Newsbusters

On today’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said that a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum testifying in favor of assault rifles looked “like a jackass.”

Gayle Trotter, who holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia and is the co-founder of a D.C. law firm, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.  She argued that having an assault rifle could help a woman defend herself and her children against intruders. Immediately after playing a clip of her testimony, Scarborough said: “if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.” Mika Brezezinski agreed: “I’m sorry, but that’s true.”

A jackass Joe? Really, I would say a jackass is someone who, on national TV uses a term, “assault weapon” that was not even in existence until 1989, when gun control zealots invented it to stir up fear. I would say a jackass is someone who mocks a woman for having an opinion. And I would say a jackass is someone who refuses to defend Trotter’s main point which is that a weapon like an AR-15 CAN be a very good one for a woman in defending her home. I would hope that Joe would at least offer to shed some reality on the subject. Of course, I would also say jackass applies to your co-host Mika, who laughs, as if what Trotter says is just the most ridiculous things she has ever heard. Mika, of course is a special case, a woman who simply lives in her own little bubble world where things like reality do not apply. She is a hateful woman, and there is Scarborough, licking her feet everyday, looking very much like the poster boy for wimpy men every day. I bet Joe owns LOTS of sweater vests, just sayin’.

 

Do Conservative Bloggers have to think of EVERYTHING?

Doug Powers, Austin’s brother, notes that the pro-gun rights arguments need to change to match the emotionalism in the anti-gun rights side. And he is right. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).

And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where arethose people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.

Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.

There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:

A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.

Powers is right, we could find literally thousands of Americans whose lives have been saved because  they, or a friend, parent or neighbor was armed. Does this not seem the perfect way to fight back against the Left’s Emotionally based testimonies? Of course it does, because it is. So why has the leadership of the NRA, or Republican Congressmen not thought of it? Or maybe I should ask, why have they chosen NOT to go that direction since surely it has been suggested to them. I mean honestly, this is one of the biggest issues the Right faces. Too often the best arguments, ideas, etc come from people like Doug Powers, and other Conservative bloggers. Are we just that much smarter than our “leaders”? Or are we more intent on fighting? Do they fear unvarnished Conservatism?  What are they thinking? Seems too often they are thinking about not losing, rather than about winning.

 

Patrick Leahy, please go F@#% yourself!

It was a great moment when Cheney suggested that Patrick Leahy go “F” himself a few years ago. And, frankly, after reading this about Leahy, I would tell the moral retard the very same thing!

(Haartez) U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy is promoting a bill to suspend U.S. assistance to three elite Israel Defense Forces units, alleging they are involved in human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Leahy, a Democrat and senior member of the U.S. Senate, wants assistance withheld from the Israel Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit, the undercover Duvdevan unit and the Israel Air Force’s Shaldag unit.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a long-time friend of Leahy’s, met with him in Washington two weeks ago to try to persuade him to withdraw the initiative.

According to a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem, Leahy began promoting the legislation in recent months after he was approached by voters in his home state of Vermont.

A few months ago, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters staged a rally across from Leahy’s office, demanding that he denounce the killing by Shayetet 13 commandos of nine Turkish activists who were part of the flotilla to Gaza last May.

Leahy, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee’s sub-committee on foreign operations, was the principle sponsor of a 1997 bill prohibiting the United States from providing military assistance or funding to foreign military units suspected of human rights abuses or war crimes. The law also stipulates that the U.S. Defense Department screen foreign officers and soldiers who come to the United States for training for this purpose.

How sad that a total disgrace like Leahy keeps getting elected!

How about we just teach history as it happened instead?

Variation of the United States (USA) flag, wit...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, I was down in Corsicana, Texas, at Navarro College, for the opening of their new Civil War, and Western art museum. I had a chance to talk to two history teachers who are fed up with PC in history classes. This story, from American Perspective, got me thinking about a question. Why can’t we just teach kids about ALL the relevant historical figures? Is that not a better idea than bringing bean counting into it?

The California Legislature could soon pass a bill that would require school textbooks and teachers to incorporate information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans into their curriculum.
The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Education Act, or SB48, which mimics a bill previously vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, made it one step closer to becoming law Tuesday after being approved by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill, introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, could have a nationwide impact if passed because California is such a big buyer of textbooks that publishers often incorporate the state’s standards into books distributed to other states.
Supporters say that’s a good thing because it will help prevent gay students from being harassed or bullied by their classmates.
But critics say SB48 is just an attempt to brainwash students into becoming pro-gay political activists and ensure that government, not parents, has the final word on teaching kids about moral values.

Now, I am jot familiar enough with this bill to pass judgement. However, I do know that similar tactics have been used to indoctrinate, rather than educate students. Frankly, I doubt any worthwhile parent minds their child learning about historical figures that are or were Gay. If they are a significant historical figure, it would be wrong to exclude them. But, again, I know enough about the Left to know they often use bills such as this to further their agenda.