Hey look kids, Dear Leader wants you to ignore those “bloggers”

Chris has the correct response

Please do not adjust your set, state-run media will tell you everything you need to know. Bloggers?We’re the enemy. Your president said so today.

… now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio …

Spoken like a true Marxist there Mr.President, but i echo what Mr. Wysocki says

You don’t get to supercede the First Amendment. Not today. And not tomorrow. I don’t care how much of a dictator you fancy yourself to be. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, I paid for this microphone. And no pissant community organizer is gonna take it away from me. 



A great teacher is a blessing, a bad teacher a curse

And this one is a curse

One Duval County parent tells WOKV his son doesn’t even know what his constitutional rights are, so he’s shocked a teacher told the ten-year-old to write a letter on his willingness to give them up.

“That sentence talking about giving away freedoms for safety and security- that bothers me,” says Aaron Harvey.

He tells me his 4th grade son was told to write a note reading “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure”  following a lesson led by a guest speaker at Cedar Hills Elementary School.  The lesson itself was taught at the end of last year, but Harvey didn’t find the note until about 1 1/2 weeks ago.

I obtained the guide for that lesson, which was apparently aimed to “create an awareness of the five rights contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and help students “determine their opinions on which rights they value most and least.”  The lesson included a visiting constitutional lawyer, which the district tells me is a partnership used specifically for these civics-based lessons.

The lesson itself isn’t in question, but rather what Harvey says the teacher did after.

He says the teacher selected several students out of the class to write that statement and sign it.  It’s the same story he’s hearing from other parents with children in the class.

Where the Hell is the ACLU? Oh that’s right, instead of doing something worthwhile, they are busy trying to run God out of schools. This is what bugs me about this. What an opportunity for a teacher to talk about the Founders, and natural rights, the Constitution, and of course the famous Ben Franklin quote about those who would give up liberty for security. Instead, it would seem this teacher saw only an opportunity to indoctrinate.


The newest “oppressed” minority? Internet Trolls!

Stacy McCain has the scoop on the newest Victicrats, the Internet Trolls as it were. They have jumped aboard the “Feel Sorry for Me Train” and are whining to beat the band. Because, apparently harassing people online is a civil right in their world

“Arrogant sociopathic punks think they can go around threatening people and if you dare say a word back to them, you’re the bad guy.”
– Robert Stacy McCain, Sept. 4, 2012

Donald Douglas at American Power reminds me of the deranged cyberstalker’s irrational grievance: “Troll rights.”

A basic problem of online life: People Who Don’t Understand How the Internet Works, No Matter How Often You Try to Explain It to Them.

Back in the day you could – and, in many places on the Internet, you still can — say anything you want to say in the comments. People who habitually frequent such places become accustomed to unleashing their idat will, and believe that this a basic First Amendment freedom, which it is — as long as the proprietors of the site don’t care what people say in the comments. But one way or another, that online space is owned by someone, and the proprietor makes the rules.

Try going over to Democrat Underground or Daily Kos, spewing out GOP talking points, and see how long it takes them to ban you.

Trolls don’t understand this. They believe that having access to the Internet confers on them the inalienable right to say anything they want anywhere they want to say it, and any site operator who refuses to acknowledge that right is a fascist totalitarian.

To which I customarily reply: Get your own damned blog.

Lots more to read over at The Other McCain who has been dealing with some of these “oppressed Internet Trolls” and their cyberstalking ways.



Your Statist of the day is…………

Philadelphia Premier Mayor Michael Nutter who is not down with that whole freedom of the press thing

The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has launched an investigation at the request of the mayor after a well-known magazine published an essay that explored perspectives of white citizens on the issue of race relations.

Mayor Michael Nutter called on the commission to consider rebuking both Philadelphia Magazine and writer Bob Huber noting that “the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right.”

Nutter’s fury was directed at a cover story titled, “Being White in Philly.” The story included conversations with mostly anonymous residents who detailed race relations in the City of Brotherly Love.

Go read it all. This is a great example of Liberal hypocrisy. Liberals love to say we need an “open discussion” on race in America. A discussion where no one holds anything back. That is what they say. What they mean is we need to have Liberals lecture us on how racism is inherent in America, and that racial injustice is rampant, and anyone holding a differing view is welcome to shut up! Obviously Mayor Nutter is eager to unleash his thought police on to those who do not know when to shut up.

Your quote of the day

Comes from JWF the topic is the Left’s intent to be our National Nanny!

Is it just me or is the left interested in banning pretty much everything these days?

Ah yes, the Left is a movement about control!

A Democratic state legislator in Georgia is pushing to make inappropriate use of Photoshop a crime and he was made the victim of such a prank in retaliation.

State Representative Earnest Smith was one of two co-sponsors of a bill tomake it a crime if someone Photoshops a person into an obscene picture.

He pushed forward with the plan in spite it’s the obvious interference with First Amendment rights, and an internet prankster made him the latest target in response.

One of his constituents took a picture of a nude porn star and put Mr Smith’s head on top.

‘Rep. Smith needs to grow some thick skin if he’s going to be an elected official. Trust me when I say the altered photograph shown above was not the worst I could have done,’ prankster Andre Walker said on his blog where he claimed responsibility for the image.

If Smith, and co-sponsor Pam Dickerson, have their way then such an action would result in a $1,000 fine.

Their proposed law would be broken when any ‘person commits defamation when he or she causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction’.

The fact is this. In a free society, everyone is going to see, and hear things that offend them. DEAL WITH IT! It is far better for me to be occasionally offended than to live in a nation where Mommy and Daddy Government control everything we say, read and write!

Smith sees this differently

“It’s clear that we need to do something,” he said.

Smith said Monday that he learned last week that someone had digitally pasted his head on the body of a nude man, but he doesn’t know who did it.

“I could not venture to give you an answer,” he said.

The bill received no action last year, but Smith hopes this year will be different, perhaps because the picture targeting him illustrates how vulnerable all politicians are.

“It can be done to anyone at any time,” he said.

So far, he has heard no objections from free-speech advocates defending the Constitution’s First Amendment.

“No one has a right to make fun of anyone. You have a right to speak, but no one has a right to disparage another person. It’s not a First Amendment right,” he said.

Well if no one has that right we better tell every stand up comic to cease and desist I guess. And I do not have a right to slander someone, and there are laws against harassment. But, yes, Mr. Smith I certainly DO have the right to make fun of you. For instance, I am free to call you a bottom-feeding Statist. Or I can call you, sir, an overly sensitive Liberal whiner. See, we are FREE to express opinions. And when we disagree with someone, we are free to criticize them. And why do I imagine that a law, such as you are sponsoring would be used by Liberal politicians and organizations to silence criticism? Maybe because that is what Leftists ass hats like you SIR have engaged in for decades now.


From the some religions are more equal than others department

Comes a story from Michigan, where an ad that questions the existence of God is OK, but an ad questioning the existence of Muhammed, not so much. Zion’s Trumpet has it

This ad ran on Detroit SMART buses here


Crains Business wrote this:

While the ads may offend some, SMART’s Beth Dryden tells Shea they met the system guidelines and were vetted by their legal department.

March 3, Crain’s: Additionally, because the ads are what SMART considers “viewpoint-neutral content” the agency can’t reject them, she said. That’s because a government agency cannot censor such content, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Got that? Good.We submitted the ad below to this same transit agency in Detroit/Dearborn, SMART, and we were DENIED. This ad was rejected:


Here’s what SMART said:

The proposed advertisement submitted by Pamela Geller has been reviewed under SMART’s content policy. SMART, consistent with its review process, also reviewed the referred-to website:thetruthaboutmuhammed.com.  Consistent with its policy, with the Sixth Circuit opinion in AFDI v SMART, and consistent with other law, SMART declines to post the advertisement.

Our message parallels the atheist ads. Since they were accepted, I modeled this ad after theirs, to see if the freedom of speech applied to criticism of Islam in our cowardly and politically correct age. This is the same government agency that refused to run our “Leaving Islam?” ads that were designed to help Muslim girls who wanted to lead more Western lives escape dangerous devout households. SMART refused. My legal team, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Centerand I sued. We won. They appealed to the 6th circuit court (a sharia-sensitive court). The Sixth Circuit said that the ad was a political ad — SMART doesn’t run political ads. So in my quest to fight on, I wanted to point out their hypocrisy as we go back to court. This rejection does just that.  We fight on.

More at Atlas Shrugs, where Pam Gellar fights constantly against the evil of radical Islam


The Left’s War on Christmas is back

Tis the Season for OUTRAGE over everything that honors a traditional American Christmas

Via Fox News Radio:

A North Carolina community college has been accused of violating the First Amendment rights of students after they told a club they could not use the word “Christmas” to promote a Christmas tree sale.

“It’s ridiculous that anyone would have to think twice about using the word ‘Christmas’ as part of a Christmas tree sale,” said Matt Sharp, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.

The student club, called the BEST Society, was planning to sell the Christmas trees to raise money for Angel Tree, an organization that provides Christmas presents to children.

Club members followed college protocol and submitted forms to promote the sale. The proposed text read, “The BEST Society will be selling Christmas Trees…”

But when the announcement appeared on the college’s website and in other venues – it had been altered. Ever reference to “Christmas Trees” had been replaced with “holiday trees.”

I cannot comment here, i would use way too many bad words.


Irony defined, Muslims rally against freedom speech


So, these buffoons are going to use the First Amendment to protest against the First Amendment? I wonder if that irony ever dawned on them?

Muslim Americans in Michigan, including a local newspaper editor, will be rallying Friday in Dearborn to protest the YouTube film, “Innocence of Muslims” and advocate for blasphemy laws. Here’s an image of a poster advertising the rally

That’s courtesy of the Detroit News, which writes:

Nearly a decade after Dearborn’s streets celebrated America for bringing down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech. Protesting the film, “Innocence of Muslims,” that has sparked protests in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the “the religious feelings of Muslims.”

This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America – and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.

“There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence,” said Arab-American News publisher Osama Siblani, a self-proclaimed “moderate” who is apparently oblivious to how gutting the First Amendment would affect his own business.

Also I must note the multi-ton slab of irony in  Osama Siblani’s statement “There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence,” Hmmmm, I wonder what group of people, maybe a certain religion that might just run afoul of such a law. HMMMMMM


Like I have been saying, the Left hates Individualism, and loves the Collective


Every difference between Left and Right boils down to Collectivism vs Individualism. To the Right individual rights are the natural condition of man, hence the term that Franklin used, Natural Rights. the Left sees rights as coming from government, and sees the individual’s rights as secondary to the common good. This story from College Insurrection is a perfect example

I somehow doubt the writers of the US Constitution were thinking about “non-negotiable” codes of civility and diversity as they crafted the First Amendment. But then, what do I know? I don’t work for Illinois State.

Linnie Leavines of Campus Reform reports.

Illinois State University (ISU) is under fire from a student’s rights group for language in its student code that demands student conform their behavior  to “the needs of the university” including an “appreciation of diversity.”

ISU’s student code describes certain “non-negotiable” standards to which student are required to take on the “values of the university.”

“When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University,” it reads.

These values are described as “civility, and appreciation of diversity, and individual and social responsibility.”

Student rights group, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), flagged that code as September’s “speech code of the month” suggesting its language could actually lead to the stamping out of true diversity of thought and action on campus.

“If a student’s expression or behavior deviates from the university’s definition of what it means to appreciate diversity or be socially responsible, that student may be asked to leave the university,” FIRE warned on it its website.

A ISU spokesman told Campus Reform last week, however, that the language is harmless, because it “is really speaking to what are the enforceable parts of the code,” which are based on regular laws.

The highlighted section above is very clear. The individual is being told they must cede their individual liberties to suit the “greater good” if you will. And the point is well taken that you cannot defend diversity while squashing diversity of thought. Of course, the Left has no interest at all in cultivating diversity of thought, none at all.


Fear and Loathing in DC?

Stacy McCain reports on the latest news regarding a certain lying terrorist, and asks the musical question. If threatening Conservative bloggers is wrong, why does the GOP not want to be right

“Where are those spineless Republican bastards in Congress when we need ‘em, huh?” I shouted, trying to explain to a couple of young Beltway professionals the concept behind National Day of Blogger Silence. “They expect us to carry their message and fight their fights, and here we’ve got bloggers getting SWATted and bloggers going to jail and not a single Republican on Capitol Hill has said a f–king word! Not so much as a g–d– two-minute floor speech or a two-sentence press release statement!”

A couple of passersby on the sidewalk glanced over at the patio of the Pennsylvania Street bar where I was, uh, exercising my First Amendment rights — not to say ranting like a madman — earlier this afternoon. Having come to Capitol Hill for a meeting, I’d bumped into these two D.C. professionals who are young friends of mine, though not quite protegés, although one of them was someone whom I once advised to stay away from the Culture 11 debacle. She didn’t listen, and now doesn’t even mention on her LinkedIn profile her involvement in that infamous New Media catastrophe. But I digress . . .

Monday, or yesterday if you prefer, Ali Akbar, was targeted by certain miscreants for daring to talk about those aforementioned miscreants, his mother’s house was photographed, the address was given, and friends of Ali were named as well. Needless to say, Mr. Akbar was none too pleased, declaring this WW3!

Monday afternoon I was off the grid when Ali Akbar called to tell me that “Breitbart Unmasked” had published a photo and the address of his mother’s home in Texas in a viciously mendacious attack on theNational Bloggers Club. While I had no Web access at the time, I was able to send a Tweet from my cell phone, and pardonnez mon français.

Does the phrase “Don’t mess with Texas” ring a bell? Maryland courts have been incredibly lenient with the Kimberlin/Rauhauser axis, but Ali assures me that Texas won’t take too kindly to the purposeful harassment of one of its law-abiding citizens. Ali’s mother has harmed no one, and whoever thought up this sick stunt might find themselves prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — Texas law. IYKWIMAITYD.

Yes, Texas IS not Maryland, it is different here. This also touches a nerve with me because I live near Dallas, which is near Ft. Worth, which is where Ali’s mom’s house is located. An Ex-Con, who has also done stellar blogging about the Miscreant Intimidation Squad, is NOT AFRAID to post where he lives as he makes clear to the douche nozzles photographing his house. Oddly enough, he lives in Pinellas Park, which is near Tampa, where I was born, and raised, and lived until 1995. In fact, I remember delivering appliances to the apartments where he resides. I guess it is a small world. An Ex-Con also posts these words, which I think sum it up

Point one: The thing to remember is that this is not about me or my family, it is about thuggery and intimidation to silence free speech.

My second point: I am not important in this situation. I stole their thunder so I now am a zero, without value.

Circle the wagons around those that make a difference. I am old and disposable. Ali, Stacy, Liberty Chick, Aaron, Patrick, all of them are young and important players in this effort. Circle the wagons on them.

Contribute to the National Bloggers Club fund started for this purpose. Blog about them, their efforts regarding the publishing of factual information about a public figure. This is where the forward edge of the battlefield exists, not in a backwater in Florida with a broken old man.

Move forward, defeat the foe, those that would silence each and everyone of us. Rally to the commanders listed above and give them your support.


Liberals really do not get the First Amendment

But, as a public service, we here at The Daley Gator are going to set them straight, with help from Silverfiddle

In the Church-State debate sidebars that have broken out on the fringes of the 2012 culture wars, a common liberal argument recurs:

“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand government stay out of religion, and then attempt to insert your religion into debates about government. The Wall of Separation between Church and State applies to church as well as state.”

That is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, there is no such thing as “a wall of separation” in the constitution. Here is what the First Amendment says:

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.

So, contrary to progressive arguments, it is legitimate and constitutional to bring one’s religious values to the public square. You can even bring them to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency,  secure in the knowledge that you are a good American acting in accord with the US Constitution.

The second error in this statement is related to the first. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing or prohibiting religion. It places no such strictures on citizens, so it doesn’t go both ways.

Consequently, We the People can have it both ways, freely exercising our religious rights in all public arenas while demanding government stay out of our business.

See, it is really VERY simple. The Founders deliberately gave us a constitution that is not too tough to figure out. And, frankly, let me add my two cents worth here. Those on the Left who argue that a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, or a student mentioning God at graduation violates the Constitution need to read the first amendment. It very clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law…….. A high school student is not Congress. A town that has Santa in their Christmas parade is not Congress either. Sorry Liberals but the ACLU is wrong when they sue over a picture of Jesus in a school, or over a church using a school building for church services. And any judge that sides with the ACLU on such matters is wrong as well.

Again, the First Amendment is very clear.

That gigantic pop you just heard? That was my head exploding

Maggies Notebook has the story, and frankly, what can I say? This is the most indefensible ruling I could ever imagine. For any judge, or court to rule that Sharia Law, or ANY law other than  federal, or in this case Oklahoma law, should be considered in any court case is simply terrifying to me

An Oklahoma judge, the infamous Vicki Miles-LaGrange, and the 10th Federal Court of Appeals in Denver are preventing the banning of Sharia Law in the State of Oklahoma (State Question 755). The Council on American Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) Muneer Awad believes the ban violates his First Amendment Rights. State Attorney General Scott Pruitt believes states have the right to establish their own court systems and which laws are followed, and the Courts believe the Oklahoma amendment singles out Islam only, ignoring that International Law is also cited. The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to determine its constitutionality.

Ah, again, how does this violate freedom of religion? We judge court cases the law, not by any religion. Just imagine how the very same people who brought this suit would be acting if the Bible were being used.

The Left has never respected freedom of speech

And this story out of Arkansas just reminds us that power hungry Statists will not stop

This story sounds like something you would hear out of China, not the United States. In Gould, Arkansas the city council is planning to pass an ordinance that forbids any group from forming or gathering that will discuss city matters without first getting city council approval – a clear violation of the First Amendment.

They mayor is dead set against it but it appears from the video that they can override him:

Absolute tyranny, every one of these miscreants should be thrown out of office at once! We forget that often times, the most direct threats to our liberty come from city councils and county commissions

Video here

And of course, the war on lemonade stands continues

And you wonder why I fear Nanny Statism

A simply unbelievable story from Michigan about a woman who dared to want a Christian Roommate

This is exactly why we are voting because big government is EVERYWHERE! The state of Michigan has filed a civil rights complaint against a woman who advertised, in her church, the fact that she wants a Christian roommate That’s it. She just wants a roommate who shares her faith. But apparently it violates the Fair Housing Act, and someone in the church turned her in.