GraniteGrok

From Cornell University Law School:

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.

There certainly is a lot of phlegm sputtering going on amongst those that think that "NO" doesn't mean just that - and that in their sight, it does allow them to "redistribute the wealth" of free speech.

Make no mistake - there is a price for "no speech" as there is for speech.  One only has to remember how easily the Obama crew have used the "Chicago way" on those companies that have tried to speak out against their agenda (remember Humana that tried to talk to their policy holders?).

If there was a time that corporations needed the ability to speak out on behalf of their shareholders (before their private property rights (e.g., wealth) is stripped from them, now is that time.

If corporations used to owe it to their shareholders to lie low, staying out of politics, in other words, they now owe it to their shareholders to speak up, defending themselves.  Board members and executives will still feel squeamish about political activity, but at annual meetings from now on shareholders will rise to challenge them.

I mean, you can just see it, can’t you? “The proposed cap-and-trade legislation is going to raise our cost of doing business,” some cranky, dyspeptic shareholder will now almost certainly argue before the executives of, let us say, the Massey Energy Company. “Mr. CEO, members of the board, the Supreme Court has already told you that you have a constitutional right to fight back. What I’m telling you now is that you have a fiduciary duty to do so.”

And you know what? That cranky, dyspeptic shareholder will prove very, very difficult to refute.

One loses their Rights more easily when they are not exercised....

(H/T: NRO)

Posted by Skip at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From Cornell University Law School:

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.

What part of NO do these Progressives just not want to understand?  They are the perfect example why the act of spanking should be applied to adults (and not under the circumstances that are flashing through some of your heads); it certainly got missed when they were children....

This from Obama was jar-dropping:

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Obama said. “This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don’t.”

Carrying on with his populist-tinged theme of the past two weeks, Obama said, “We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

I detect a "Me....Thee" moment:

• Er, HOW much did you raise for your campaign?  Aren't YOU a special interest?
• Er, HOW much money did the UNIONS spend on your campaign and issues?  Really, SEIU and the NEA unions are NOT special interests, too?  Given the money they spent on you, the Unions got a sweet, sweet payoff with GM and Chrysler (booting out the bond holders), and again with the healthcare bill where they get a $10 Billion payment - given that they only cover about 7.2% of the nation's private sector workforce?
• Why should media corporations have rights that are denied other corporations?
  

And the fact that he wants a "robust response"?  He certainly doesn't get that "negative liberties" of "shall not" should be a direct slap against the Chief Executive of the Government who is trying to do exactly that.

After all, the response to bad speech should always be MORE speech - not less.

Tell you what - I'm willing to trade that free speech away - just take it away from ANY entity that receives ANY tax money for ANY purpose, be it individuals, or organizations (be they for-profits or non-profits).

As the actual argument went, the lawyers supporting McCain-Feingold said that if a book had the same content as the movie that Citizens United, it too could be banned before an election.

Ann Althouse (via Captain's Journal):

“Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the Court and honor our system of separation of powers?”

Captain's Journal observes that Kent, a commenter, has the answer: ”Because, so far as President Present is concerned: this is a nation of men, not laws.  He is, at his core, the anti-John Adams.”

Whatcha think?

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update: I was LOOKING for this pic!  Thanks to Brent at WeekendPundit (who also has a post on Political Correctness):

============================

The 'Grok has always said that remedy for "bad" speech is MORE speech - not less.  However, totalitarians through out the years have relied on tried and true technique:

Don't argue with your opponent - silence them! Any way you can.

Early in the life of the 'Grok, when people were unhappy with the content and told us to take it down, we told them "No - don't like it?  Get your own blog!"  When we disagreed with other people, we didn't tell them to shut up - we said "OK, let's debate it - we'll talk ALL DAY LONG".

Few ever took up the challenge.

On the Left, it seems that they way they wish to follow is that of the totalitarians - they do not wish to debate - they want to shut people up and will go to any length to do so.  It can be simple encouragement or approval of such behavior (shutting down of debate) as Richard from NH Insider reminded me:

In their article "Open Thread: Comity Club Killer" they cheer on AL Franken for preventing Joe Lieberman from having 30 seconds more to finish reading a prepared statement about an amendment he was going to add to the health care bill.

...Open debate and listening to all sides clearly is not a democrat virtue.

So, is there outrage at  applauding a Liberal silencing? Of course not.  While it has turned out that it was Senator Reid that gave the orders to all "presiding officers" to limit speech to the normal 10 minutes and not Franken himself, it certainly looked like he was all full of himself with such a smirk as said "I object" to Liberman's request for a little more time.  

Then there's US Congressman Alan Greyson (D-FL) (he of the phrase "The Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly. and "Cheney, STFU") who now wants to jail someone just for wanting him out of office (H/T to NewsBusters).  After all, if he puts his opponent in jail, he:

• silences them
• ruins their life
• ruins their family
• sends a message of "don't you dare speak out against me"

His complaint?  After the jump (and a couple more stories of silencing of dissent)

Continue reading "Freedom of Speech? For the Left - not so much a freedom they believe in" »

Posted by Skip at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Tim at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Saw this link over at Instapundit and wanted to see if it was some DIRT on Andy Stern, the power greedy, socialist that runs the SEIU.  Turns out, it was a clip of some ordinary citizens that were trying to exercise their Free Speech concerning a political activity - and their struggle against the government regulation / strictures and their political foes use of it to stifle that speech.

This is one problem when Government decides what free speech is, and isn't.  This is the problem when the politically connected USE that "Government distortion of the marketplace" ability to suppress that free speech.  Remember, while not always true, it is generally the case that they who use Government to stop Free Speech are often those that advocate for bigger and bigger government - and in this case, it was.  Thus, when someone does such to you, do your homework and check out if the label "Statist" applies to that person - and then act appropriately.

But it also shows what determined, ordinary folk can do when the cry is, as one person that emailed me this week:

"Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win" 

Remember: the answer is NEVER less speech - it is MORE speech!

(H/T: Virginia Postrel for the YouTube, Kip for the Casablanca quote)

Posted by Skip at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As to the events of the last couple of days, I would again refer to my original statement:

CLICK HERE FOR STATEMENT

Since the time I issued that, I have spoken to the several media that I was able to receive their calls. I have taken an honest and contrite approach to my actions and the resulting consequences, and have been as open and frank as I can possibly be. There is nothing that can “unring the bell” so to speak, and all I can do is stand by my apology and continue to ask for forgiveness.

For those who do not know, I no longer have my position as the Thursday columnist at the Laconia Daily Sun, and, understandably, Meet the New Press radio has been axed by Nassau Broadcasting as well. I believe that these are the proper and appropriate consequences, and I apologize to the good people at the paper and the radio station who have been wonderful to me over the years and were completely undeserving of the grief my actions have caused them.

Additionally, I will no longer write at GraniteGrok for an as yet undetermined amount of time. I plan on spending my time in prayer and reflection, looking inward to the unhealthy malice in my heart, for which I will ultimately have to face my Maker , begging for His undeserved mercy.

One last point-- and then I ask for peace and privacy in this matter. In addition to those listed in my original apology statement, I owe my great friend Skip Murphy the most sincerest of apologies for all that has resulted from my inexcusable actions. Through no fault of his, all that has been built with great effort and heartache is now mostly all gone. In an instant. Like that…

Let this be a lesson to those who harbor such hatred as I have demonstrated—think about it. We must love EVERYBODY as we do ourselves.  And all the world is a camera. There is no hiding anymore.

I engaged in a WHOLE lot of free speech around here. With that, comes responsibility. Use it wisely.

Posted by Doug at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBacks (0)

Penance? Say three Allah Akbars and take two in the hat...

Islam is on its march of death on many fronts. A very dangerous front has been recently re-opened at the United Nations (UN) by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest group of nations within the UN, by introducing a new resolution.
 
The resolution under consideration—Defamation of Religions—aims to enlist the power and prestige of the UN in defense of religion by declaring religions to be immune from the general discourse practiced in non-religious domains.
 
The aim of the resolution is to impose a gag order on people against breathing a word that religionists may find defaming or offensive. Isn’t that a great idea, folks? Now, any crackpot, more than ever, can start a scheme and call it a religion. And by so doing, he can be under the protective umbrella of the UN, immune from any criticism and litigation. By contrast, any religious order can take any offender to court for offensive statements.
 
I can just see the legions of lawsuits that will be launched and financed by the petrodollar rich Islamists in an unrelenting effort to muzzle any and all people who might dare to point out the truth about Islam. The very expenses of litigation, even without convictions, can ruin any individual or organization.
 
And what happens to the First Amendment, freedom of speech, of inquiry and expression? Freedoms we have come to cherish and celebrate as priceless treasures for free people and societies?
 

Continue reading ""They bomb each others’ mosques, funeral processions and even marketplaces crowded with other Muslims."" »

Posted by Amil at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama has been targeting Fox News since almost his inauguration - they among the MSM are alone in (yech, I hate this Progressive phrase) "speaking truth to power" in denying them interviews, denigrating them; in short, denying them legitimacy. Then, going to the next step in trying to warn the other news outlets against reporting on the same stories that Fox runs (as in "nice news network ya got dere; shame if anyting was ta happen toos it!").  The insurance company, Human, was targeted when they sent out a letter talking about their side of Medicare Advantage.  The US Chamber of Commerce is also in the cross-hairs in going against both Obamacare and the Cap N Tax legislation.  And Obama taking on Rush, Hannity, and Beck?  Calling TEA Party folks a crude sexual innuendo? Just recently, Attorney General Holder told a Washington DC Councilman to yank an ad that was critical of Obama's opposition to D.C.'s version of "let the money follow the child".

Fascism?  Marxism?  One of the first steps in a totalitarian state (or a Thugocracy) is to silence the opposition (Al Capone, as I remember, was quite effective at this type of activity).

Now, with all of the news that Republicans are going back to their basics, one would think that they'd be making hay with all this right?  And leading by example and continue to "polish the product", right? 

Common sense?  Er, no so much;  Our friend Ken from Blue Collar Muse has caught wind of real stupidity - Republicans fighting against the First Amendment?  Emphasis mine:

Usually when I hear stories about a Governmental something-or-other trampling on the 1st amendment rights of Liberty loving Americans I think of national Democrats and their smarmy puling about the beat down they take on Talk Radio.

In what will no doubt be a visual aid for examples of “GOP behaving stupidly”, a group of Arizona Republicans (likely outmaneuvered by the lone Democrat involved), has decided that the 1st Amendment’s guarantees don’t extend to residents of Maricopa County if the people doing the speaking happen to also work for the Government.

Our simple answer?  We did not agree to hang up our First Amendment Rights upon entering the discussion room.  They even tried a "code of ethics" to duct tape us (until I pointed out that the then Town Administrator and his assistent, who had spent HOURS in crafting it, had cut and pasted it from a CA town - and failed to remove its name at the end.  Lying about it and being stupid is not an answer).

At issue are relationships members of the County Attorney’s office have with the media, including a few bloggers. Not all the media, however, just those beating up on the Maricopa County Supervisors County Manager’s office.  Seems the Board of Supervisors has been feuding with other state departments for some time, including messing with Maricopa County’s best known government employee, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Not only that, the same Supes squeezing the County Attorney employees have a really bad track record when it comes to things like character and integrity.  The gaggle of liberal GOP Supes and the lone Dem in their midst have been accused of “wasteful spending, power grabs and criminal investigations” and there’s even a Twitter account, CorruptAZSupes.

The dispute with the County Attorney’s office got so bad the County Supervisors fired the County Attorney as their legal representative.  And now the County Manager, David Smith, has decided to divert attention from his own side’s misbehaving by brow beating those pesky bloggers and their friends.

Smith sent a letter to the County Attorney’s office demanding to know who had relationships with bloggers - or else! They even specifically demand to know about activity that might have taken place on an employee’s personal time and their personal computers! 

I've known others like this - petty tyrants all, no matter their political party.  That said, this is when the local Party officials that should be responsible for holding these clowns accountable FAIL the rest of us when they ignore it.

And then they get upset when stuff like NY-23 happens.....clowns....simply stupid.

Specifically named in the letter is Michael Scerbo, the County Attorney PIO, who is SUPPOSED to be in touch with the media!  While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted.  The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being eeeeeeevil bloggers that bad County Attorney employees shouldn’t have anything to do with.

... I shouldn’t be surprised to find Republicans squelching free speech and trying to use the power of their office - not to serve the people but to intimidate them.

Yeah, this certainly will persuade the regular non-political folks that the GOP has "gone back to its roots".  Ammo, foot, gun, hole-in-foot because of hole-in-integrity.

Posted by Skip at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Ellen Sauerbrey 

In an outrageous and un-American attack on dissent aimed at Humana Inc., a major health insurer is being investigated for the crime of communicating its concerns about health care legislation to its enrollees.

Recently, Humana sent a mailing to seniors subscribed to the Medicare Advantage Program warning that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many ... important benefits and services that make Medicare advantage health plans so valuable." The letter urges enrollees to protest the proposed legislation to their members of Congress.

Insurance experts argue that the proposal to cut "$123 billion in payments to insurance companies that insure about 10 million Medicare recipients will result in cuts in benefits. Most would agree that is a likely outcome.
But now, congressional Democrats have issued their own official response to Humana, Inc. In short: "Shut up - or else!" Unhappy that an insurer disagrees with the impact of their legislative proposal, they have directed the Administration bureaucracy Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to go after Humana and any other insurance company that sends out letters that might alarm the elderly.

CMS has obliged by sending a warning to Humana. "CMS is concerned that, among other things, this information is misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, represents information to beneficiaries as official communications about the Medicare Advantage program, and is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA. As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website.... Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions. "

A similar letter also went to other Medicare Advantage insurers warning them not to follow Humana's lead. There is no doubt that such communication from a federal regulatory agency with power over an industry's destiny would have a very chilling impact on freedom of expression.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) weighed in with its own attack on Humana. "The opponents of reform will stop at nothing to derail the process and protect their own vested interests, even if it means misleading older Americans." This from an organization experiencing membership flight by seniors who no longer feel that AARP represents their best interests.

Ohio Congressman John Boehner asked "Would the Administration impose this sort of gag order if seniors were being given information promoting the Obama health care plan?" Great question! An amendment by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl aimed at protecting the First Amendment rights of insurers to criticize health care legislation was defeated on a strict party line vote with all Democrats in opposition.

Regardless of the merits of the Human letter, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas said it best. "You have a right to be wrong." At least in America, you used to have that right.

Ellen Sauerbrey, former Assistant Secretary of State, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer. This article comes courtesy of our friends at Americans for Limited Government. Ms. Sauerbrey will appear on GraniteGrok's MTNP radio program tomorrow (9/26) to discuss this topic.

Posted by Doug at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Carl Tomanelli, the retired veteran and NYC policeman from Londonderry who Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter had removed from her Manchester Town Hall meeting on Saturday finally got to speak his mind without disruption Monday evening in a forum hosted by Mayor Frank Guinta.

First, the Shea-Porter fiasco: 

What a difference a couple days makes. Here is Mr. Tomanelli at Guinta's forum:

Posted by Doug at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is 1st CD Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter --in response to a question at Saturday's Portsmouth, NH town hall meeting-- reading a prepared statement provided for her as to why nationalizing the health care system and mandating insurance is, in fact, Constitutional.

This comes days after a blunder in which she took heat for claiming the Constitution "did not cover everything." Despite pleas from the crowd, she would not discuss anything beyond her statement as read. Given her recent statements on this topic, this was no doubt a smart move on her part...

Posted by Doug at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This video is an overview of the Saturday  town hall style meeting held by NH District 1 Representative Carol Shea Porter in Portsmouth, NH. It shows the long line of people waiting outside in the wind-driven rain for a chance at one of the 150 seats available in the Federal building hosting the event. After standing in the rain, and going through security quite similar to an airport-- including metal detectors and an x-ray machine, people  were allowed to ask questions... provided they won the "lottery"

Posted by Doug at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Back in June of 2008, demonstrating powers akin to the great Karnac, I wrote in a post entitled Jeanne Shaheen- the artful dodger about some videos showing the then candidate refusing to answer questions about Card Check legislation:

I know that Skip posted on this video last week, but it really can't be shown enough, as it gives insight into Jeanne Shaheen and what kind of representative we'll get should she actually get elected to the US Senate. 

Continuing, I marveled in awe of her ability to dodge the question on camera:

Notice the careful avoidance of actually responding to what the guy asked her? She's good!

I then commented on a second Youtube in the post showing what was basically a rerun of the first:

Same question. Same non-answer...

Finally, the best part. Keep in mind, this was some 14 months ago in the good 'ole days BEFORE Jeanne Shaheen became our Senator:

Notice the pattern? I'll bet she's got similar scripted and well-crafted "answers" to all the tough ones. She really is nothing more than the classic liberal activist/politician-- one that finds it necessary to mask the real truth because, as we all know, when liberalism is offered up in an open way, it is always rejected. As the campaign moves on, look for the former Governor to avoid unscripted public access as much as possible, lest people actually come to know the REAL Jeanne Shaheen.

The REAL Shaheen indeed. Was I not right? And how goes that old saying, a fish rots from the head down? Guess what? There's some NEW video out there... During so-called "staffer" hours in Keene, we have now definitively learned that whether it's Shaheen herself, or one of the lackeys sent out in her stead, questions will go unanswered, and a careful and systematic avoidance of all who do not fall in lockstep with her statist liberal ways will take place. With a hat tip to Joey Dauben, here is an excellent video report of circumstances as they went down in Keene.

Wake up people-- THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT and it MUST be beholden to us! The two videographers, Ian and Sam, have appeared in studio with us on MTNP radio. The videos are from Sam's Obscured News Network...

Posted by Doug at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 .

With the Obama/Joker poster going viral, I thought I'd post a couple of other signs that accurately depict the crazy times...

www.nhteapartycoalition.org

[H/T John Hawkins at RightWingNews.com]

Posted by Doug at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Shabby sign seems so fitting... 

On Sunday, July 26, the Belknap County Democrats held their summer picnic. With a sparse turnout and little visible enthusiasm save a few mournful violinists, from the outside looking in it was a pretty lame affair. Hard to believe this is a cog in the vaunted Democratic machine that so handily beat the Republicans just a short while back.

Local faithful gather around grill with the featured speaker, Peggo Hodes (white top, black skirt), wife of Rep Paul Hodes (NH-2), the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate race in 2010. He can hang out with fat-cat lobbyists, but can't picnic with Laconians, apparently.

The affair was, however, not lacking in excitement for very long, because suddenly, as if out of nowhere, a Tea Party broke out...

.

Thus raining on the Democrats' proverbial parade..

 Forces of freedom and liberty on the march, taking it right to the root of the threat.

The group grew, prompting a man passing by in his truck with his 2-year old to stop and ask to join in the march, so moved was he by the sentiment the Tea Partiers expressed, and the message being delivered to the majority Dems:

Continue reading "Local Democrats hold a picnic and a Tea Party breaks out..." »

Posted by Doug at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Along with Tea Party rallies and demonstrations popping up all around the country, including those at the doorsteps of congressional offices, we are witnessing yet another vehicle folks are taking advantage of in expressing anger and frustration with what their so-called "leaders" have been doing on their behalf down in Washington: speaking out at various "town hall" style meeting and gatherings held home in the Districts.

Much like the lady we saw passionately addressing Congressman Mike Castle about Obama's birth status during one such event, others are drilling down on the socialization and nationalization of our health care system. Seems as though the more people wake up to the details, the more they object. This video shows MO Democratic Representative Russ Carnahan talking about his party's plan to overhaul health care and the reaction of the crowd that obviously isn't buying it...

I've got to believe that even the densest of politicians, save the great Obama himself-- and perhaps Reid and Pelosi-- are starting to see the light on some of these crazy leftists proposals.

[H/T Michelle Malkin]

Posted by Doug at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Mr. Alford is a free speech hero. If only more people had the same temerity, soundness of mind, and purpose when confronting our so-called "public servants" like Barbara Boxer...

[H/T AllahPundit via Conservative Grapevine]

Posted by Doug at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Ken St. Cyr

My name is Barry. Here is my story...

Since the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago, we have had many Supreme Court justices.

We have also had 10,000 people killed by one tornado in Kansas.

Since I have been president, I’ve now been in 57 states. I think one left to go.

Now let me be clear. Iran doesn’t pose a serious threat to us. Tiny countries with small defense budgets can’t do us harm. Let me be clear. I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.

Let me be very clear. I was born in 1961. My parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement.

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and I was born. Let me be clear. This happened in 1965.  And my father served in World War 2, and when he came home he got the services he needed.

Speaking of World War 2, I had an uncle who was one of the -- who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz. Only it really wasn't Auschwitz it was Buchenwald. If you've seen one Nazi death camp, you've seen them all.

But things have come a long way since World War 2. Japanese cars are now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon. The time for come has changed. We have never paid more for gas than we have in February 2008. Let me be clear about that.  Well, except for May of 2007.

When I called for higher fuel mileage standards, I didn't do it before some environmental group. I went to Detroit in front of the automakers. I told them, 'You've got to change your ways.' I voted for an energy bill… And I've got to say by the way when I said that in Detroit, the room was really quiet, nobody clapped. Unless you count the 10 times I was interrupted for applause. Or the Standing ovation.

We had a president who chortled about the fact that he has not left the country before he was president. Let me be clear. China, Japan, Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom, Ireland And Israel are in the USA. Again, let me be clear. I think Senator McCain and Senator Cheney have been directing their fire at a straw man. Did I actually say Senator Cheney? Let the record show, jeez I did.

So, in conclusion, let me be clear. The healthcare bill is not about me. I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. I'm sure Senator Cheney will agree.

Posted by Doug at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

..

Regular readers know that the rise of quasi-public "special operations groups" (SWAT teams or "SOG") within the Granite State law enforcement community has caught our attention. In this prior post about a raid in Bristol, NH involving some 20 masked police officers, I mentioned two other events involving overwhelmingly excessive force given the circumstances. One happened in state-- the Charlestown incident in which a man in a trailer was killed as a combined special operations group/ state police operation sought to arrest his son. The other I noted occured in Maryland where a SWAT team stormed a mayor's home in search of drugs and ended up killing his dogs as they held him and his mother-in law prisoner in his own home.

The following video is rather chilling, and almost seems the stuff of movies-- but it is all true. I can vouch for the military hardware being doled out to local law enforcement. I got some serious snark from our county sheriff during budget time after I questioned costs of our "South African police tank" vehicle used by the SOG. As I pointed out in a post last week, there is an extensive list of goodies the federal "JAG" grant is pumping into the region. Some of the items one questions whether LOCAL law enforcement, run and financed by LOCAL people, would ever purchase, left to their own devices. And this exclusive 'Grok story about road block activity here in the Granite State is by no means the exception, as that activity too is featured in the vid...

Several weeks back I spoke with the lawyer representing the Bristol family raided by the platoon of masked "cops." He told me the civil trial should happen in December. He also confimed what I have come to know while studying this topic: These regional SWAT teams, or SOGs, are, for all intents and purposes, private militias unaccountable in any meaningful way to elected governing bodies. Additionally, I have observed that such groups are funded in part by local taxes AND the federal government generally unbeknownst to most folks-- often with NO oversight... Sleep tight. If you hear a knock during the night and it's the police, don't worry. They're probably only there to protect and serve you. 

One day, we'll wake up, and wonder how it all happened. By then, it'll be too late...

Posted by Doug at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Got an email from Jean Coutu, organizer of the Live Free or Die Rally:

The Town's demands for a site plan review subject to all boards and abutters' approvals drove in the death nail on the LFOD Rally.

Today the ACLU refused to intervene due to firearms being at the rally.

We have contacted hundreds of people for help and unless someone is brave enough to come forward soon, it maybe the first case of a true first amendment event squashed in America. What's next? Porc Fest? The Tea Parties? The Million Man Marijuana March? The article from the Canada Free Press reprinted below is being sent far and wide in order to try and recruit help as a last ditch effort. The event isn't canceled, but, could be soon.

End of Live Free or Die Rally end of free assembly for America?

By Judi McLeod and Jean Coutu
Saturday, May 30, 2009

Putting it in the vernacular of little people everywhere: “The worst has happened”.

The 4th Annual New Hampshire Live Free or Die Rally is quickly sinking into a quagmire of bureaucratic red tape, and with no 11th hour reprieve on the horizon, chief organizer Jean Coutu may have to cancel.

Billed as the All Free, Only TRUE First Amendment Rally in the U.S., this years Live Free or Die Rally is scheduled for August 21, 22 and 23.

“It looks like it’s finally over.  Not just for us, but for the right to assemble, Coutu wrote Canada Free Press (CFP) in an email today.  “Though I don’t agree with the ACLU on everything, almost every year the ACLU has gone after city hall bureaucrats to get our permits.”

The landscape has changed, dissent is being suppressed in America and now the ACLU is refusing to back the LFDR, in part because of the rally’s Appleseed Project Instructional Shoot Feature--even though it meets all state ordinances.

This is not a good sign for the scores of Tea Parties planned for July 4th. Politically correct and compromised by stimulus money, the bureaucrats of town and city halls decide whether Tea Parties and rallies can be held in their jurisdictions.

Coutu sees it as the death of the right to assemble in President Barack Obama’s USA.

Jean also included the message he is trying to get out to supporters and liberty-loving people everywhere:
 

Continue reading "Death of only TRUE First Amendment rally in America? Is "Live Free or Die" DOA? " »

Posted by Doug at 3:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dean Barker over at Blue Hampshire has been running a series labeled "Marriage Equality", and the intimates that if one doesn't agree with him, you're a bigoted homophobe and not just a person that holds an opposing opinion. In fact, after the NH Senate Judicial Committee opposed the Gay Marriage bill, he shows the typical "Progressive" sense of tolerance of other opinions that are at right angles to theirs, he writes:

It didn't take long for out-of-state marriage equality haters... 

Get that?  We may be in-state, but those that disagree are HATERS.  Not just folks that believe that what is being pitched is not for us, or is wrong, or bad.  Not just that our opinion is different, but that we are HATERS because we disagree.

After all, if someone is bad enough, rotten enough, despicable enough, to hate them, there has to be a really good reason TO hate them, right?  And if someone is sick enough to be hated, then no one should listen to them are worthy and that their opinions should be discarded and thrown away.  The hated ones are of no value and neither are their words, so ignore them!

And that is EXACTLY what they want you to believe.  Their elitism, their sense that they know better what's better for us than we do, knows no boundary in believing that if you are not with them, you are to be hated.  So much for free speech and freedom of thought an opinion.  I may not like their opinion, but I certainly don't hate them for it (they are just simply misguided and need help).

Seems to be the standard line lately from the Far Left - if you do not agree with me, you are just an uncaring hunk of flesh willing to toss your own mother over the side of a high bridge (or, listen to polka music for three days straight).

Poor Dean and his crew are mad at their Democrat Senators - do they show their anger at Obama (H/T: Brutally Honest) for saying he opposes Gay Marriage at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, on the night of August 16, 2008.

Rev. Warren: "Define marriage."

Sen. Obama: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

 — Chicago Sun-Times blog

Those Democrat Senators are also in line with Dean's home state of California where Prop 8 (establishing Gay Marriage), was defeated 52% to 48%. 

My main point is that it seems that the Left has shifted gears: they are no longer content to oppose those of an opposite mind set.  No, they are out to demonize and destroy them publicly.  With Prop 8, the LGBT supporters have targeted businesses, jobs, and people that disagree with the and have gotten people fired, businesses ruined, and families threatened for the simple act of defending traditional marriage.  Nice, eh?

The latest public version of this was Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who attends

Continue reading "Miss California - the LGBT PC-Thought Police want their pound of flesh" »

Posted by Skip at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

NH State Democratic Chair and DNC Vice Chair Ray Buckley calls Tea Party attendees “unhinged mob that had lost their minds”

Here is a note from our friends at the NHAC reacting to the Party chairman's startling characterization of ordinary Americans simply voicing their opinion that they are taxed enough already. NHAC head Mike Biundo is calling on Buckley to apologize.

Concord, NH- Today, New Hampshire Advantage Coalition Chairman Mike Biundo denounced NH Democratic Party Chair and DNC Vice Chair Ray Buckley's comments at a public debate hosted by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce regarding attendees to April 15th Tea Parties nationwide. He demanded a public apology not only to the 1000's NH attendees but the hundreds of thousands taxpayers, small business owners, and middle class families that attended these events nationwide.

NHAC Chairman Mike Biundo stated “As host of NH's largest Tea Party in Manchester, I take offense to Chairman Buckley's derogatory comments and think he should apologize to the thousands of those who attended events around the state and the hundreds of thousands who attended from around the country. The small business owners, taxpayers and middle class families that came out to protest a government that taxes too much, spends too much and is driving us to fiscal insolvency deserve our respect, not his condemnation. These hard working decent people represent what is good about our state and our nation.”

Taxpayer Tea Parties took place in several cities in NH on April 15th drawing thousands of NH families, business owners, and middle class taxpayers of all political affiliation to these events.

Biundo continued “It's unfortunate that Chairman Buckley chooses to make this a republican versus democrat issue, these Tea Parties were in fact about New Hampshire and American issues, issues that the people are yearning for this Congress and our elected leaders to address. Chairman Buckley has blindly followed the lead of other tax and spend politicians, claiming that these participants are ignorant of why they attended these Tea Parties. The message from April 15th couldn't be clearer, this is our country, this our state, and we are willing to work together to take it back.”

Click here to listen to the audio provided by WGIR AM. Then,

Tell Ray Buckley That You Know Exactly Why You Were at the Taxpayer Tea Party and You Want an Apology From Him. Call His Office at 603-225-8887 

Posted by Doug at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Update II:  even more!

NHGuy at Moultonborough Speaks

Cathy over at Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes - Croyden

================

Update:

Lori from ConChrist has more Plymouth pictures and commentary

TakeBackOrfordNH on the Plymouth Tea Party

We were FAR from being the only bloggers at the Tea Party!  Go take a look at what these good NH bloggers are saying about the event(s):

DCE (aka, Chan) from WeekendPundit

Grant of NH Watchdog

Bruce from No Looking Backwards

Chris at Radioactive Liberty

Richard over at NH Insider  

Paul from Pun Salad

Amy over at Atlantic Ave has news on the Portsmouth & Concord Tea Parties 

Dan at Granite State Pundit  

Tony at Politizine

Steve at NH Election  also on Portsmouth

I've been so tied up trying to get posts up, I haven't had a lot of time to surf lately - if you know of bloggers out there that have posts up about ANY of the Tea Parties in NH, please pass them along - I'd love to play aggregator here!

Posted by Skip at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ted Nugent for President!

Man, just how many great speeches WERE given on Tea Party Day, anyway? Wow!

Posted by Doug at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We don't often engage in shameless self-promotion, except when circumstances warrant. Both Skip and I were honored to have been asked to address the Tea Party this past Wednesday in Manchester. All my life I've wanted to announce the start of a revolution in front of several thousand people. If only I had brandished my firearm as I did so. Oh well, next time...

Here's me:

and Skip:

Viva la revolucion!

Posted by Doug at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ah!  The Signs, the Signs!  Lots of signs that showed thought and a bit of whimsy!  I just could not get over the number of signs there were there!

Each of the speakers at the rally were given either 3 or 5 minutes to speak; GraniteGrok (Doug and I) got 3 minutes.  Knowing that the rally was already late, I basically through my speech away and relied on just the signs - why not?  They were certainly more entertaining than what the TOTUS has to do, and they ALL spoke to the issues that had people coming out to the rally in the first place.  If you couldn't riff off those signs, you had no business being up there in the first place!

After all, this one condemned the tax code, the IRS, Obama's picks of character flawed minions, and the outrage of the American people of being part of the "only little people pay taxes":

See, such a small sign can say all so much!

And this one says much - you try it!

More after the jump!

Continue reading "Manchester Tea Party - SIGNS!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is some nice video shot from the parking garage to the rear of the main stage of the rally. It was taken just at the start time of 5:30. The crowd kept growing as the event rolled on...

[H/T Now!Hampshire.com]

Posted by Doug at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the bedrock principles our Nation was founded upon is the ability to criticize the government without fear of redress. Many of the folks in attendance at yesterday's Tea Party in Manchester took full advantage of this basic right...

.

.

.

.

.

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?!!

More great pics here.

Posted by Doug at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

During his campaign seeking the Republican nomination for NH's 2nd Congressional District seat, one of the things that impressed us about Grant Bosse was his use of new technology and the new media. He continues to do so in his position as Lead Investigative Reporter at the Josiah Bartlett Center and the resident NH Watchdog:

(CONCORD) The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has entered the world of video podcasting, launching a web video project through its investigative branch, New Hampshire Watchdog. Veteran reporter Grant Bosse posted the first two video reports about the dueling state budget plans presented by House Democrats and Republicans. Both plans will be considered by the full House later this week.

Part I: House Finance Committee Budget Presentation

Part II: House Republican Caucus Alternative Budget

“The Josiah Bartlett Center is well known for its reliable analysis of New Hampshire issues,” said Center President Charlie Arlinghaus. “Now we can use new tools like YouTube, Facebook, and our NHWatchdog blog to spread that work across New Hampshire.”

Bosse brings both journalistic and State House experience to his new assignment, having worked for the New Hampshire House and U.S. Senate, as well as being an award-winning reporter at radio stations WGIR and WTSL.

“TV, radio, and newspapers have time and space constraints that make it almost impossible to provide in-depth coverage of complex issues like the state budget,” Bosse added. “But with just a digital video camera and a laptop, the Josiah Bartlett Center can provide in-depth coverage to both policy makers and the public.”

NH Watchdog on Facebook
NH Watchdog on YouTube

"Just a digital video camera and a laptop." Indeed... For less than a thousand bucks, an individual can now have the full capability of what was only in reach of the elite main stream media no more than a decade or so ago. Go get 'em, Grant!

Posted by Doug at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I got this from our friends at the CNHT. I used to think that George Roberts of Gilmanton was the worst Town moderator ever (He botched up the ballots at a vote so bad one year-- the year that the Town of Gilmanton appeared to have passed SB2-- that the vote total could never be determined, and instead, SB2 lost by default) until I watched these three videos. This guy in Atkinson really takes the cake.

And shame on all those drones in the room who supported this guy as he sought to prevent a citizen from taking his picture during the meeting. It's people like that that have allowed tyrants and despots to rule with reckless abandon throughout history. How could those people agree with the notion that an elected official-- during an OFFICIAL meeting-- can prevent a citizen from snapping a picture, all the while allowing the news media to do so?

Can you believe this guy? How do you suppose he intended to deal with the pictures in the man's camera? You can almost see the Brownshirts if you squint your eyes. And to throw a citizen of a town out of the Annual Meeting for taking a picture of the Moderator-- with public access video cameras rolling and newsmedia cameras clicking, well, the Sadam Husseins and the Adolf Hitlers of the world would be proud. Can you believe that such an action could take place here in New Hampshire? It just goes to show that one must be ever vigilant in defense of liberty and freedom, as there are those who threaten them at ALL levels of governments- big, AND small.

Posted by Doug at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One of our favorite phrases around the "Grok is "the answer is more speech, not less"; we also are avid backers of the free marketplace, especially when it is free from government distortions. What we see, however, is the indoctrination of "equal outcome" being pushed by Progressive /Socialists vs the "equal opportunity" pushed by Conservatives. 

What's the battlefield?  The so-called Fairness Doctrine -a rule that stemmed from the 1930's that mandated that radio stations give "equal' time to all sides of an issue.  Given the high hassle factor of complying with that rule, instead of getting the lively debate, radio stations just tossed everyone overboard and stayed "mellow" and off the playing field.  It was Reagan that finally ditched that doctrine as it was clear that radio stations were not a scarce resource anymore.  Since then, Conservative talk radio exploded onto the scene, filling a void in the marketplace that (obviously) that had a pent up demand. For those that wish to argue that point, if the demand was not there, the marketplace would have collapsed upon launch....it didn't.

Well, this is a topic that will be bashed around like a shuttlecock by teams of badminton fanatics on steroids & speed and it will not be solved where it should be - in the marketplace. The Progressives are not happy that talk radio is dominated by Conservatives and they wish to use the force of Government to change the one area of the media that it does have traction (i.e., Conservatives ruling the TV airwaves?  Please....). All the while ignoring that fact that for the most part, liberal talk radio has been a complete bust (i.e., Bill Press and Ed Schultz being two exceptions to that rule).

Anyways, even though The One has stated that he does not want the Fairness Doctrine put back in play; fair enough.  The problem is that a growing number of Dems Congresscritters have, and it may be instituted as well without the force of law but by the force of simple regulation (another reason for being cynical about the growth of Big Government).

Cynical?  Here's a reason why "omnibus" or "comprehensive" bills in Congress should NEVER be trusted - you NEVER know what gets slipped under the slimy rock of legislation (either by Dems or Repubs!!).  Representative Tom Price reports over at RedState:

Congress just passed another pork-stuffed omnibus spending package this week. Buried in the bill, however, is a provision that paves the way for Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’. Currently there is protection of free speech over the airwaves by prohibiting federal funds from being used to control and censor media content. Yesterday, the Majority elected to remove that protection.

Debates like this should not be hidden and rushed (as was done in the Stimulus bill with the advent of Universal Healthcare, for instance).  It should be debated in the light of day, with Congressional hearings and putting all on notice who is for and who is against the Fairness Doctrine and it's crimp in Fair Speech and distorting the marketplace, once more, by government.

UPDATE:  Just before I hit the PUBLISH button, I saw this:

The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11. The South Carolina senator had attached his proposal, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. It's unclear whether the amendment will survive as Congress debates the voting rights bill.

Keeping free speech free....but I also dislike the idea of attaching amendments to other legislation that is also odious (I bet that giving DC a House Rep will be found unconstitutional).

However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin also won approval for an alternate amendment that would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity."

A DeMint aide said Durbin's measure will "impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership."

The aide called the Durbin proposal "an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue."

The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.

Posted by Skip at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Saw this over at Slashdot:

"It looks like in an act that defies common sense, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina State Senate that seeks to outlaw the use of profanity. According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to "publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature". I'm not sure if "in writing" could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."

Here's the actual text of the Act:

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

I try hard not to use vulgar language.  Real hard.  My feeling that one should think about their words before letting their tongues start to wag.  Some may use profanity for emphasis (and only for that reason) while others just let it loose to appear tougher/older than they are (teens?) or out of plain laziness.

I also don't particularly care to listen to solid streams of swear words either - again, it shows a lack of clarity, of thinking, or just a plain lack of manners.  That said, it should not be the role of government to constrain free speech - for that is what this is about.  

Sure, tell someone you don't appreciate their words, shame them if you can and avoid them if you must (predicting that you cannot change their behavior).

But it should not be up to Government to pick and choose the "winners and losers" of words in such a broad manner.

Posted by Skip at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

I am not going to talk about how Mr. Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. I am not going to talk about widespread voter fraud involving Acorn in the Obama camp, both in the primaries and general election. I am not going to talk about how all the Obama's men either had influence in his life or helped him to his meteoric rise to power. I am not going to talk about Obama’s pre-paid Credit Card Fraud problem. I am not going to talk about how Radical Muslims paid Obama’s way through college. I am not going to talk about Obama's Middle East Studies Mentors. I am not going to talk about Obama's Voodoo Economics. I am not going to talk about the Logan Act when Mr. Obama did not speak responsibly when he went to Europe, Iraq and also a trip in 2006 to Kenya to meet with Odinga.

No, I am not going to talk about any of them, since none of those issues apparently mattered to those who voted for him. They elected him despite knowing those facts. So, I concede, he won the election by receiving more votes than Senator McCain who seemed he desperately wanted to wrap things up and throw in the towel.

However, I am truly disturbed. I do want to talk about the fears that are rampantly mounting, concerning the question of Mr. Obama being a natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the Constitution, to run for the office of the presidency of the United States. These fears are based on three elements:

• The failure of the DNC to execute a thorough vetting
     process, ensuring Mr. Obama is a Natural Born U.S Citizen.
• The failure of Mr. Obama to provide a Vault Birth Certificate.
• The failure of big media to perform its function as the
     watchdog "Fourth Branch" of the government.

This issue led Philip J. Berg, a long time Democrat and attorney, to file suit against Barack H. Obama, (Lawsuit Continues) challenging Senator Obama’s lack of  "qualification" to serve as President of the United States. He filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting a review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick's dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants.

According to Berg, Obama is not eligible to be president. He says Obama was born in Kenya and he carries an Indonesian passport and became an Indonesian citizen when his stepfather adopted him while going to school in Indonesia. In addition, Mr. Obama's parental grandmother in Kenya, has publicly stated that she attended his birth at a hospital in Mombosa, Kenya, in 1961.

Ironically, Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, ordered to seal his birth records shortly after Mr. Obama’s recent trip to Hawaii. That begs the question:  What is he hiding?  Why not just open his records, if there is nothing to hide? In an extraordinary gesture, honorable U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick tossed out the suit claiming citizens do not have any standing to challenge the constitutionality of the chargers.

Continue reading "The Constitution is not just "a body of suggestions that can be disregarded when expedient."" »

Posted by Amil at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Yoikes!  This would not be a good thing for Meet The New Press - unlike Hannity and Colmes that is built on the model of a Righty and a Lefty on the show, we are three conservatives who sometimes have Liberals on for sport.  Actually, not quite true - we do want the debate (just seems that many of them keep running away from us - like Carol Shea-Porter!

But this is chilling from someone who has pledged to support the First Amendment.  From the Radio Equalizer:

In a stunning admission most Democrats have been unwilling to make in public, a New Mexico senator has revealed his desire to eliminate commercial talk radio and its opposition voices as soon as it is politically feasible.

With the possibility of a Democratic Party supermajority after the upcoming elections, Jeff Bingaman may soon get his wish to quash dissenting viewpoints.

During an interview with KOB/ Albuquerque host Jim Villanucci, Bingaman overtly stated his full support for imposing Fairness Doctrine restrictions on free speech which would effectively shut down talk radio as we know it today.

If enacted, the Fairness Doctrine (which is anything but) would create logistical nightmares for radio programmers, leading quickly to shuttered stations. The need to "balance" every viewpoint presented would also destroy the entertainment value of talk radio, driving away the audience.

Though many have suspected Democrats would enact revenge on conservative talk radio after the election, Bingaman has foolishly suggested that it is on the table, despite previous denials from others in his party.

For their part, liberal talk hosts such as Ed Schultz have used those denials to claim no such plan is in the works, even going on the offensive against conservatives who say otherwise. Now, Schultz and others in the "progressive" talk area will be forced to admit that it may become a reality.

If you want to enforce a new Fairness Doctrine, I'd be OK if it was enforced equally in all venues.  Hey Doug!  Ready to have an NPR mic in front of each of us?  Think Arnie Arnesan will be ready to share the stage with us each and every week?  You, too, could be a star on Good Morning America and I'd love to mix it up as a permanent host on The View (push over there, Ms. Behar!).

And just think - a column of my own in the New York Times!

Like I said, not just the radio - ALL media.

Posted by Skip at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have blogged before about the case where the Obama supporters have all but shut down the radio broadcast of journalists that had material detrimental to Obama.  There have also been stories that because they were airing ads from the NRA, Obama associated lawyers threatened those same stations with legal action and revocation of their broadcast licenses.  I have also heard of YouTubes and other videos pulled because of Obama objections (and a number of conservative  Blogger sites were yanked as well as they were flagged as "objectional".

Real nice - excellent support of our First Amendment rights from Obama Digital Brownshirts.!

What's Next?  From our friend, Buffon over at Democrat = Socialist:

Tracy at No Compromise When It Comes To Being Right has had the plug pulled on her Blog Talk Radio show.  Why?  Because she dared speak out against The One.

Yesterday I had attorney Phil Berg as a guest on my show. He has several decades of experience in the legal field, and has filed a lawsuit against Candidate Barack Obama.

I was about 13 minutes into my show and BTR decided to remove my show right in the middle of my interview claiming that my show was

“racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing;    2. contains falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person;” stated BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer.

Of course, Ms. Dingee-Kramer provided no proof of this apparent violation of this vague and arbitrary offense.  It’s just pure opinion which seems to be more important than my opinion or Mr. Berg’s opinion.

Her decision to remove my show was ARBITRARY and unacceptable!  There was nothing abusive about my show on ANY level however, the action taken against me was very abusive!

In fact, I find BTR’s and specifically, Ms. Dingee-Kramer’s opinion and action politically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating  and harassing;    2. which contains falsehoods and misrepresentations that HAS damaged ME as a person!

Those who are voting for Obama didn’t like my guest,  nor my content, and they demanded my show be removed.  Is this acceptable behavior? NO!  Is this how BTR handles free speech issues? YES!  They shut people down because they disagree with the speech?

This is disgusting and Orwellian at best!  The BTR leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unAmerican actions!  Americans should NOT care about offending people MORE than protecting one’s Right to speak!  Where do you people live? North Korea?

Good gawd, what is happening to this country when people are whining and using power to shut others up?  Why would you dare want to be a part of that?

Your treatment of me and what I believe in is disgusting and smacks of a violation of my Civil Rights.  I am sure that BTR is licensed in several ways and thus can not just arbitrarily violate my federal Civil Rights.

I will be looking into this clear violation.

The recovery I seek is I want my show and all that I worked for over the last several  months to be restored immediately like it was when BTR violated my rights without warrant!  I would also like an apology as well!

Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent Civil Rights matter!

Tracy at No Compromise

Contact information for more is at her site.

Now we aren’t talking about a bunch of crazed redneck drunkards (which is what it would be if it were my show) ranting and going on about Obama and his “intent.”  This was a respectable conservative activist speaking with a lawyer.

Apparently she lost all her previous shows, blog, contacts etc when the plug was pulled, should she have backed up her shows?  Maybe, probably, regardless, this stinks.

Other Blog Talk Radio users beware!  The Minion of The One are not pleased when the dark underside of their messiah is exposed, ignorance is the bliss they seek.

Dare not disturb it…

When Doug, Pat, and I were discussing the startup of our radio show, Meet The New Press radio, I approached the BlogTalkRadio folks to see if they could take our feed and do a simulcast over the 'Net.  When it became clear that it wasn't going to happen, I went in a different technical direction - went with WinAmp and its DSP component feeding a ShoutCast server of ours.  Now, we can use that solution for other things than our show (for instance, I can stream our local Budget Committee meetings - our former Town Administrator was SO thrilled over that....).

With respect to this story, I'm so glad I found another way to skin this technical cat....

Posted by Skip at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Here at the 'Grok, like many Americans, we value this wonderful thing known as the Internet. Whether for work, play, or communication, its uninhibited use is something that all of us take for granted. Can you imagine being someplace where that wasn't the case? Certainly many people got a small glimpse at Internet control during the Olympic time in China, although the communist government worked hard to keep such revelations to a minimum, and foreign guests weren't really subjected to the same constraints as those who live there.

And of course, China isn't the only culprit, as you might well imagine. You can pretty much assume that anyplace where freedom takes a back seat to authoritarianism, Internet access is either resricted, or monitored, or both. Take for example, Islamic Iran. Here is an excellent op-ed from the Voice of America (yes, THAT Voice of America so loved and used by Ronald Reagan) that discusses the subject as it relates to that country. The top of the piece notes, "The following is an editorial that reflects the views of the US government."

Internet Repression in Iran

The promise of the internet is the free flow of information and ideas – at the touch of one’s fingertips. The appeal of that promise is obvious among Farsi speakers. In 2004, a survey found that Farsi was the fourth most popular language of bloggers on the internet. And internet usage in Iran has been steadily increasing. The press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders calculates that in 2004 there were just over one million internet users inside Iran; today it says, that number has climbed to eighteen million.

But the government of Iran views access to the free flow of information and ideas by the Iranian people as a challenge to its legitimacy and power. At a workshop on media censorship sponsored by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, Iranian-born journalist Babak Yektafar explained the regime’s mindset:

“They do see this as a direct threat to their existence, to their stability.”

As a result, the Iranian government goes to great lengths to control internet usage, and its attempts at control are increasing. All internet service providers must be approved by the Ministry of Culture and Guidance, and the government uses filters to block thousands of websites.

In 2006, authorities banned high-speed connections, making it difficult to download western cultural products, including songs and films. In 2007 the Iranian government arrested more than ten bloggers, mostly women demanding an end to severe gender discrimination in Iran. This month, four women who contributed to feminist websites were given six-month prison sentences for threatening national security.

Paula Dobriansky, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and co-chairperson of the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, views the internet as a potent tool for democratization and individual freedom. It is the task of free people, she says, to support those journalists and citizens who struggle under the restrictions placed on internet usage by oppressive regimes like Iran. She is optimistic about the outcome:

“With the partnership of fellow democracies, industries and non governmental organizations, efforts to regulate and restrict free speech will ultimately prove an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the rising tide of democratic change.”
 
President George Bush is also hopeful. “Young people who have grown up with the freedom to trade goods,” he says, “will ultimately demand the freedom to exchange ideas, especially on an unrestricted internet.”

(H/T Amil Imani)

Posted by Doug at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Following up on this previous posting, in which the local Democrats here in Central NH have decided to take a local letter-writer "to task" for daring to be critical of the latest version of Barack Obama and, more importantly to local and state level Dems, daring to use the word "negro". As I noted in the first post, the local Dem chair put out the call, and several people dutifully responded, and the local papers have carried letters in which the original letter-writer, Mr. Jack Stephenson-- who voted for Obama in the NH primary, by the way-- has been trashed and berated for having the audacity to speak his mind in a way that the thought-police have deemed politically incorrect. Recall the Polidoro letter in the first post where he writes,

Stephenson shows his implied bigotry and ignorance

This is pretty much the tack taken by the Dems as they continue to beat this drum. Thankfully, there are other locals (myself included) that know Mr. Stephenson and can attest he is neither a bigot nor is he ignorant. Several people, knowing he was getting a bum rap, stepped up and defended him with letters of their own, and Stephenson wrote another letter rather ably defending himself as well. In the end, we all know this was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, with the local Dems hoping to gin up emotion as they seek to promote their candidate, whose lack of experience and new ideas dictates voters must be distracted from that fact if he is to have a chance at victory in November...

To the Editor,

Once again Jack Polidoro proves that a good education can give a person intelligence but does very little to reduce ignorance. His supportive opinions of Obama are properly placed in an “opinion” column even though Obama’s recent appearance at California’s Saddleback Church proves that the man is an empty suit and without a scripted speech he can’t answer “real” questions on “real issues. Mr. Polidoro’s ignorance comes to light when he provides an irrelevant history on the term “Negro”.  This, of course, is from the Obama supporters’ play book on racial accusations against anyone who points out Obama’s ineptness.

For the most part, only the hypersensitive “PC” American culture has shunned the word Negro. When you travel to most any other part of the planet, people of color aren’t offended when referred to as a Negro, which of course is the Spanish word for “black”. Obviously, everyone is aware that the really bad “N” word is unacceptable in any culture. The term “African American” is completely inaccurate because not all people of color are from Africa. In fact, most of the people of color that I’ve met are actually from America and proud of it.

During my travels through Europe, Mexico, South America and Asia I wanted to be very careful to learn such nuances while conducting business and socializing with the various cultures. I actually found most Europeans to be more “crass” when discussing other ethnic groups, including Caucasians living elsewhere in the world. I was mostly referred to as the American, White guy or in Latin America, the “Gringo”. 

In general, most of the people I meet throughout my travels posses a great sense of humor - which is something that Mr. Polidoro’s high intellect has difficulty understanding.

I’m positive that Mr. Polidoro will respond with another irrelevant “put us to sleep” tome on Black history but as usual it won’t square with the reality of every day life, no matter how many times he says it. Much like his “opinions” of Obama!

Terry Stewart
Gilford, NH

Next came one from our very own Skip, also taking the Dems to task. Keep in mind through all of this that there are two "Jacks" involved here-- one, Mr. Jack Stephenson, the original letter writer, and Jack Politboro Polidoro, the consummate liberal blowhard that fancies himself an intellectual. Here, Skip starts out addressing Jack STEPHENSON, who he defends quite nicely as well:

Continue reading "Race debate in Central NH. "Negro 101" Part 2. Striking back..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting debate about the "presumptive" Democratic nominee taking place here in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire in our local papers and in cyberspace has escalated into a full blown debate over race, language, and political correctness. It all started when one of the local wags-- a Democrat "seasoned citizen"-- submitted a letter to several local papers. It's author, Mr. Jack Stephenson, is well known to me and is someone I've always found thoughtful, humorous, and honest almost to a fault-- he speaks his mind, and makes no apologies. Well, except when he puts forth his thoughts and later concludes he was mistaken... then, unlike most, he goes out of his way to admit it, and lets everyone know he was wrong with whatever previous mistaken position.

Here's what Jack had to say in the letter printed in the Citizen and Laconia Daily Sun newspapers earlier this week. Keep in mind, he has long been known for his not-always PC, but truthful letters, always with a touch of Yankee humor:

To The Editor,

It is clear that IF we all had the knowledge about Obama which we have heard since he got the "nomination" (not confirmed until their convention), Hillary would be the Democrat candidate. But back then we didn't know that brilliant Obama could not speak intelligently without his staff prepared cue cards. Back then we didn't know that he opposed any increase in safe, clean, cheap energy sources (long proven nuclear, wind, solar and clean coal). Back then we didn't know that he would propose the biggest tax increase ever in the US! Back then some of us thought that he was the same as most USA negros, but he is NOT, and he has become a total insult to our great successful negros in the USA. Back then we didn't know that he was both against the Iraq war and for it, both against battles in Afganistan and for it, and wants to greatly increase number of our troops in Afganistan (the most dangerous place on earth). He is totally for WAR and totally against war, totally for outrageous taxes and totally against taxes, totally for 100% control of all medical care, and totally oppossed to government control of health care.

It is absolutely clear that Obama is totally for and totally against every issue which Americans are concerned with. IE, he is the ultimate politician, as his Church Pastor long ago told us!

Honesty, practicallity, need, usefulness, has nothing to do with Obama. Clearly, Obama is trying to steal from Clinton the title of the world's best LIAR! Hillary tried that, but Obama beat her out for that title.

We must encourage Hillary to take the nomination away from misleading Obama, and give the nation a chance for a fair election. It can happen, and if it doesn't, we are in for a "Hollywood style" president!

Jack Stephenson

Gilford

Well... You just know that that letter certainly caught the eye of the readers locally, including that of the local Democrat Party leaders, most of whom, like their hero Obama, cannot accept the slightest bit of criticism, and immediately cry foul when it occurs. Call Obama unfit to lead? Bigotry! Question his qualifications? How dare we doubt his patriotism! Note his liberal record? Racist! The chair of the Laconia, NH Democrats sounded the alarm in the daily emailed communiqué:

By the way, I don't know how many of you saw the letter to the editor in the Laconia Citizen yesterday from Gilford's Jack Stephenson complaining about Obama.  An excerpt:  Back then some of us thought that he was the same as most USA negros, but he is NOT, and he has become a total insult to our great successful negros in the USA.  Personally, I find that extremely offensive and I'm writing a letter in response.  I encourage each of you to do the same.

This was followed by a later email and blog post reiterating his request to take "Mr. Stephenson to task." And so they did, including none other than NH Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. But first out of the gate was another local lib (known to 'Grok readers, perhaps) who fancies himself intellectually superior  to most folks, once again seeking first to dazzle readers with his "vast knowledge" of matters of great importance, in the hopes they'll believe his recollection of history and culture. This week, he gave us HIS version of history-- "Negro 101", if you will:

Continue reading "Democrats ignite race debate in Central NH's Lakes Region. Part One: "Negro 101"" »

Posted by Doug at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

As we celebrate the Fourth of July, it is worth a few minutes to reflect on what the birth of this “great experiment”, known as America really means. Consider these words from The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Are there any “self evident truths” and “unalienable rights” here in our modern age, or are these things just merely quaint, outdated ideas from a bygone era? Do these words somehow mean the “Creator” gives a woman the right to “terminate” pregnancies? What about the unborn child’s right to “Life”?  How many Americans even acknowledge some sort of “Creator”? Does “pursuing Happiness” give a person the right to the fruits of the labor of others?

In dissolving the ties of government with Great Britain, our forefathers created this document, listing as the reason “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations,” intended “to reduce them under absolute Despotism…” They further point out that because of these “Abuses and Usurpations,” it is “their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such government…”

What were some of these abuses considered so onerous that our Founding Fathers chose to risk life and property to eliminate? From the Declaration, here are just two:

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…”

and because the King

“has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.” 

Do you feel that the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ordering of the NH House to fund a so-called “adequate education” borders on “taxation without representation?” Do you believe that the constant addition of more rules and regulations to control every aspect of our lives ever-growing numbers of government agents could be considered harassment?

While wishing all readers of this space a fun-filled Fourth of July celebration, we ask everyone to take a few moments in remembrance of the Founders of our great Nation and ask, "Are we twenty-first century Americans upholding the ideals put forth for all posterity on this fateful day in 1776?"

Posted by Doug at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We're opinionated.  Absolutely.  And we know that we're right!  Not only here at the 'Grok but on our radio show, Meet The New Press - which is why this caught my eye over NewsBusters:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday urging him to drop recent proposals which amount to "a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media."

In his correspondence, Boehner claimed the "proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the NPR amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designed to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences."

What follows is the complete text of this letter which should be of particular interest to all Americans in favor of free speech on the airwaves (emphasis added, file photo):

June 11, 2008

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW, Suite 844
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 04-233

Dear Chairman Martin:

Under the rubric of "broadcast localism" it is clear the Commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media. The proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the NPR amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designed to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences.

Forcing licensees to recreate so called "advisory boards" of a by-gone era will encumber broadcast media with onerous bureaucratic burdens not faced by cable, satellite, or Internet. The report's assertion these boards would help stations "determine the needs and interests of their communities" or promote "localism and diversity" borders on fantasy. The recreation of pre-1980s advisory boards will place broadcast media squarely on a path toward rationed speech.

Two other proposed rules completely disregard a generation of technological and media advancement. Both the Main Studio Rule and rules regulating the physical operation of stations suggest the Commission has apparently decided to regulate broadcast media based on the needs of 1934 (the year FCC was created) instead of the proven realities of 2008.

Licensees and stations should serve the needs of local citizens. But adding more restrictions and Washington mandates is retrograde considering the constant technological evolution of the media market. I urge the Commission to rescind these proposed rules.

Sincerely,

John Boehner
Republican Leader
Member of Congress

Advisory boards?  Does this mean that the local pols (who generally would get on something like this) would probably not look to kindly upon our "words on the air"!

No, the answer to unwanted speech is always MORE speech - not less.  Yes, I agree - keep it clean (let Stern spout what he wants over the paid sat links - the public air should be family friendly).  

Don't like what we say?  Start your own show! Or blog! Or column!

Freedom - it's what's good for you....and us! 

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What WOULD Thomas Jefferson think?

.

What happens when a group of twenty US citizens celebrates the ideas of Jefferson by silently dancing by his memorial for ten minutes? Arrests. And we think we're a liberty-loving people?

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All politics is local.  While this spitting match is local, the overall theme is "newly rich move into small hamlet, starts wanting the 'left behind' amenities", wants to remake town.

Well, it seems like I have crawled under the skin of those that are unhappy that I dared to criticize  what they wrote in pushing for higher taxes in one of the Lakes Region's towns.  What did they expect?  To be able to lead the charge on raising spending in their town, Moultonborough, and not be challenged?  Why shouldn't they be challenged?  They have fallen right into proving the stereotype of the newly rich moving into a small town and then wanting it change to fit their vision.  

Did I use satire to skewer the St. Amand's Letters (especially the Missus's)?  Sure did!  Would I do it again?  Sure would! When someone moves into a town, complains about what it doesn't have, and even takes the Selectmen to task for them thinking about their future financial needs for their retirements over her view of what the Town needs now (regardless of the burden put on the taxpayers), satire is the tool to use.

I also was told that in setting up last week's Selectmen's meeting, she read my satire to her children and then complained it hurt their feelings.  So, now, it's "all about the children" meme to score political points (something that I utterly despise - keep the politics between the adults and leave the kids out of it).

Let's review:

• She writes a Letter that is publicly printed.
• I comment on it in a bloggy way on MoultonboroCitizensAlliance.org site (now only available on GraniteGrok)
  
• She is upset that I wrote a response.
• She reads it to her children (so I'm told)
• They get upset (so I'm told)
• She brings their tears to the next Selectboard - complains about free speech.
  
• The Chair of their Selectboard browbeats the poor unsuspecting MCA folks
  

Note what is NOT mentioned! 

Did Karel Crawford call me?  Email me?  It's not like I stay in a cave and keep to myself.  Nope, she didn't.  She decided to make political points on her own with her own rant.

Ms. Crawford - you want to call me out? 

Here's a public forum - come on Meet The New Press!   It's easy when I'm not present to defend myself - now show up where I am present.

The following appeared in their local paper - even though the reporter called me (and accurately quoted me), I can't link to the paper as it is a paid subscription (even though GraniteGrok & GilfordGrok have a paid subscription to their sister paper, The Gilford Steamer, I was not given the opportunity to do so).

So to recap, what do we have here?  An elected GOVERNMENTAL official deciding what is legitimate free speech and what is not.  As readers of this site know, the Bill of Right has does not include the right of not being offended.  Government, whether elected, appointed, or bureaucrat, is not allowed to decide what political speech is allowable and what is not.  According to law,  the Bill of Rights is to protect me against government censorship (or attempts to do so), and not the other way around.

A fisking after the jump

Continue reading "The message from opponents is "how DARE you criticize my words!"" »

Posted by Skip at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug and I were invited to be on Arnie Arnesen's political talk show, Political Chowder:

The taping was today for broadcast on Sunday at 11am on WZMY, lots of Public Access channels across the state, and can be stream later (find out how here).

We were matched up with Andrew Edwards (an NH House Rep) and Laura Clawson (a founder at BlueHampshire.com); perhaps a good way of putting it is that they are as liberal as we are conservative.

Once we figured out where each was sitting (Arnie, Doug, myself, Andy, Laura), we introduced ourselves...Doug from GraniteGrok, Skip from GraniteGrok....and Andy said:

"You [both] are from GraniteGrok?  I expected somebody......younger!  You know, the whole Internet thing..."

Amazed, I chuckled and said (paraphrased):

Continue reading "Political Chowder - what FUN!" »

Posted by Skip at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you guys returned the money yet?

Posted by Doug at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"Anybody here wants to get mellow you can turn around and get the [bleep] outta here!"

FREEDOM!!

Posted by Doug at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

University of Rhode Island Student Senate Dumps College Republicans, Defies University President’s Order to Follow First Amendment

PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Displaying a dramatic disregard for students’ constitutional rights, a committee of the University of Rhode Island (URI) Student Senate voted on Monday to derecognize the College Republicans student group. For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 “scholarship” for white, heterosexual, American males. The College Republicans refused to apologize and contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. FIRE is now calling upon URI President Robert Carothers, who has already informed the Senate that it could not compel student speech, to reverse the decision to derecognize the group.

.

Continue reading "Free speech on campus? Not so fast..." »

Posted by Doug at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

This is just one of those stories that is so stupid one normally would just pass it by.  I just can't help myself, I guess..... 

It's nice to be nice, no doubt about it.  And when it comes to language, I always try for the "high" road"; it is a better indication of talent and thoughtfulness to not use "crude" language.  And as this story discusses, someone else wants everyone to leave a bit of the gutter behind.

I just don't think that he understands his implications....and this story brings out a couple things that the PC police wouldn't like...or me....

Texas Mayor Singles Out N-Word for Ban

Mayor Ken Corley of Brazoria, Texas, has proposed a city ordinance that would make using the word in an offensive fashion a crime equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500... [snip]... "I would like to, if possible, ban all racial slurs," Corley told FOXNews.com. "We chose this word because it's the most controversial issue throughout the United States today."

Ah yes, a governmental effort to regulate the words we use, the utterances that we use to communicate ideas, facts, and emotions....and is already covered by a law....a real basic law.  The Constitution. 

Gripe Number 1: Hate to say it but here is yet one more example of the public school system not doing its job right.  How could any elected official be so ignorant as to just toss that to the wind?

Corley said the city would like to go after the use of other racial slurs, "but we want to take this one step at a time, depending on public opinion."

Gripe Number 2:  At this point in the story, he's already been warned of it not being realistic.  Yet, he plows steadfastly towards the cliff. 

The 62-year-old mayor, who is a self-described "middle-class white boy," got the idea for the ordinance after watching Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton discuss banning the N-word on TV after "Seinfeld" comedian Michael Richards used it in an act last November.

"The word is not used or abused in the streets of our town; it's more, amongst the black community, as a term of endearment, OK?" Corley said. "But it is a national issue, and I would like the city of Brazoria to take a leadership role throughout the nation in banning the use of this word."

Gripe #3.  Clueless...simply clueless.

Gripe #4. He's actually right on one point - can one consider this whole area as racist, since it seems that one group of people are allowed to use it with impunity, but another is not?  A double-standard?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of crude language at all (and yes, some of my friends do moderate their language in my presence - for which I am honored that they think that much of me).  But double standards like these drive me nuts....

Corley polled his constituents and found "overwhelming support" for the ordinance. Brazoria, with a population of around 2,800, is an industrial city nestled about 50 miles south of Houston near the Gulf of Mexico coast. About 10 percent of the population is black.

Grip#5 - C'mon!, Other than those with a nose for the First Amendment, please tell me - who would be in FAVOR of speech composed of four letter words?

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

Gripe #6 - Ah yes, let's raise consciousness about the topic, this horrible word.  Let's get into all the media outlets.....let's......have no teeth in the ordinance!  See above....somehow, there's this little birdy telling me that there is just NO way that this white guy would be granted absolution if that word passed by my lips, no matter how nice my demeanor.  This is a crock! (yes, 5 letters there, not 4). 

[snip]

"It's really important for people to realize that the history of the word goes so far back that recent developments in the past 20 years [of] casual use," Asim said. "There is no god higher than history and I don't think recent developments are strong enough to overcome the centuries of hatred that are attached to the word."

Gripe #7 - lower case "g"?  Perhaps in this case...but more and more, I keep seeing the word "God" put in lower case even when the application is obviously in a religious context.  Looking to go just a wee bit more secular in the news rooms, eh?

[snip]

Corley said that while he has "some concerns" about the law's legal standing, the city attorney is confident it will pass muster.

Great...the blind leading the clueless.......sheesh....hey!  Limitation on free speech has been codified into law before.....thanks Senators McCain and Feingold!  Maybe this guy does have a shot! 

Posted by Skip at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Good thing!  Given the amount of time Doug has been Politco-Prez blogging, I'd really hate to try to bail him out of jail: 

By a 55-43 vote on Thursday evening, the senators approved an amendment that dropped a controversial section dictating such regulations from a massive piece of federal lobbying legislation.

Seven Democrats joined 48 Republicans voting in favor of the amendment, which was proposed by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah). No Republicans voted against the measure.

The Senate went on to vote 96-2 to approve the entire lobbying package, as amended, on Thursday night. The provision removed from that bill, Section 220, would have required certain people engaged in "grassroots lobbying" to register with the government or face civil and criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison.

What they are talking about, Section 220, would have included any blogger writing on a political topic with a readership of over 500 visitors would be subject to the same regulations as any of the high priced K Street lobbyists.

Bennett, the amendment's sponsor, agreed. "Let's reaffirm that the zenith of the Bill of Rights is free speech, the right to petition your government for redress of your grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble, all of which are involved in grassroots lobbying and none of which should be criminalized," the senator said in a floor speech introducing his proposal earlier this week.

A Republican finally doing something protect First Amendment rights.....Hey, Senator McCain, taking notes? 

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) made a last plea on Thursday to save Section 220, which he helped to craft. "This provision is intended to shed light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists," he said just before the vote on the amendment striking the language. "It in no way affects individuals who want to call or write their member of Congress."

Sorry, while I understand the "astroturf" bit, why does it seem that to punish the few that are actually causing the "problem", the many are held hostage?  Why make efforts to restrict the rights of the masses? 

The bill defined grassroots lobbying activity as a person engaging in "paid efforts" to encourage the "general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials." That message would have to be sent to at least 500 individuals. The person would also have to spend or receive at least $25,000 related to his or her political efforts over any three-month period to trigger the registration requirements.

Now, GraniteGrok has never had a 500 unique hit day (hey, we've really only been open about 6 months - but over a week, we probably may have over 500 folks, so we'd hit that mark.  The second condition?  Not a chance....I still have to put ads up....the running of this blog comes out of my pocket (so far....er, hey Doug, we gotta talk there son)....

(DOUG COMMENT  Hey Skip, Don't mislead the readers into thinking I don't pay my way. What he means is that we need to start finding ways of, in the words of the public sector creatures, identifying new "revenue streams"... )

But I bet there are a few top tier bloggers who just might be hitting that threshold before one considers "patrons". 

Mark Fitzgibbons, who runs the GrassrootsFreedom.com advocacy site that opposed Section 220, argued that would mean a political blogger who raised $25,000 to run a political advertisement in The New York Times would be forced to register with the government.

The amendment's passage drew applause from the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, one of the groups that opposed the effort. "I am pleased we were able to stop this breach of the First Amendment masquerading as lobbying reform," he said in a statement.

Posted by Skip at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Milford – In the era of MySpace.com and The Drudge Report, it seems that everybody who's anybody has a blog. Sending one's opinions out into the infinite ether of the Internet has become part of daily life, and in Milford, it's beginning to shape the town's political landscape.

.

Continue reading "New Media Rising..." »

Posted by Doug at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Erin at Critical Mass makes the following observation:

 As a public university, SUNY Binghamton is required to uphold the First Amendment rights of students--which it acknowledges:

 "The tradition at Binghamton, a public university, is that the full exercise of First Amendment rights is encouraged and protected,"

states the Student Handbook. But SUNY administrators are not content to stop there. They go on to inform students that the First Amendment is actually a speech code, one that uniquely suits the university's specific ends:

"The expectation is that these rights are practiced with respect and responsibility, and with the recognition that abusing the rights of any one person or group ultimately endangers the rights of all. Obscene speech or conduct--that which appeals to prurient interests, is patently offensive, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value--is not protected by the First Amendment."

One wonders what the courts would have to say of this patently self-serving misrepresentation of students' rights. Speech codes usually at least have the virtue of being obviously recognizable as speech codes. In this instance, a public university has presented its speech code in the worst possible faith, as a reasonable explanation of the First Amendment.

Again, I wonder about what is taught at our institutions of higher learning, and those that teach there.  Copies of the Bill of Rights abound - the Internet is replete with copies and analysis.  At no time have I ever read a copy of the First Amendment that ever put limits on what free speech is. 

I may not like what you say, and visa versa for a multitude of any kind of reason, but neither of us can abridge that privilege of American citizenship. Yes, I agree with SUNY that one should practice and use their rights with responsibility.  But I disagree that any abuse of a single person's rights endangers those of the rest of us.  There is no scaling, no "bar" as to how nice, good, artful, inciteful, insightful, knowledgeable, stupid, idiotic, witty, witless any kind of set of words are.

And these folks are not the only ones that wish to redefine what Free Speech is:   

Continue reading "Free Speech - really?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)