Yesterday, the Raymond Police Department received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU NH) regarding their recent behavior on social media. The police department is currently requesting that Raymond voters agree to spend $6.8 million on a new police station. The current police station was built in the early 1990s. Some people in the community are questioning the need for a new police department and have expressed their concerns and/or dissent on the Raymond Police Department’s Facebook page.
Apparently the Raymond Police Department (RPD) doesn’t really like views that don’t agree with theirs. It started when two different Raymond residents posted comments on the RPD Facebook page that questioned the need for a new, and rather expensive, police department. Not only were comments deleted but the residents were blocked from posting their views at all on the page. Citizens also commented on the new Constitutional Carry law that went into effect recently and had their comments deleted. Continue reading
You simply cannot make this stuff up. A Conservative blogger posted a photo of herself holding an AR-15 and a Bible while standing in front on an American Flag. Somehow SHE is an extremist according to the facebook page called ‘The Blue Street Journal‘. It should really be called the left wing lunatic journal but I digress.
The blogger is ‘Hashtag Holly‘ who has previously spoken out about Obamacare. The left doesn’t like it when anyone speaks against their messiah’s worst ‘achievement’ to date so they attacked her for that originally. She was also apparently vocal about the Supreme Court ruling regarding Hobby Lobby.
In her photo Holly is clearly making a statement about the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Only a complete and utter lunatic would think there is anything extreme about this photo or believe it has negative connotations, which is exactly what the knuckle-dragging twits at this page did.
Tom Steyer must be ecstatic. He can now donate the max limit to every Democrat from here to his Environmental Nirvana and it’s not illegal. But then so can everyone else. That would be because SCOTUS just struck down the aggregate limit on total donations by an individual to all candidates on free speech grounds.
It is a modern reality. You need to spend money in 21st century America to reach enough people to have your voice heard.
And so are you, for that matter.
The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that there is no difference between a journalist for a media outlet and another speaker when it comes to First Amendment protections.
“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,” Hurwitz wrote.
PDF of the ruling.
The court has ruled, contrary to how (far too many) Democrats feel, that there can be no cartel on first amendment speech. Efforts by progressives to separate bloggers by defining the speech cartel should fall on deaf ears. And anyone seeking to sue a blogger for defamation must meet the same standards as with any speaker; they must prove “malice and negligence.” So Bloggers and press get the same protections. Any Journalist “shield Law” could not exclude bloggers.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled verbal MMA match, already in progress.
Rick Moran – American Thinker
Josh Gerstein – POLITIO
Al Sharpton: Look out for them Greek homos!
The very erudite and always witty Mark Steyn has a column up at National Review Online about how, when it comes to the homosexual agenda, you vill not be ahlowed to ignohr zee agenda! You vill oh-bey! Of course, some people are exempt, such as Al Sharpton, referring to “Greek homos,” or Islamic leaders urging that homosexuals be put to death (such as Bilal Phillips argues). But everyone else? You must have an opinion…and it had better be “correct”!
Read Steyn’s excellent column, “The ‘Vigilance’ Vigilantes,” HERE.
The Wall Street Journal: Disfavored by Chinese communists and the U.S. executive branch.
Well, well, well: President Obama, U.S. Attorney General Holder, and the Chinese communist dictatorship have teamed up to attack an American newspaper, using a little-known federal law. Coincidentally, no doubt, it’s a newspaper that doesn’t openly support any of the three (unlike, say, the Washington Post or the New York Times).
Read all about it.
(And query: Even if the anonymous allegations were found to be true, does the law being used against the newspaper trump the First Amendment? What if the newspaper was being used as a front for illegal prostitution, drug-running, or terrorism? If the accusations were related to any of those, would it make a difference? If so...stay tuned for allegations that The Wall Street Journal is supporting illegal prostitution, drug-running, or terrorists. Promise.)
Liberty University – Challenging ObamaCare on Religious grounds
…on religious grounds.
S’Preme credit first to Hot Air, whose title I have assumed as my own. And second, how about a do-over?
Liberty University had challenged the law on religious grounds courtesy of the insurance mandate itself, the HHS’ contraceptive mandate, and the retarded left-wing notion that the government can prohibit any and every exercise of religious expression the moment it steps outside the four walls of the place of worship.
SCOTUS overturned a lower courts dismissal of that case –giving it new life
Let me be clear. My towns middle school does not do all that bad a job covering the US constitution. I can say this mostly because they actually cover it for a few weeks, during an exploration of American history and the founding of the nation. But being either a victim of or party to the kinds of support materials embedded into the public education system, I still manage to find a few ringers that make me shake my head and smile.
Not too long ago I regaled you on these pages with the tale of just such a ringer on the Middle Schools ‘citizenship quiz,’ where it asked the question, where does free speech come from? The correct answer is of course, ‘our creator,’ who provided us with a set of unalienable rights that exist even in the vacuum of the necessary evil of government. But that’s not the answer they were looking for. They expect you to write ‘The 1st amendment.’ This is of course incorrect. It assumes people could not speak freely prior 1791 when the bill of rights was ratified which is why I am forever reminding my children that the US Constitution does not give rights, it protects them.
Which brings me to this newly discovered Gem. Yesterday I came across a series of poorly worded essay questions—my second sons homework–the worst of which was this; What part of Article VI of the US constitution supports the idea of separation of church and state? Explain. (Go ahead and roll your eyes or make a grunting noise, or whatever it is you do when confronted with such nonsense.)