“Those Voices Don’t Speak for the Rest of Us” [2:18]
Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2505241110056011884cNZrZd
If you liked this, you might also enjoy https://polination.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/america-is/
H/t Bob and RedPill.
“Those Voices Don’t Speak for the Rest of Us” [2:18]
Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2505241110056011884cNZrZd
If you liked this, you might also enjoy https://polination.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/america-is/
H/t Bob and RedPill.
Comments Off on This IS the difference between the Left and the Right
Filed under Constitution, Liberty, Ronald Reagan, Tea Party
March 29, 2012 By Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2012/03/a-warning-from-a-british-friend
Brief excerpt:
If there is one thing that strikes me every time I visit the United States, it’s that most people have no idea of how fortunate they are. One of the reasons that people here are productive — and it now takes four Germans to put in the same man hours as three Americans over one year — is that the incentives are rigged toward success, toward productivity. If you penalize wealthy people in order to reward poor people, you will end up with fewer wealthy people and more poor people.
Abstract of entire article:
The United States was born out of a popular revolt against a distant and autocratic government, and its model has always been based around the maximum decentralization and democratization of power. Now that model is being abandoned.
The policies currently being pursued amount to a comprehensive program of Europeanization—European welfare, health care, taxes, carbon levies, unemployment rates, and foreign policy.
The community of free English-speaking democracies is the standing, permanent coalition of the willing, but it depends on America’s commitment and America’s keeping true to the Anglo–American common law heritage of freedom, parliamentary rule, and personal liberty without which America is made less exceptional, poorer and darker.
Read the rest @ http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2012/03/a-warning-from-a-british-friend
Filed under Economy, Government Tyranny, Liberty, Poverty
“The Story of Jim: A Modern Parable of Debt” by Angelaisms
http://misfitpolitics.co/2012/04/the-story-of-jim-a-modern-parable-of-debt/
The next time anyone claims that Democrats have been supporting civil rights in America since the dawn of time, send them here:
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://community.webshots.com/album/582444369XbbevP
Granted, most of the examples are from before most of us were born. But the Democrat website claims they have “worked to pass” and “led the fight” on “every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws” which is just pure donkey manure.
Those who actually admit to the truth of the Democratic Party’s history still manage to claim that TODAY’S Democrats are the Good People, because all those Bad Old Racist Southern Democrats went and defected to the Republican Party where they acted like a rotten apple in the pro-civil rights barrel of the GOP so that now ALL Republicans are EVIL RAAAAACISTS!
Yeah, right.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 with the express purpose of ending slavery in the United States. When the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected, Southern Democrats seceded from the union rather than accept him as their national leader.
The voting records make it clear that from that time straight through the civil rights acts of 1964-65, it was Republicans who were fighting for civil rights advancements and Democrats who were fighting them.
What has been the big exception since then?
Abortion.
But it is only Democrats who consider the legal killing of unborn Americans to be a civil right.
Republicans consider it worse than slavery or capital punishment. Slaves were fed and housed. Capital criminals get free legal counsel and years of mandatory appeals. The inconvenient unborn aren’t even granted an advocate to speak for them, never mind a hearing or a waiting period before they can be summarily executed.
And they didn’t lose their unalienable Right to Life because a majority of Americans decided they should. They were deemed “nonpersons” (i.e., “property”) under the law by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court.
And this society-changing legal decision wasn’t based on any clearly stated unalienable right that had been written into the Constitution by our founding fathers.
It was based on a shadowy right that only some of the most liberal of the justices claimed to have discerned in the “penumbra” of rights listed therein.
(The penumbra is the lighter part of a shadow. The darker part is called the umbra.)
More than 50 million unborn Americans have been slaughtered because a handful of black robed justices and a majority of Democrats decided that this unstated and shadowy “right to privacy” was more important than the clearly stated and spotlighted-in-the-first-line “right to life.”
When it comes to civil rights, 50 million dead babies is about all the modern Democratic Party can really call its own … and they call us the evil ones.
Filed under Abortion, Civil Rights, Constitution, Democrats, Liberty, Republicans, Supreme Court
We’ve been having a discussion about the difference between so-called “Liberal” and so-called “Conservative” values.
It was inspired by my article:
GP and Bob both pointed out that “the whole thing is ass backwards.”
“Most conservatives want liberty and most liberals want every one to conform to their rules, which is the total opposite.
“I want everyone to have the freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I even wish that for democrats. Democrats want everyone to live by their rules.”
“Democrats these days are the real “conservatives,” as they are trying to preserve the status quo — huge government, high taxes, maximum government control over people’s lives, minimum personal responsibility, nanny statism, etc., etc. And we are the ones who believe in liberty and all that good stuff, which makes us liberal in the truest sense of the term. In fact, a hundred years ago the word “liberal” meant the exact opposite of what it means today. That’s just the way the language gets perverted over time, I guess.”
“JFK would be a republican by today’s standards. Liberal today is such an oxymoron, since they are always the ones who want to stifle free speech, unless it is their own, they believe that no one should be able to mention God because they do not believe in Him, and they practically beg Big Brother to regulate every move we make. We the people want to CONSERVE LIBERTY. So does that make us conservative liberals?”
I’d say so. It’s difficult not to agree once you give the issue some real thought. Dennis Prager wrote a really good article about this issue during the 2008 campaign.
Why I Am Not a Liberal by Dennis Prager – Aug 12, 2008
The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.
Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.
I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.
I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.
I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. “Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested” is legalized thievery.
I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.
Read the rest at
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2008/08/12/why_i_am_not_a_liberal/page/full/
Filed under Dennis Prager, Liberty
IMHO, this video sums up the difference between the Left and the Right.
A small group of Lefties raucously and disruptively shout on and on about THEIR right to abortion-on-demand while actively depriving the assembled Pro-Lifers THEIR right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
Meanwhile, a group of Pro-Lifers that out-numbered the Lefties about ten-to-one did NOT give them the whupping they so richly deserved.
H/t: Pistol Pete’s Grudge Report
Filed under Abortion, First Amendment, Liberty
I swear, there are times I think some Wisconsin residents are determined to make our state the laughingstock of the country.
Last month, a theater professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout put a poster on the door to his office. It was a picture of a character from the TV series “Firefly” with a quote from the show. And it got the professor threatened with criminal charges. Here it is:
(You can watch a video clip here that puts the above quote into context.)
I’ve never watched “Firefly” myself, although several of my children are fans. Christian Schneider at National Review Online describes it as a “libertarian cult classic that is part throwback Western, part space fiction, and features characters (ironically) who battle an authoritarian government.”
Professor James Miller, a fan of the series, put the poster on his office door on September 12. On September 16, UW-Stout Police Chief Lisa Walter removed the poster, and informed Dr. Miller that “it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.”
University officials agreed with Walter, saying that they simply couldn’t allow posters that they believe contain threats of violence. “We have a responsibility as a university to provide an atmosphere for our students, faculty and staff that is safe,” UW-Stout spokesman Doug Mell said.
After his Firefly poster was confiscated, Miller put up a different poster:
The campus cops removed that one as well, and Miller received an email from Police Chief Walter that said, among other things, “The posting depicts violence and mentions violence and death. The campuses [sic] threat assessment team met yesterday and conferred with UW System Office of General Counsel and made the decision that this posting should be removed. It is believed that this posting also has a reasonable expectation that it will cause a material and/or substantial disruption of school activities and/or be constituted [sic] as a threat.”
Then the aptly-named Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) jumped into the fray. On September 21, FIRE wrote a letter to UW-Stout Chancellor Charles Sorenson protesting the assault on Professor Miller’s free speech rights. Sorenson did not respond to the letter. On September 27, Sorensen sent an email to all faculty and staff, claiming that the University’s act of censorship was not an act of censorship, but “an act of sensitivity to and care for our shared community, and was intended to maintain a campus climate in which everyone can feel welcome, safe and secure.”
Nathan Fillion (the actor whose picture appears on the offending poster), Adam Baldwin (another actor from the series), and writer Neil Gaiman also got into the act, posting comments on Twitter that prompted thousands of people from across the country to contact UW administrators in support of Professor Miller.
As Baldwin pointed out in a column he wrote for Big Hollywood, none of the folks currently having fits over Professor Miller’s supposedly “violent” and “threatening” posters expressed even the mildest objection to the “Kill the Bill” signs that appeared all over campus earlier this year as part of a protest against Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill. The signs were a takeoff on the publicity poster for the movie “Kill Bill” (another movie I didn’t see, due to my wimpish tendency to avoid movies with large amounts of violence, blood and gore). Baldwin wrote:
Oddly enough, police chief Walter was not at all concerned with the reference to killing or to the weapon of violence depicted in those posters. In fact, she was quoted in this article at the time as being rather complimentary of the activities.
“The neat part of working in a university is that folks get to have their voices heard, and we try to make sure that it’s done in a manner that’s orderly and doesn’t disrupt the rest of the operations too much,” she said.
The double standard is alive and well in academia.
But finally the pressure got to be too much even for the arrogant know-it-alls who run UW-Stout, and the administration caved. Chancellor Sorenson defended the original decision to remove the posters, stating that officials did so “out of legitimate concern for the violent messages contained in each poster and the belief that the posters ran counter to our primary mission to provide a campus that is welcoming, safe and secure.”
“In retrospect, however,” the statement continued, “it is clear that the removal of the posters – although done with the best intent – did have the effect of casting doubt on UW-Stout’s dedication to the principles embodied in the First Amendment, especially the ability to express oneself freely.” No kidding.
“FIRE is pleased that UW-Stout has decided to abandon its previous position and reopen the door to free speech and common sense on its campus,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “This victory would not have been possible without the outpouring of support from people across the country on news sites, blogs, and social media. FIRE would especially like to thank Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Neil Gaiman, and my fellow Firefly fans.”
You can learn more about FIRE here.
(crossposted on bluebird of bitterness)