Price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Because you never really win. After all, that's the thing about a free society: a society is not truly free if it does not give enemies of freedom enough berth to try and destroy it—or at least its freedom.
We may be able to hold the tide back. We may be able to stop Obama, his cronies, and "the powers that be", especially if Democrats lose control of the House, where spending bills must originate, in 2010. We may be able to stop government intrusion into private health care system, and the final form of ObamaCare passed may be the best we could hope for: one that fixes what is broken (tort reform, less restriction on selling insurance across state lines, and removal of distorting tax incentives that ties insurance to employers) and leaves alone what works (the rest of the system).
Would that mean that we won and our children can live in peace?
Of course not. It might mean that this temporary victory may be so overwhelming, like our victory over U.S.S.R., that no statist would have the audacity to try it again for decades. But more likely than not, we will have to fight another similar battle in our lifetime once more, and our children will almost definitely have to earn their own freedom. After all, we have a republic if we can keep it, and each generation must prove that they can keep it.
Note to U.K. citizens: immigrate to U.S. today!
Because that's the only way you can be protected by our First Amendment protection, and the process takes quite some time.
"Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."
Leave your miserable island and continent.
Freedom is still alive here. The liberals and statists tried their best in the last century (and they are still trying), but they have yet to succeed here as completely as they had in Europe and elsewhere.
What The Hell Am I Supposed To Do With All These Constitutional Rights?
Too much of one thing can cause a person a lot of stress, and you know what's stressing me out? All these rights guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution. There's like—how many—a couple dozen? And they keep adding more! Isn't that a bit much? I'm just a simple man who likes simple things, and I can tell you right now, there's just no way I'm ever gonna need all those constitutional rights.
It's just a rumor, but I heard that you can trade them for temporary safety—and then temporary safety will leave on its own leaving you free of all these unnecessary rights and liberty!
Apparently many Americans have done this already or are thinking of doing it.
Napolitano Apologizes to Veterans Group for 'Rightwing Extremism' Report
Napolitano met with the American Legion at its request for about 45 minutes in a private meeting. The group had called for an apology from her in a letter earlier this month.
It was at least the third apology Napolitano has offered ever since the report was leaked to the media nearly two weeks ago, prompting a growing chorus of criticism -- including a small group of vocal conservative lawmakers calling for Napolitano's resignation.
"We connected meaningfully about the important issues that have emerged over recent days, and I offered him my sincere apologies for any offense to our veterans caused by this report," she said in a statement. Napolitano pledged that her department has "fixed the internal process that allowed this document to be released before it was ready."
To me, it still doesn't sound like a real apology. She keeps qualifying her apology ("apologies for any offense ..."). It sounds like she's saying "sorry" because she annoyed some people, not because her action (or her department's action, at any rate) itself was irresponsible and reprehensible whether or not anyone was offended (the vets could've taken it as a joke, in some bizarro world).
A sincere apology is an unqualified, unconditional apology. Maybe the difference is in me reading it whereas those who met her heard it in person—God knows a lot gets lost in writing words down especially if it's not written by the person herself, and given that the vets present were satisfied and this being Fox News, I have to believe that those who met her believed the apology to be sincere—but it would have been much better for those of us who couldn't be there in person if we could see an unqualified, unconditional apology for the report written down.
Joe Biden promises a blank check to the entertainment cartel
VP Joe Biden stood up in front of a bunch of Hollywood execs and promised to appoint a copyright czar, and furthermore, that this would be the "right" person to protect their interests. I would have voted Dem in the last election, if I got a vote, but make no mistakes: the Dems are the party of stupid copyright laws. From Hollywood Howard Berman on down, they've got a terrible track record on technology and copyright policy.
Well, all I can say is I voted for Gov. Palin. I'm not responsible. In fact, I've said many, many times that Biden is bad news (if Obama wasn't already).
Doctorow would've voted for Dems (because, despite all the good things about him, he's a liberal). Well, if I ever died and re-incarnated back as something sentient, I would vote against Dems every single time (so if I ever vote for a Dem, you will know that I've become a vegetable, or died ... and "raised back to life" by left-wing necromancy ).
Border patrol alleged to have beat up and tazed pastor, smashed his car, on US soil, because he insisted on 4th Amendment rights
When I read "border patrol", I thought, "This guy is fighting the wrong battle—Supreme Court already ruled that the border was constitution-free zone." But it turns out it's an internal checkpoint. No national border involved. No suspension of fundamental liberties necessary.
This pastor describes his ordeal, and I want you to listen carefully to the description of what happens as the thugs break his car window: they taze him.
This is why tazers should be banned from any law enforcement use. They were supposed to replace guns. Would they even think of aiming a gun at a guy who was not resisting forcefully, let alone firing it "preemptively"? Law enforcements all over the nation are simply using tazers in addition to guns, instead of common sense, training (that is, training with bodily combat), and sensible caution. All they had to do was be on the watch whether this guy would choose the moment when the shattered glass pours on him to fight back. They didn't have to taze him.
There is no legitimate law enforcement use for tazers—if there ever were, the illegitimate uses outweigh it so much more that there is far more harm to be done by those than the few corner cases where tazer is meant for.
Audio: Rick Perry flirts with secession at tea-party presser
On HotAir.com:
I snarked yesterday that the left would get hysterical and treat his statement on the Tenth Amendment as a veiled call for secession, so I’m obliged to eat my words today. Simply awful, whether as a convenient distraction for the media from the tea parties or as a brush for them to tar the protests as motivated by crackpot neo-confederate sentiments. Even Drudge, who’s obviously sympathetic to the rallies, is leading with the story right now. In the red scare font, no less.
For the sake of the ... conscience of the right, I hope this is just a bit of overzealous fervor on the part of a few—a few who would regret saying anything implying that secession from the union would be a good idea some days from now.
The conservatives (and libertarians) shouldn't go the anti-American way that the left and the liberals did when they lost power. It's one thing to hold anti-government, anti-tax rallies (this, I support wholeheartedly). It's quite another to lightly suggest an ... action that, when it was tried last time, not only failed but was one of the bloodiest chapters of American history (I might argue, even more bloody than the two world wars; those two wars, unless you count Pearl Harbor, weren't even fought on the American soil). A secession doesn't simply go against the federal government, it goes against the American people.
Granted, that may not be true for-ever. After all, the American Revolution was, in a matter of speaking, a secession from the British empire. There may be a time when such violence and bloodshed may become necessary to rectify the mistakes made by the statists and liberals in the federal government. That time has not come yet, and until such time comes, if for nothing else but to maintain the moral high ground, the right, including the conservatives and libertarians, should never suggest that such thing is even a possibility.
Support for secession is nothing dissimilar from the support for the cop-killer in Oakland. Dissent is good, but only when you are trying to work within the system. Secession isn't working within the American system of government.
When you have an income tax, the government is everyone's pimp.
Among Slashdot comments:
When you have an income tax, the government is everyone's pimp. The government can extract anything from its taxpayers with little recourse.
When the US started the income tax it was 1% on incomes over $250,000 (adjusted) We now tax everyone 20-30% of anyone making over $600. Furthermore, your "fair share" is determined on how productive in enterprising you are. The more you stimulate the economy, the more you're penalized for it.
Indeed. The federal government is the most repressive religion of our time. Even Christianity (and even taking only its evangelical branch, throwing aside its more ... cerebral factions), which atheists and humanists detest as being militant and oppressive regarding "lifestyle", only "requires" this: that you give 10% of your earnings to God.
Compare that to the federal government which requires that nearly everyone who has any income to speak of pay at least 20% of what you earn (I'm a graduate student (i.e. I earn just enough for myself, I couldn't possibly support a family on my sole income), and I pay that rate, maybe a little closer to 15%, but definitely above 10%). God, despite all the blasphemous things that have been said about him, is far more permissive and lenient than the so-called "freest government in human history".
Liberalism, which aims to increase the role of this government and its "fair share" out of our earnings, is in fact the most oppressive philosophy/religion ever conceived. Sure, no one's been burned at a stake for speaking against their gospel, but millions have been and billions will be pecked to their deaths unless we stop it in our time.
P.S. Also, consider what happens when you don't pay income tax (IRS puts you in jail), and consider what happens when you don't pay tithe (your pastor will still be happy to just have you come to church). It's quite clear who is a greater oppressor.
Man detained, threatened and abused by TSA for flying with $4700 in cash
Here's a recording of Steve Bierfeldt, a US citizen who tried to board a domestic airplane while carrying $4700 in cash, and was detained by the TSA and subjected to abusive language and threats when he said that he would only answer the TSA's inquiries ("Where do you work?" "Why are you carrying cash?") if he was required to by law. The TSA agents threatened to turn him over to the DEA. He was returning from a Ron Paul event in St Louis, MO, and worked for the campaign. The cash on his person arose from sales of t-shirts and stickers at the event.
While I admire the TSA officer's stance that carrying U.S. currency is a suspicious activity (after all, it's a fiat money, with no inherent value of its own—wouldn't you be suspicious of someone who carries a lot of rocks with him?), I didn't realize that it was already a crime to carry U.S. currency on one's person.
Furthermore, I didn't realize that if we don't have anything to hide, we must tell everything to everyone who asks—Fifth Amendment be damned! After all, the cops are a higher source of authority than the Constitution of the United States itself.
I learned a lot today—mainly that I am doing well by avoiding riding airplanes whenever possible. After all, TSA officers ("cops for hire", the lowest of their kind who faces no real danger and plenty of chances to abuse their power—which they do) are not on trains or the nation's highways.
Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
If you think this is trivial, think again.
Because the next requirement will probably be some kind of proof that the the music/movie/ad/etc in question was not produced under the influence (of marijuana, crack, or whatever the feds feel like should be illegal at the time).