Man addresses a Colorado City Council in his underwear.

I'm trying to figure out what freedom of speech has to do with addressing the City Council in your underwear.




The liberal idiots in this country really have lost their mind. Stuff like this is ridiculous and serves no purpose. It disturbs me a great deal to know we have moved so far away from anything resembling rational thought or behavior in this country.

Kagen and all of the House are coming after your free speech rights

As is par for the course these days from an Aminstration drunk with power, Congress is set to pass legislation that would ultimately lead to a clamp down on free speech. More specifically, it would lead to a policing and patrolling of bloggers writing about politics. Disguised as the DISCLOSE Act, we are told the original intent was to counteract some of the findings from the Citizens United decision where the Supreme Court rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.
The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story,commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

From there they go on to say “the FEC is most likely to stand by the 2006 Internet rules and only reach PAID political banner ads; not bloggers.” Most likely? This from a government that has already shown itself to be the most over-reaching, Constitution bending, public sentiment dismissing Administration ever?!?!?!?! Yeah, I don't think so; Thanks.

When you combine this with the fact that the latest Supreme Court nominee, Elana Kagen, has absolutely no love or respect for the First Amendment, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell I'm taking that bet. She has been fighting her entire political career to limit free speech-even going so far as to say some speech can be regulated when it's not good for society.

"The question that remains open for me is whether profound and indisputable harms can be taken into account for the purpose of lowering the standard of review applicable to viewpoint-based underinclusion -- whether and when they may negate our usually justifiable concerns about the effects and motives of such government action," she wrote. "It may be possible to develop guidelines for this purpose -- guidelines that will isolate and harshly confine a set of underinclusion cases in which viewpoint distinctions should be tolerated."

In case that doesn't make any sense, she wants to shut you up because you offend her, but her view points and those who agree with her are A-O-K! We are increasingly moving in to a time I would have never dreamed of in days gone by. Until this Administration I would have never in a million years worry I might lose the right to express myself or my dissatisfaction with my government or the elected officials in it. Now I'm not so sure.

The government is going to use the FEC, the FCC, Net Neutrality and anything else at their disposal to shut us up. They don't like the truth spilling out all over the Internet. We have never before lived in a time when lies and half truths could be so easily and quickly dispelled. They don't like that at all....but we ain't goin' no where!

Congressman Connolly (D-VA) has a bully in his office shoving women

Yesterday, Teri Christoph, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Smart Girl Politics-and a good friend of mine-answered the call by Rep. Michele Bachmann to the people to converge on Washington, D.C. and talk to representatives about the Pelosi Healthcare bill.

After several rousing speeches by the likes of Jon Voight, (Corrected. Thanks reader.) Mark Levin and Missouri's very own Todd Akin (R-MO) the crowd was dispersed. All were encourage to go visit their Representatives so they could speak directly to them about their feelings on the disastrous legislation. (Teri recounts the whole story here, be sure to read it.)

As all the constituents did, Teri went through security, camera in hand and in full view, then proceeded to Congressman Gerry Connolly's office. Once in the office she filled out the visitors form, pulled out her camera and began asking for Rep. Connolly or a staffer to discuss the representatives position on the healthcare bill. It is at this point things got a little ugly-while the staffer seems to indicate that in order to use a camera in the office she must have media credentials-which is weird, I would like to see where that is written-but then Communications Director George Burke came out and decided he would take control. He became aggressive toward Teri, insisting she would need press credentials, shoving her aside and threatening to call police.

So, it seems Rep. Gerry Connolly has a thug in his office to do his communicating for him. George Burke is a known instigator and has been out on the Internet threatening and trying to quash those with opposing points of view for years. Since sometime in 2006 there are numerous examples of Mr. Burke posting comments on Internet sites and blogs under his name and two pseudonyms one "Thomas Paine" or "Thomas Paine Patriot" and then later under the name "11thCD". Lowell has done all the work and lined it out very neatly for all the world to see-except I guess Rep. Connolly. Otherwise, why would some one who has regularly compared people to NAZI's, and Stalinist's be allowed to serve as Communications Director for a Representative of the people. Clearly this man will not tolerate opposing points of view and feels neither he, nor Connolly, owes anyone any explanation for anything. Nice communicating dude.

It would seem Representative Connolly has a habit of hiding though. This past summer he refused to hold an "open" townhall to speak to his people about their concerns on healthcare. Rather, he spoke to a captive, hand-picked audience so he wouldn't have to drag out his nasty attack dog or answer any tough questions.

Folks in the House like this better get a clue....your seat is not guaranteed and if this is how you will treat the people you represent, you will be voted out.

And you wonder why I wear a tinfoil hat....

Here we are, venturing back into the land of the thought police.

The Senate is poised to pass (and it will pass) the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives money to troops in Afghanistan....it also includes new "hate-crime" legislation to broaden the definition, encompassing sexual orientation and "gender identity". That's weird. I see no reason for these two items to be on the same bill. Oh.......well except for the part where the expanded language wouldn't pass without glomming on to some other bill.

Its' sad really that we have come to the point in this country where thoughts about someone somehow make one crime more heinous than another. Our legislators pass law after law, ever tightening the screws on our freedoms and liberties; they take over corporations as an act of "kindness"; they force government run healthcare on us for mercy; now they are in the business of deciding who is more important when a crime is committed.

So if a gay man is beaten and killed because he is gay that is somehow more heinous and despicable than a woman who is kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed because she is......a woman? Did the rapist do it because he was fond of the woman or did he do it out of some kind of twisted hate?

How about child predators? Do they prey on and horrifically abuse the innocent because they care about them? This is somehow less hateful than a transgender being murdered.......

Don't misinterpret-I am all for serious penalty-for all crime; I support the death penalty for the most egregious of crimes. The real problem does not lie in what someone was or was not thinking at the time a crime was committed. The problem lies in the fact that people rarely serve their full penalty. The problem lies in that crimes often go under punished. The problem is that for too long Dems have been soft on crime and this is the only way they can think of to make up for it. They will dole out extra punishment when it is a group they are interested in protecting, but when it comes to real women's issues, babies or anyone else they wish would just go away-you'll take what you're given and no more.

This law could easily be twisted and manipulated to say that any crime is a hate crime, should they want to punish you that way. We see that even now; the MSM loves to call us on the right racists for any hint of disagreement with the President and completely dismisses any other possibility. With this law, anything could be perverted into a hate crime, if it was so desired. Considering an amendment guaranteeing your First Amendment Rights was altered from the original:

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment saying the bill could not be "construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the First Amendment" and could not place any burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights "if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

to:

....the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.

Which in government speak means, they are not.

Cass Sunstein Wants Me to Shut My Mouth

It would seem that the evidence becomes more than anecdotal all the time: President Obama can't take the heat. Not only does he get aggravated and pout like a petulant child when Fox news doesn't kiss his behind, but he surrounds himself with people who would desecrate the constitution and our freedoms to stop the truth from coming out when it might harm him or his agenda. Cass Sunstein is a crazy fool who would put the rights of animals on a level playing field as those of people. He is also our Regulatory Czar.
In Mr. Sunstein's new book he reveals that the word police should be brought out in full force. Extending to the Internet and beyond, anyone who perpetuates "falsehoods" would be subject to fines, regulation and who knows what. One problem? It's up to this administration to define what a falsehood is.

These revelations are found in Sunstein's new book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, in which he attacks the plague of "rumors" besetting the Obama administration. Rumors must be regulated, according to Sunstein. Suspiciously, Sunstein's definition of "rumors" never seems to favor conservatives. To combat "rumors," Sunstein proposes fines, and even obligatory retractions, in the case of Internet publications.[1]
In his new book, harsh penalties would be meted out for those that "spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president," an occurrence likely to increase if Sunstein continues to assault the very foundations upon which America is built.[2] Sunstein will have to accuse millions of Americans of "spreading rumors." Perhaps Sunstein even dreams of an eventual final solution for rumor perpetrators.

It is unfathomable to me that there might come a day when I cannot speak my mind as I see fit. What's worse? That there might come a day when I can't speak the truth because the President or someone in his administration deems the truth a "falsehood". Unfortunately, saying the truth when it disagrees with what they want you to think, does not make it false.
This is America. If you take away our right to free speech, you take away our right to freedom.

Hush-up Truth Teller

So it seems President Obama has found the perfect way to control even those outside the MSM-create a new, as yet undefined post called White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Watchdog of the Smartmouth Bloggers Czar for short) and then appoint a clearly Free Speech Hating person to run it, like Cass Sunstein. Scary enough? Well, try this on my freedom loving friend:

"Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."

I didn't realize the President had the authority to appoint a new King.

Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
But who cares about a burden when insults are being bandied about? "A 'chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea," he says. "As wehave seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.
He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.

So not only we will have a new King with unbelievable power, but he won't like conservatives with opinions. No doubt these rules, regulations, and lawsuits won't apply to the liberal glad rags and their commentors. (Oh, you definately must click that link!)

(H/T-post inspired here: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/plans-of-cass-suntein.html )