...that the school officials in this case acted "stupidly":

California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo

How the American flag can possibly be considered "incendiary" - being displayed in America, by Americans - is utterly beyond me. Generations of Americans have served and many have given their lives to defend our freedoms and that includes the freedom to display our flag proudly at any time and place.

More on the story here (H/T HotAir):



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update: California Principal Apologizes for Forbidding U.S. Flag Shirts on Mexican Holiday

I'm glad to hear that.

Read full post >>

I posted on this video a while back (video reposted below for reference), with the comment:

Obviously this would be unconstitional in the United States, and I don't see any indication in the report that the U.S. is actually considering this (thank goodness) but I think it's good to be aware that this is out there.

Well, I stand corrected. Not only is the U.S. considering this, apparently the Obama administration is taking the lead in pushing it forward.

From the Weekly Standard, dated Monday 10/5:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
...
So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
...
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
...
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.
...
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.

Click here to read the whole article.

Interestingly enough, although they speak in terms of "religious tolerance" the only religion any of the folks supporting this seem interested in "protecting" is Islam. I see no reference to complaints about defamation of Christians or Jews, or Buddhists or Hindus, or atheists or anyone else. I would not want any such "protections" in the form of limits on free speech - the freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs, even if it means that someone (probably everyone) is going to be offended at some point in time. I would much rather risk being offended than give up such a vital freedom as that of free expression.

That our own government seems willing to not only sign on but lead the charge to violate our own Constitutional rights in the name of fostering international "consensus" is absolutely unacceptable. If they think such actions will garner favor among our enemies, they are wrong. It will only garner further contempt from both enemies and allies (and the current administration seems quite confused as to which is which) as we will be seen as weak, abandoning our principles.

More on this here:
Obama signs up to stop YOUR freedom of speech at UN. Happy now?
Obama Introduced UN Resolution To Limit Free Speech

~~~~~~~~
Here is the video referenced above:

Read full post >>

From Gateway Pundit:

ABC had no problem showing Obama's infomercial on socialized medicine, broadcast directly from the White House. They refused to air any opposing views at the time to present a balanced view. And now both ABC and NBC are refusing paid advertising that is critical of Congress' proposed healthcare plan.


I've seen the networks airing ads in favor of gov't-run healthcare, so the claim that they don't air "partisan" ads doesn't hold water. Thank goodness the state-run media is not the only source of information in this country (at least for now).

Here's the ad:

Read full post >>

What the @%&#?!?

I respect our police officers and the fact that they have difficult jobs. I believe the vast majority of officers are hard-working people who strive to do the right thing.

That being said, I find this encounter disturbing. The officer in question can't offer an actual reason for his request to remove the sign, except to finally say it's because it has a picture on it (huh?). Then he threatens to "charge you with whatever I wanna charge you with." And when the person videotaping says, "this used to be America" the officer answers with "It ain't no more, ok?"

Again, what the @%&#?!?

Read full post >>

H/T kHat43 and RightKlik

Disturbing views from Obama's diversity czar, Mark Lloyd.

From CNS News:

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

...

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

"Democratic governance" is a nice euphemism for "government control." And who exactly count as "real people"? If some people are "real," are others "fake"?

Last time I checked, between the internet, television (cable / satellite), radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. anyone and everyone who wants to have a voice has that opportunity. Likewise anyone can find what they want to watch / read / listen to from all over the spectrum of ideas. The last thing we need is the government stepping in to control what Americans see and hear. Constitutional rights are not an "exaggeration" for the government to curtail, they are the rights of every citizen. It is becoming more clear to me every day that there are significant forces in government that would like nothing more than to take all our freedoms and control every aspect of our lives. Each of needs to keep standing up for our freedoms or we will lose them.


Read the whole article here.

More from the Examiner here.

Read full post >>

"un-American"

"angry mobs" of "right-wing extremists"

"brown-shirts" ... "carrying swastikas" (aka Nazi's)

"KKK"

"political terrorists"

"reminiscent of... Timothy McVeigh"

and when the existing lexicon just wasn't enough to convey their contempt, they made up a new term: "evil-mongers"


Wow. These mobsters that members of the United States House and Senate, along with the Obama administration, and the MSM keep warning us about sound truly terrifying don't they?

Dana Loesch shared some pictures of them on her blog.

*** Warning - GRAPHIC photos ***
You've been warned. I am not responsible for any nightmares that result from witnessing these frightening photos of mobs in action.







You can see more photos here.

It's more than a little ridiculous, isn't it? The disproportionate response from the left only underscores how desperate they must be to ram this monstrosity of Obamacare down our throats. But now that people have seen what is in the bill they aren't happy with it, and are being denigrated and maligned for nothing more - and nothing less - than exercising their right of free speech under the Constitution.

And as much as they'd like us to believe this is a "fringe" response, not indicative of the country at large - the polls say otherwise. The latest Rasmussen polls show that 53% of Americans are opposed to the healthcare bill. And really, this is about a lot more than healthcare - it's about freedom. It's about not having to worry about a government-induced scarcity of care in which the opinions of Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren may influence decisions on whether our families are "worth" getting medical care.

Interestingly enough (though hardly surprising), the response of the left to Americans voicing concerns about healthcare is fraught with blatant hypocrisy.

For example, Nancy Pelosi only thinks you're "un-American" if you disagree with her. She's "a fan of disruptors" if she agrees with them:



More here, here, and here. (Warning - for real this time - some of the pictures in that last link contain offensive language and nudity but hopefully won't give you nightmares).

Read full post >>

Stumbled onto this recently, from HotAir. Here's an excerpt:

This would be great satire, except that California’s Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass, was foolish enough to say it — and believe it. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Bass responded to a question about conservative talk radio by calling show hosts terrorists, and openly wondering why we allow people to call politicians and give their opinions (via The Corner):

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society.

...

Beware the politicians who consider dissent terrorism. They’re either idiotic beyond belief, or tyrants waiting for an opportunity. Bass might just be both.

Why is it that liberals can't bring themselves to use the "t" word (terrorism) when describing actual known terrorists ("man-caused disaster" sounds so much more pleasant, no?) but they have no problem describing law-abiding citizens who dare to voice their opinions to the politicians THEY elected to represent them as "terrorists." She bemoans that people's jobs are threatened if they vote a certain way. Well, if the majority of the people who put you in office disagree with how you conduct yourself in office, then they should vote you out of office. That's how democracy works!

During the Bush years, liberals loved to remind everyone that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And they were right on that point, although IMO some of them crossed the line from "dissent" to actively undermining America's interests at home and abroad. Now that their beloved leader is now in office though, they are quickly rebranding dissent - simply voicing an opposing opinion to the administration's policies - as "terrorism" or even "treason."

The hypocrisy and stupidity here is mind-numbing, and the trend to increasingly label anyone who disagrees with the government as an "extremist," "terrorist," or "traitor" is very, very dangerous. It should be seen as a threat to the freedom not only of conservatives but of all Americans.

~~~~~~~~~~

As a side note, I just have to take issue with Ms. Bass' terminology "voting for revenue." "Revenue" is money that is EARNED for providing goods or services. What Ms. Bass is talking about is not revenue, it's TAXES and yes, if you're voting to increase taxes on your constituents, you better be ready for some complaints. Especially when you've been spending a large portion of your already-bloated budget on stupid and wasteful things. Don't waste the taxpayers' money and then get all defensive when they aren't eager to give you even MORE of their hard-earned dollars to make up for your overspending in the first place! How about do what every other American has to do when they don't have enough money - cut spending!!

Read full post >>

The world continues to feel upside down and inside out, but dh found this online and I thought I'd take a break from the serious to share something funny.

This is a musician who flew United and the baggage handlers threw and broke his guitar (they were seen from the plane). He tried for months to get them to compensate him for the loss (it was an expensive guitar) and finally decided to write three songs about his experience. This just cracked me up. Apparently, United has since called him to try to make things right. Good for him.

Read full post >>