A Blog Dedicated to Freedom, Liberty and the Rights of Man

Pig Crisis

Our Dear Leader has declared Swine Flu a "national emergency." 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_swine_flu, through the Drudge Report.

"The White House on Saturday said Obama signed a proclamation that would allow medical officials to bypass certain federal requirements. Officials described the move as similar to a declaration ahead of a hurricane making landfall."

Frightening.  Bypassing "certain federal requirements" like the Constitution?  I love the way that the AP also tries to compare it indirectly to a Hurricane (like Katrina, perhaps?)  Big difference - you can see where a hurricane is going and predict it within a reasonable margin of error.  Viruses are invisible and affect people differently.  Horrible comparison!

Since when does a relatively mild influenza justify a "National Emergency?"  What sort of emergency measures are required?  Suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Internment camps?  Forced vaccinations?

The use of such language to describe such an outbreak is highly irresponsible at best and intentionally deceptive to mask a power grab at worst.

Carbon Madness

The Drudge Report posted a "developing" story that restaurant items and grocieries are starting to declare the level of their carbon footprint.

I could think of a million more things relevant than carbon impact. How about:

- How good the food is for me, as in nutritional content...

- The level of toxins in the food (i.e., mercury levels for fish)...

- The price it cost the restaurant or grocery store to produce the food item...

- The cleanliness of the location where the food came from...

Frankly, I don't care about the alleged effect my cheeseburger has on polar bear homes. What I care about is that the damn thing doesn't give me the shits, or worse.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Silence is Speech

How interesting that the Cambridge Society invited, then uninvited, Michael Savage from debating via videolink, on the following topic: This House Believes that Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary.

First of all, if there is anyone on God's Green Earth that is an authority on this topic, it's Michael Savage.  Second, I also find it particularly troubling that the Cambridge Society decided to go on with this debate after uninviting Savage.  It's important to note that Savage just recently accepted the debate invitation -- maybe these Brits were shocked and didn't think he'd accept.  If I could be so bold, it seems to me that Dr. Savage is the kind of man who would never back down from a challenge of this sort, debate being right up his alley.

Second, in my mind there is no doubt that the Brithish government is involved in forcing the hand of the Cambridge Society here.  This is very bothersome, especially concerning that the British Common Law has maintained, since the 1700s, that there shall be no "prior restraints" on speech.  What this means is that the government cannot prevent someone from speaking or publishing.  Anglo-American jurisprudence has evolved past that point since then.  If the UK government is involved with censoring Savage by threatening the Cambridge Society, however, it has devolved back to a point before the 1700s.

Now, imagine if someone from the White House was involved in this ban?  Think it can't happen?  Well, just this past week, the Administration backed a UN resolutionaiming to ban speech that is considered "intolerant," "xenophobic" or "racist."  Sounds like the impossible is now becoming possible.

Say What??!

First Amendment be damned.  

Our President is now backing a UN resolutionthat is calling for limits on freedom of expression. 

On January 20, 2009, then President-Elect OBAMA! the Great took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Not even one year later, his administration now backs a resolution that limits speech that is "intolerant," "racist," or "xenophobic." 

Obviously, this is very problematic for Free Speech.  One simple example: take the statement "I am against illegal immigration.  All illegals should be deported an the borders should be guarded to prevent illegals from entering."  This statement would most definitely be considered "intolerant," "racist," and "xenophobic" by our friends at The National Council of The Race (La Raza), or perhaps their Canadian equivalent.  Should I be punished for such a statement?   Presient OBAMA! and the United Nations seem to think so. 

Punishing speech is not the answer - the answer is more speech.  The Supreme Court, from Brandeis and Holmes to Fortas and Warren have all came to this conclusion (see Brandenburg, for example). 

I am calling for the impeachment of President OBAMA!, on the grounds that he is attempting to subvert the Constitution.  Perhaps my motivations are intolerant, racist, or xenophobic.  I suppose I should go surrender myself to the Thought Police.  

Farewell, First Amendment.  I hardly knew thee.

The President of Iran Was Born a Jew!?

There is a report circulating that the President of Iran was actually born a Jew. His family name, according to documents, was "Sabourjian" meaning "Weaver of the Jewish prayer rug."

Very interesting - parallels to Hitler just went to a new level.

Source: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/report-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-born-a-jew/
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T