Democratic Party no longer Socially Liberal

Rachel Maddow questioned why Republicans are considered the “natural party of fiscal responsibility” when they don’t have a history of fiscal responsibility. Now I’m questioning why the Democratic Party is considered the natural party of being socially liberal for the same reason.

Are they really socially liberal, as in permitting freedom of action, or are they trying to shape society to what suits them?

The health care legislation is far from liberal, it is very authoritarian because it is mandatory. The only liberal part of health care bill is allowing an exemption for the Amish faith. Liberty-minded people object to the health care bill on moral principles too; maybe if we formed a religious organization we could get an exemption.

The President and many other Democrats recently denounced the Supreme Courts decision on free speech. Now Congresswoman (D) Donna Edwards is introducing a Constitutional Amendment to undo the Supreme Courts ruling.

‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Media corporations will have freedom of speech. I guess all other groups will have to become part of the press to be able to speak on political issues.

Democrats are now defending huge amounts of deficit spending. Selling future generations into slavery is a far cry from defending freedom. Deficit spending in reality is a poverty tax, because poor people don’t buy up treasury bills but have to pay them back.

Instead of defending free speech they are advocating restricting free speech and have become the party of censorship. Some Democratic party legislators are interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and others have proposed hate speech legislation.

In the past they would defend the minority view and now in power they defend majority rule, as in the majority of people voted for health care reform so its OK to force the minority who do not wish to participate to buy health insurance.

So tell my why again they consider themselves the natural party of being socially liberal?

Share Button

Call the Police, I’ve been attacked on Facebook

( 7th grader busted for Facebook attack

A seventh grader in suburban Syracuse is in deep trouble after police say she attacked a teacher through Facebook.

Are weapons available on Facebook?

Share Button

The Threat Children Pose to Liberty

An Illinois National Guard soldier has been charged with possession of child pornography over snapshots of a 4-year-old niece in a swimsuit. The story is important to mention because when the subject of children is thrown into political debate, liberty is thrown out the window.

The emotional strings pulled by playing the “children card” trump all reasoning. In the overzealousness to protect children, free speech and civil rights have been unintended victims. The story of this National Guard soldier illustrates the potential harm of protecting children at all costs.

What happened to this soldier could happen to anyone. The family photo albums of the when the kids were toddlers has to go in the trash. Do not dare take pictures of your own kids at a park. The 1978 version of Superman should be destroyed because it shows baby Clark Kent’s weenie. Anyone could potentially be charged as a child predator.

This isn’t about hatred for kids, but about not being blinded by the natural instinct to protect children. Playing the children card has been used in the war on drugs, war on poverty, censorship, smoking and gun control. Here are some examples when children are brought in the rules completely change.

Protecting children seems to supersede the US Constitution. Sex offenders can be held indefinitely in jail.

We have a National Sex Offender Registry but not a a murderer registry–at least not yet, although some have proposed a murderer listing.

Some states have proposed defining “smoking around children” as child abuse. So would it be an assault to smoke near an adult?

Many countries have internet censorship to protect children from harmful material. Free speech doesn’t apply if little ears are present.

SCHIP’s (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) get passed into law without the same amount of controversy health care reform has generated.

More often than not, the “protect the children” argument is thrown in simply to win the debate. Using children in politics is just a way of saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you hate children.” The people that support censorship would still support censorship, even if it were impossible for children to ever see a pornographic image.

When the children card is played, ask yourself, “Is the intent to protect kids, or is it really about controlling other people?” After asking this question, you’ll often see people who are promoting their own version of morality and aren’t interested in protecting children or liberty.

Share Button

Liberal Hypocrisy vs. Conservative Hypocrisy – the Damage is Done

The left and the right cherry pick principles to champion based upon marketing strategy, and not based upon any core principles. This cherry picking approach has been steadily destroying the principles each claim to defend. Here are some examples of liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy and the damage they have done:

Defending Liberty – banning unhealthy living (left) vs. banning euthanasia (right). Both the left and the right claim to defend your right to live your life however you like. The left wants to restrict you from shorting your life by unhealthy living and the right doesn’t want you to choose when you die. If there is one thing that shows you live in a free society, it’s the right to decide to end your life by either slow or quick means.

Defenders of Justice – hate crimes (left) vs. terrorism crimes (right). Hate crimes are committed to send political messages and terrorism is often about religious intolerance. How important is the motive for murdering strangers when deciding an appropriate punishment? When the left wants to treat terrorists according to established law, the right labels them “terrorist sympathizers.” When the right wants to treat hate crimes according to established law, the left labels them as “racists sympathizers.” There isn’t any difference between these types of crimes. The left and right each want to be the champions of protecting the people: they just pick different villains to terrify the public while ignoring the principles of justice.

Defending free speech – banning the N-word (left) vs. flag burning (right). Both the left and right claim to be defenders of free speech but it turns out each would restrict speech that offends. Generally speaking, the left would censor violence and the right would censor sex in movies, TV, music and video games.

Both the left and right follow the same underlying dynamic – if they don’t like something, you can make it go away by passing a law. They really believe the evils they see in society can be made to go away by passing a law or declaring war on it. They have declared war on terrorism, poverty, drugs, and racism. How are all these wars working out for you? When will people realize no government has the power to make things like terrorism and racism go away?

The results of liberal and conservative hypocritical governing speak for themselves. In championing their causes, they have blown up the economy, put more limits on freedom, put people out of work, made a mockery of the justice system, stuck us in endless wars and thrown the country into to debt for decades.

In theory, our elected officials are there to protect our freedom, but they forget to ask themselves a simple question, “Will this lead to more freedom or less freedom?” It doesn’t matter if the issue is fighting evil or doing good for others, the question of more or less freedom is always relevant. Maybe if the question is asked more often the damage they’ve done can be repaired.

Share Button

Putting Homophobia in the Closet

Scott Brison, a member of the Canadian Parliament, sent out a Christmas card to his constituents. The card shows Brison and his husband, Maxime St. Pierre.

The Globe and Mail posted the card on line and then shut down their comments section over what they called “an overwhelming number of hateful and homophobic remarks,” explaining “we can’t allow our site to become a platform for intolerance.”

I would like to welcomeThe Globe and Mail to the internet. They opened up a comment section to find out what people thought about the card. A good rule in life and internet communication is “Don’t ask questions when you really don’t want to know the answer”.

This intolerance of intolerance only serves up more intolerance. The only way to get rid of a bad idea is by openly exposing the idea to ridicule. Now that the comments have been censored, I have no way of deciding for myself if the remarks were hateful or homophobic. If I had a disagreement with a statement, the opportunity to disagree has been removed.

Fighting homophobia with censorship only feeds the hatred. The comments on the internet about the homophobic views are littered with dehumanizing adjectives such as troglodytes and trolls. Homophobes can now claim they are being persecuted for their views because only popular views are allowed to be expressed.

Putting unpopular views in the closet doesn’t make the views go away because you can’t confront what you can’t see.

Share Button

Muslims of America – Camp Training Video

I hope Louis Theroux is planning a Weird Weekend with MOA/Muslims of America.

This is a test to see if Americans really believe in freedom of speech.

Free speech in America has been tested before; the MOA camp reminded me of the youth camp for the German American Bund – American Nazis in the 1930s.

If you haven’t seen the video below before, you need to be warned that it is real and not from a Star Trek alternate universe episode.
Share Button

Bible Reading Removed From Town’s Holiday Celebrations

The PC rules seem to say its OK to voice a belief on public property as long as that belief isn’t backed by a religious organization.

If a religious view is being voiced on public property there is the risk of a lawsuit.

Why has the separation of church and state has turned into denial of the existence of religion?

Separation of church and state was never meant to be a black marker to strike out beliefs we don’t agree with.

This case isn’t forcing religion on others any more that holding an environmental meeting and quoting Al Gore is forcing Gaia worship.

Share Button