John Kerry to Media: Don't Cover Tea Party

Senator Lurch coming out against the First Amendment:



Via Real Clear Politics:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual. It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do."

First of all, Senator Kerry, shame on you! It's "the media have...". You'd think someone married to Teresa Heinz could afford a good English tutor!

Second, the Tea Party, as it is loosely associated, stands for fiscal responsibility and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. Are those the "absolutely absurd notions" you don't want the public to hear about? Are their ideas not "legitimate" because they differ from yours? In a society that prizes freedom of speech, exactly whom would you make the arbiter over what is or is not a "legitimate idea"?

Oh, and by the way, did you realize that John Kerry served in Viet Nam?


H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

On the Denair Flag Controversy

Nothing like "Old Glory" to prime the pump of discussions over what it means to be an American. I've been keeping my powder dry over this latest controversy in Denair, California, over whether or not Cody Alicea could fly the American flag on his bicycle on school grounds.
Just last May, you might recall, California students were sent home for wearing American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. This seemed to be just more of the same.



First of all, for those of you contemplating home schooling, go with your gut. A lot of indoctrination takes place in lieu of actual learning in government schools. That a 13-year-old boy would be more cognizant of his Constitutional rights than the educational establishment where he is putatively going to be educated is a sad state of affairs.

If the sight of the American flag is going to "cause trouble", then why not deal with the trouble makers? Has appeasement taken such a foothold in our public institutions that we are no longer able to take a stand and say, "This is what we believe. If that offends you, too bad"?

People who are proud of their ethnic heritage should be free to do so, but their freedom does not trump the freedom of others in the process. I sometimes like to call myself a Native American. I was born here. I have that right. My flag is the American flag. It is a part of my ethnic heritage and that of my children.

If the school district wants to ban students from bringing any other flag onto campus, be it Gadsden or Mexican, I don't have a problem with that. But the one they themselves display prominently in front of the school, that was once displayed prominently in every classroom, and allegiance pledged to it on a daily basis, should be exempt from any arbitrary rules as long as this nation stands.

If anyone abuses the flag, then deal with the abuse. Did you notice in the video the care with which he correctly folded his flag? If not, go back and watch it again.

Cody Alicea and others like him, are the hope for the future of our country. The Neville Chamberlain wing of the educational establishment needs to learn that.

BTW, according to a report on KTXL last night, the school district is saying that this was a "misunderstanding". I'll say!

Video via Fleece Me

Time for a Little Political and Social Jiu Jitsu

Jiu Jitsu has been described as a method of using one's opponent's strength against him. And if there's one thing we know about liberals, it's that they very strongly hate cigarettes!

If burning the flag in public is protected free speech saying "I hate this country", why wouldn't burning a small tube of tobacco, wrapped in paper be protected free speech saying "I like tobacco"? They both produce toxic fumes and smoke. Why is one protected and the other not?

I have never been of the opinion that burning a flag was "free speech". And even if that particular action could be denoted as speech, it would have to fall under the category of "fighting words".

Under protected free speech, you may say that you hate this country and that you despise our flag. We get that. Once you cross the line to take the literally inflammatory action of setting Old Glory on fire in public, it goes beyond mere speech, IMHO.

But, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em! I will concede that burning the flag in public is free speech if liberals concede that burning cigarettes in public is free speech.

Full disclosure: I am not a smoker, nor have I ever smoked. My dad passed away from heart failure and emphysema brought about by a two pack a day habit. I think it is a filthy practice and one I encourage people walk away from, if nothing else, for the sake of their loved ones. But if people can burn flags and call it "speech" why discriminate against tobacco, just because the one doing the burning has something different to say?

In that case, what would we do about all those laws prohibiting the "free speech" of smokers in public buildings, hmm? You can't have it both ways!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus