No, not this SELMA!
ProudHillbilly won the Internets with this!
So what’s the difference between these two photos, outside of the obvious that they were taken 50 years apart?
It’s what’s missing. Compare the number of American flags in photos from the two events.
AMEN PH, AMEN!!
The Associated Students of University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted Tuesday to remove all flags, including American flags, from an inclusive space on campus because of their offensive nature.
The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being “symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.”
“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracY.”
“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads.
The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent “American exceptionalism and superiority,” as well as oppression.
I’m certain use of English language as a standard, as well a mention of the Judeo-Christian foundations of this Constitutional Republic are also banned. And mention of the Constitution and the Republic, as well!
I’ll keep saying it - POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL BE THE PROXIMATE DOWNFALL OF THIS NATION!
(If I were mobile, and had the means, I’d be hanging around the campus with as many American Flags as possible. Equating The American Standard with those of other nations or ideologies on this nation’s soil and institutions, is ludicrous!)
h/t Brock Townsend
This Just In
The Star-Spangled Banner will once again wave at the University of California, Irvine, after student government leaders nixed a bid to ban the American flag from a campus lobby.
Members of the executive cabinet of the Associated Students of UC Irvine met Saturday in an emergency session to reverse the flag ban.
THAT is the question!
I recognize the need for public health policy. Knowledge of germ theory and sanitation throughout the public is paramount in this regard. But, as a libertarian (small L), I question the efficacy and efficiency of government-mandated measures to stave off disease.
Where does the public need trump private beliefs? Religion?
My maternal grandmother passed in 1919 due to the Worldwide Spanish influenza epidemic. Who knows how many lives could have been saved had a vaccine been available?
As a child in the 50’s, I contracted just about every ‘children’s’ malady known – measles, mumps, chicken pox (2X – yeah, I know, not supposed to happen!), whooping cough. It’s amazing I didn’t get polio, considering. I did participate in the nationwide polio vaccine distribution in the 1960’s.
Fast-forward to today. There is an ubiquitous meme (I’m certain fueled by the anti-corporation profit, ‘natural’ folks) that vaccines are laden with poisonous chemicals, and that in spite of their possible benefit, these chemicals cause autism in a percentage of growing children.
As a result, there is a minority of folks who have kept their children from being vaccinated. The incidence of measles, whooping cough and other maladies are on the rise, when previously they were essentially eradicated.
And, as with the polio vaccine, there is a small percentage of folks who develop diseases from the vaccine. An ‘acceptable’ percentage we are told.
Should parents be required to vaccinate their children by government mandate? Even though there is a small chance they will become ill?
There was a recent court case wherein parents were forced to have their daughter given chemotherapy, even though they believed in not administering such a medication. Of course, her cancer wasn’t contagious.
This is a complex issue, in my view. The rights of the individual versus the power of the State.
What do you guys think?
h/t Refdesk, Newsweek
I mentioned John Locke (author of The Social Contract, philosopher extraordinaire, and unwitting mentor to Thomas Jefferson) in this blog the other day.
Then, quite serendipitously, I took note on an early blog post by Joel…
I haven’t read this blog, The Art of Not Being Governed, very extensively so if it turns out to be a neonazi or everytown front, don’t blame me, okay? But so far I’m enjoying it.
It’s got a recurring feature called Statist Fallacies, basic stuff but pretty good so far. Here’s a lovely take-down on the mossy old “social contract,” which TUAK readers probably know is a particular bugaboo of mine.
Enjoy. I’m going out to play now.
I’d forgotten about Joel’s distaste for ‘the concept of The Social Contract’. So I thought WTH?
Libertarian, statist and sovereign citizen alike - what do you gentle readers think about this?
In timor veritas. “Olympia disarms open carriers in hearings.”
Washington State House and Senate officials announced yesterday that the ban on open carry has been extended to include all public hearings in legislative office buildings, the Associated Press and Seattle Times reported.
The original edict is going to be tested on 7 February by the I Will Not Comply folks. It seems certain that someone will, at the least, be arrested this time. My intention, if I can raise the ticket and the expenses, is to go out, participate in this action and give them the chance at me. The fight in Washington state is more important than almost everybody understands and has national, even international, implications.
If things go really south, Bob Wright has offered to truck my bones around the country, Irish-like, to raise money for the cause. I have accepted, since at that point I will no longer have need of them. ;-)
I am not suicidal, but the willingness to trade life for liberty — your own and those that you love — is implicit in the oath we take. The collectivist media has been very successful in serving their masters by deliberately ignoring the armed civil disobedience movement. Even the pukes at CSGV have been holding their tongues, even though the various state campaigns “prove” their “government-needs-a-monopoly-of-force” position. The “authorities” in Olympia are frightened to death, it would seem, about citizens exercising their rights while in the vicinity of their Mandarin personages. To paraphrase the Romans, “In timor veritas” — in fear there is truth. The politicos have demonstrated their fear and an essential truth. The trick will be to give them the opportunity to overreact and demonstrate the bankruptcy of their tyranny where all will see and notice. THAT is a cause worth risking much for. (Sipsey Street Irregulars)
Some folks are putting there money where their mouths are.
What are YOU prepared to do?
PS – Mike Vanderboegh (of Sipsey Street Irregulars
) has been having major health problems, both before and after his Washington State appearance. Please keep him in your thoughts. – Guffaw
Free North Carolina brings us this gem:
Bayou Renaissance Man posted regarding the recent interactions between the constabulary and suspect(s), the protests that followed, and the police political assassinations that followed THOSE actions.
And, as usual, he did so with aplomb. You should go to the link above and read him. (And, if you are not regularly reading him, why not?)
And he brought up a recent court decision and the Peelian Principals. (Sir Robert Peel being the founder of Modern Law Enforcement.) They are:
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
And here’s Peter’s money quote:
I can already hear the scoffing from police officers that those principles are utterly outdated when dealing with a society that regards the rule of law as nothing more than a polite fiction. I can’t blame them; our politicians and leaders in other spheres often appear to honor our laws more in the breach than in the observance. Needless to say, our citizens all too often take their cue from their leaders (or is it the other way around?) Nevertheless, any officer of the law who enters upon his career regarding the people he’s called to “protect and serve” as the enemy rather than his peers and fellow citizens is riding for a fall. Sooner or later, someone’s going to provide one for him. (end)
It does appear as though we as a Society have transcended into pre-civil war status. That is, that those charged with ‘protecting and serving’ the public are ‘protecting and serving’ each other, to the exclusion of the public (not entirely) and engaging in rampant abuses of power and authority not seen in many years. In The United States, anyway.
Including wholesale surveillance of cellular telephone and email communications. Restrictions placed on travel (elimination of 4th Amendment protections at border crossings, airports, ‘sobriety checkpoints’ and even some railroad and bus stations)! And lets not forget misused or misapplied warrant services. Does the name Jose Guerena come to mind? Rendition and torture, in violation of both civil and military law.
And punishing of those who wish to bring such facts to light via the Internet or even cell phone cameras.
And now the remaining folks in blue who actually do their jobs and refrain from abuse are being subjected to political assassination, in the name of social justice?
Isn’t this what some Internet bloggers have been suggesting for the past few years? Just because it’s painted in race doesn’t make it any less real.
Can we as a Society fix this before it’s too late? Before cities, towns and States are overrun with folks tired of the governmental abuses?
Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
It peels for thee, Republic.
Not for lack of wanting to.
Back in the 70’s, some of my libertarian (small L) brethren and I mused about what it would take. And, what living off the grid meant for us. It did not mean creating some faceless corporation with innocuous fictional officers to purchase a plot of land in the middle of nowhere and moving there with a solar-powered trailer adjacent to a spring.
And with enough ammunition, fishing line and traps to get indigenous game for the rest of our natural lives.
(I’ve blogger friends who have accomplished something close!)
It meant having the option of leaving less of a trail. Driver’s licenses and credit cards mailed to private post office boxes. Passports in fictional identities. Sufficient amounts of cash and gold to fund our meager lives.
With less government interference or surveillance.
Of course, doing all this was a pipe dream for those of us young punks with minimum-wage incomes. Little did we know that BIGGOV would be in our future to such a degree that getting the gov’t-approved documentation would become much more difficult, expensive and illegal in the ensuing years! There was a time if there was no criminal intent, there was no crime. And, if so, it might become a misdemeanor.
Now, it’s a felony, intent regardless.
And we didn’t anticipate The Internet. Or drones. Or cellular telephones.
And, not only am I back to a meager income, but, it’s overseen by the government, due to my disability!
And now much of our movement and travel is monitored, as are financial transactions and Internet activity and Email.
I cannot afford to move to Costa Rica, or San Marino. And I don’t speak their indigenous languages.
Hell, I can’t afford to move 10 blocks…they speak Spanish there, too!
Yep, a pipe dream…
Well, not exactly…
There have been (largely un or under reported) stories regarding the ‘whys’ of the Iraq War. That’s because much of the media (not ALL Biff!) had an agenda.
Then, the NEW YORK TIMES (sacre’ bleu!) actually reported a few weeks ago about the WsMd* that had not been moved to Syria. Or used against us or the Kurds.
Funny how the folks who clamored against President Bush and mocked him and call;ed him a cowboy and a liar aren’t saying much now. (Not that he didn’t introduce many measures like the PATRIOT ACT and it’s illegitimate legislative children to protect us!) At least that would have been a legitimate reason to protest.
And the current President has continued and amplified the PATRIOT ACT. So much for campaign promises…
And let’s not forget the UN voted FOR our incursion on 17 other points, WsMD*, aside! Why didn’t they protest THE UN?
*WsMD – I simply refuse to say WMDs! To my ear it’s as ‘mother-in-laws’, it’s incorrect!
So said (on camera) Michael Brown’s stepfather after the announcement of no true bill was made by the Ferguson prosecutor.
Rumors are The United States Department of Justice will be pursuing civil rights charges against Officer Darren Wilson.
No word as to whether or not Michael Brown’s stepfather will be brought up on inciting to riot charges…
If the above protestor’s sign is true, wouldn’t there be many more Black folks killed by White law enforcement officers than Black folks killed by other Black folks?
AND, if it is true, shouldn’t the reverse also be true? Shouldn’t this Constitutional Republic Nation be charged with capturing and imprisoning all the folks, who by their selfish acts of violence, thievery and terrorism, are trying to bring down the Nation? Isn’t the above suggesting insurrection and treason?
I know what some of you are thinking. You are thinking protest is allowed. A Right. It certainly is. Lawful protest, for a redress of grievances.
This doesn’t include destruction of property, and looting. Never has looting been a form of protest. It is a form of burglary and vandalism.
But (you say) the Founding Fathers destroyed property as a form of protest! Remember The Boston Tea Party?
It’s true, not only did the Founding Fathers and their brethren (and sistern) destroy property – they killed officers of the British Crown. And denied allegiance to the same. TREASON.
They already had concepts of a replacement government in place when they did so. I don’t think the
protestors burglars and vandals in Ferguson have such an agenda. I think most of them are self-serving useful idiots of Lenin.
And while we’re on the subject of Tea Parties. The Left has branded ‘the Tea Party movement’ as racist, largely because anyone against the President’s agenda is colored racist. No (or scant) evidence. The Big Lie. A Big Lie repeated often enough is perceived as truth. And that it was an idea from a Nazi the protestor above is using to further an agenda.
A Nazi who would have killed her just as soon look at her.
If only these protesters had read history, including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s writings on non-violent protest…
h/t Theo Spark