Another Attack On Free Speech. This Time The Culprits Are New York Republicans.

Back in October of 2011, we took note of a report issued by New York Democrats in which Constitutionally protected free speech was labeled a “privilege” and not a “right.”

The report centered on internet comments. The Democrats wanted the ability to demand web administrators take down posts and comments that were deemed by someone to be flaming, trolling and a variety of other things that were “hurtful.”

One would think that every right thinking, Constitution loving believer of freedom would tell the Democrats to go pound sand.

However, such thought processes managed to skip New York Republicans (twenty-three of the forty-nine New York Assembly Republicans, plus one Independent and one Democrat to be precise) who have actually introduced a bill to require site administrators to remove posts and comments made by anonymous contributors when asked to do so.

The bill is being touted as an “anti-cyberbullying” measure by the sponsor:

“While the Internet is a wonderful resource for social networking, sadly it can also used to anonymously bring harm to others,” said [Assemblyman Dean] Murray [(R,C-East Patchogue)]. “My legislation addresses the dangers of cyberbullying and protects the victims of this offense. By demanding these online abusers come out from anonymity and identify themselves, they will hopefully think twice before posting harmful comments about others.”

Even if the anonymous postings were “cyber bullying,” there is no Constitutional provision for the government to stop such speech. Even worse is the bill clearly does not limit the measure to “cyber-bullying” type posts and comments:

Ron Paul…… The Two Faced Candidate?

Late in Monday night’s Republican Presidential debate, the subject of gun control came up.

What started out as a light-hearted question toward Mitt Romney, suddenly turned into a contentious exchange between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

SANTORUM: Both of those things were supported by the National Rifle Association. I worked with them to craft a bill. This was during the Clinton administration, where I voted against the gun ban, voted against the assault weapons ban, voted — voted 100 percent with the NRA. And this was a piece of legislation that was crafted that they endorsed, they supported, and worked with me to make sure that we could — we’d not have something far worse pass.

SANTORUM (cont): And so sometimes you have to pass something that can get enough votes to be able to satisfy folks that they won’t pass something that’s much worse. And so that’s what you have to do to make sure that rights aren’t taken away.
I’ve been a strong — again, lifetime A-plus record with the NRA, worked with them. They came to me repeatedly when I was in the Senate to help them and — and — and sponsor legislation and work toward making sure in ensuring gun rights.
Contrast that with Congressman Paul. And one of the most important things that we did in — in — in protecting the Second Amendment — and I provided a leadership role on it — was the gun manufacturers’ liability bill. There were a lot of lawyers out there who were trying to sue gun manufacturers and hold them liable for anybody who was harmed as a result of the gun properly functioning.
And we — we went forward and passed, with the NRA’s backing, a bill that put a ban on those types of lawsuits. If that ban had not been passed, if that gun manufacturer’s liability bill, removing them from liability from that, had that not been passed, there would have been no gun industry in this country and there would have de facto been no Second Amendment right.
Congressman Paul voted against that bill. And — and that’s a very big difference between someone who actually works with the gun — Second Amendment groups for — for legislation that can protect that right and someone who says they’re for Second Amendment, has attacked me on my Second Amendment issues, which you just referred to, and here’s a man that would have wiped out the Second Amendment by — if his vote would have been — carried the day.

BAIER: Congressman Paul?

Conservatives Need to Learn About Repenting.

When people think about “repenting,” we often think about it in the moral or religious sense.

Who hasn’t heard at some point in their life a “fire and brimstone preacher” yelling “REPENT YE BROOD OF VIPERS!”

There are group and individual Bible studies on how to repent. People will spend weeks and months discussing it.

But what does it mean? What does it mean to repent?

According to a pastor we once had, in the New Testament Bible, the word “repent” was translated from a Greek word whose entomology literally means “turn 180 degrees.”

In other words, “turn around from the direction you are going and go the opposite way.”

That makes sense to us. Although there is a component of “being sorry” for ones actions in repenting, the major idea is to go the other way.

The Exchange.

It got nasty and personnel during the Republican debate on Tuesday, October 18, 2011.

What started out as a reasonably innocent question on health care for children in Texas turned into an all out war of words between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Perry briefly answered the question and then took lined up a haymaker aimed right at Romney.

After that, it was on.

(The following is the transcript of the exchange between Romney and Perry. Our analysis continues below the fold and after the transcript.)

[DEBATE MODERATOR] COOPER: Governor Perry, in the last debate, Governor Romney pointed out that Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country, over one million kids. You did not get an opportunity to respond to that. What do you say? How do you explain that?

PERRY: Well, we’ve got one of the finest health care systems in the world in Texas. As a matter of fact, the Houston, Texas, Medical Center, there’s more doctors and nurses that go to work there every morning than any other place in America. But the idea that you can’t have access to health care, some of the finest health care in the world — but we have a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and the fact is we have a huge number of illegals that are coming into this country.

And they’re coming into this country because the federal government has failed to secure that border. But they’re coming here because there is a magnet. And the magnet is called jobs. And those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized.

And Mitt, you lose all of your standing, from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you’re strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy.


COOPER: Governor Romney?

Lenin or Lennon: One of Them Was A Republican

If we were to ask you to think of famous Republicans, we would bet that you would never mention Vladimir Lenin, who founded the Soviet Communist Party or ex-Beatle John Lennon who once famously stayed in bed one week with his wife.

Lenin was a communist while Lennon was a drug smoking, peace activist musician who Nixon wanted deported because of Lennon’s opposition to the war in Viet Nam. Neither man had a resume that would scream “conservative” or “Republican.”

Yet according to a new documentary, at the time of his death, John Lennon had changed his views to that of Republicans.

Democrats – Protecting Unnecessary Racist Laws.

We would hope that every conservative reading this blog would agree that “Jim Crow laws” were an affront to what this country was founded upon, the result of the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment. Republicans, starting before the Civil War have long fought against racial inequities.

(For a deeper look into this rich history of Republicans fighting for equal rights, we suggest that you read our friend Steve Bussey’s article “A Conversation About Race,” as well as visit one of our favorite websites, “Grand Old Partisan,” where you can read daily a different fact about Republicans and race.)

In a practical sense, Federal law has made the Jim Crow laws moot. We no longer allow “white only” water fountains, or “blacks on” bathrooms. State sponsored and state mandated segregation needed to be ended and wiped from the law books of the land.

That sentiment was what drove Republicans in the Alabama Senate to propose legislation stripping Jim Crow laws from the Alabama Constitution. Even though the laws were no longer enforceable, they were still on the books.

The Truth About Race and The South.

This is not going to make some people happy.

Truth seldom does.