Illegal Speech Trends (In the US)

by W.F. Price on July 11, 2012

For some reason, a lot of people don’t have a clear understanding of US law concerning speech. Many seem to think we have full free speech, while others think so-called “hate speech” is illegal. Neither is true, but there are restrictions on speech that people ought to be aware of.

First, we have libel, slander and copyright violations. This kind of speech is not generally criminal (although criminal defamation does exist in some states), but tortious, meaning you can be sued if you engage in it. Libel and slander, which fall under the rubric of “defamation,” involve printing (former) or uttering (latter) damaging lies about others. For example, if a feminist were to write that you were a rapist and you had never been convicted of rape you might have a libel case against that feminist. However, in the United States it is difficult to successfully sue for libel or slander, as the standards are quite high.

Copyright violations are simply theft of intellectual property. If you appropriate someone else’s work for profit or self-aggrandizement, you open yourself to a copyright suit.

Criminal speech is essentially divided into two categories: anti-government threats and threats against everyone else, with the anti-government threats traditionally taken far more seriously.

Much of the case law regarding criminal speech comes from the beginning of the 20th century, when the Western world was in a great deal of political ferment. Some new laws, including “criminal anarchy,” were passed in response. Criminal anarchy is the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the US government by force of arms or assassination of executives. This law remains on the books, and is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and loss of citizenship.

Of course, if you threaten the President, that is also a crime (class D felony). Same goes for other elected federal officials, but the Secret Service is a lot more vigorous about investigating presidential threats than others.

In recent years, in the wake of 9/11, a number of laws revolving around the concept of “terroristic threats” were passed, ostensibly to “fight terrorism,” but for the most part they have been used to prosecute or enhance punishments against people who (allegedly) threaten ordinary citizens.

Laws against terroristic threats are a significant departure from earlier precedent that governed speech, because the standard appears to have changed. It used to be that threats were illegal only if the threatened violence was both imminent and likely, but under terroristic threat laws “causing fear” is enough to get someone arrested. Additionally, in a number of states the threat does not even need to be verbal, but rather can be communicated by “innuendo” or body language (e.g. pointing a forefinger with thumb raised as in shooting at someone).

So, as we can see, speech that causes fear of bodily harm (or is claimed to do so) is generally considered unprotected, which is a significant departure from prior standards.

Therefore, if someone threatens to cause you bodily harm in an unspecific – and even improbable – way, the fact that it made you feel uneasy is enough to warrant arrest should police choose to act on a call. Interestingly, I’ve received a few of these threats over email, but haven’t reported them, as they were obviously bullshit, but I suppose I could have.

If one does a cursory news search on “terroristic threats” many of the cases appear to involve the mentally ill, drunks, and domestic disputes. The last category, of course, concerns us, because the standard for arrest is so ridiculously low that a mere verbal argument with accompanying gestures could easily result in an arrest, naturally of the male. And, of course, women can simply lie about it, and be safe in the knowledge that they will never be prosecuted for making a false accusation, because the language in the law is sufficiently vague that it would be difficult to prove malicious intent (feeling scared is a subjective mental state).

It’s pretty clear that we do not have “free” speech in the US, but we do have a lot of protections, even if they have eroded significantly in the past 15 or so years. However, as in so many other aspects of our society, we have the least freedom in the domestic sphere. We have far more leeway in making political speech, but even there clear, credible “imminent lawless action” threats are not OK, and the punishment for making them can be quite severe. When it comes down to it, one should avoid making any threats, but unfortunately even that cannot protect you in a domestic situation.

So, when you talk about “free speech,” keep in mind that it doesn’t really exist.

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

russ July 11, 2012 at 14:13

Originally “free speech” and the broader idea of “freedom of expression” applied to the individual vis-a-vis the government. In other words, we are supposed to be able to criticise freely, the government and government officials. The “hate speech” bills make it a crime criticise government policies favoring Privileged Identity Groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, mestizos, or any other non-White group).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 5
Opus July 11, 2012 at 14:22

Americans

You are living in a Free Speech Utopia (and don’t let Price tell you any differently).

In a day or so at the Westminster Magistrates Court, London, England a man is surely to be found guilty of saying two wrong words – and in the heat of the moment. This is his story. His name is John Terry. He is a professional soccer player, in fact a very good one as he was both captain of Chelsea (the best team in the world) and also Captain of England (not regrettably quite the best). He, however, had various matrimonial problems. One day whilst playing a game of Soccer another player called Ferdinand began to jibe him about this. It is alleged and the only proof will be lip-reading (though Tery denies it anyway) that he called Ferdinand a ‘black cunt’. He was promptly stripped (even before he was charged with a criminal offence) of his England Captaincy, and will be crucified by the papers even more than now when as is undoubtedly going to happen he is found guilty. he will surley be sacked by Chelsea. Apparently there is no period of imprisonment in this case that can be impopsed but even mothers with childen have been incarcerated without trial for saying less.

By the way, Ferdinand, who presents himself as the victim having been ‘very hurt’ by what Terry said, is surely a ‘cunt ‘ and certainly he is ‘black’, but he is not a ‘black cunt’ – at least if he is I am not allowed to say so.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 87 Thumb down 4
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 14:23

In recent years, in the wake of 9/11, a number of laws revolving around the concept of “terroristic threats” were passed, ostensibly to “fight terrorism

Has nothing to do with terrorism.Although I would know the legal meaning odf these terms, you never heard the average person using terms like “terroristic threats”, “stalking” etc in the past. It was in the early 90′s when they became more common, a good 10 years before 9/11 and it was all feminist inspired.
Theother example you gave of illegal speech have always existed and come under the yelling fire in a theatre definitionlike inciting a riot or encouraging a mob to harm someone. You don’t even have to carry out the action since it comes under conspiracy.
And of course the politicians who write the laws are always going to make laws to protect themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5
W.F. Price July 11, 2012 at 14:32

Originally “free speech” and the broader idea of “freedom of expression” applied to the individual vis-a-vis the government. In other words, we are supposed to be able to criticise freely, the government and government officials. The “hate speech” bills make it a crime criticise government policies favoring Privileged Identity Groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, mestizos, or any other non-White group).

-russ

“Hate speech” isn’t really the issue here, although it is true that saying things against a “suspect class” (e.g. women, gays and minorities) can be used for sentence enhancement. The thing is that one can be arrested now simply for making people “feel scared.”

The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 14:38

However, in the United States it is difficult to successfully sue for libel or slander, as the standards are quite high.

You can successfully sue for defamation but I would also suggest including “infliction of mental anguish” and other causes of action with it. In the US you must also show malicious intent when suing for defamation but this can be construed by the nature of the defamation. Public figures have a harder time suing but remember that Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer for libel and won the case. And in all civil actions you have to prove that you were damaged in some way or you may win the case and receive a tiny judgement, like the character in QB VII who won his libel suit but was awarded a farthing by the jury.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6
J July 11, 2012 at 14:43

People need to keep in mind the documents founding this country do not maintain themselves, nor do they travel with you. “holding these truths to be self-evident” does not make them so in everyone’s minds!

You have to actively defend what you believe, and government “actively defends” itself against threats real and imagined. We forget, the most “scary terrorist” the US governement fears is it’s own people. Why else would it spend soo much on propaganda?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 4
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 14:43

The “hate speech” bills make it a crime criticise government policies favoring Privileged Identity Groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, mestizos, or any other non-White group).

Cite one case where this has happened.

The thing is that one can be arrested now simply for making people “feel scared.”

So you make the same allegation too. “She siad she has a gun and is going to kill me and I’m scared” :)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 14
Mojo July 11, 2012 at 14:45

@ Opus

Yeah, I wrote about that:

Calling a black person black is not illegal; and calling someone a cunt is offensive but also not illegal.

It seems that only when these two words are put together, then it becomes an offence against the law. If Terry had simply called Ferdinand a “cunt,” or had he used any other adjective, even one that was less truthful (e.g. calling Ferdinand a “white cunt”), then he probably wouldn’t have been charged.

If you were to call Ferdinand a black man, or a black footballer, or a black hero, then you also wouldn’t be charged, and I don’t think he would dispute you either. So it’s okay to say that someone is black in the context of a positive opinion about them, but not in the context of a negative opinion about them. That’s when it becomes racist.

http://neckbeardchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/dumb-white-boys-guide-to-banned-words.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
ray gorman July 11, 2012 at 14:49

The restrictions on free speech are considerably more severe than Mr. Price is conceding. The first point is that “freedom of speech’ only protects you from criminal prosecution from the government; it does not protect your job if your employer does not like your opinions. Moreover, the courts have held that “free speech” does not apply to “hostile environment’ or so-called “sexual harassment”. (‘Your tits look nice, honey”). Nor does freedom of speech apply to court issued gag orders. A particularly good review of these totalitarian legal trends is the book “You Can’t Say That!”.

Because of the bogus “War on Terror” things are getting progressively worse. In 1944 thirty-five Americans were put on trial for sedition for having been isolationists before the war and for expressing viewpoints similar to those of the German Nazis in some respects. However, since none of the thirty-five had committed an overt act against American armed forces in the field, the prosecution eventually collapsed after a six month trial and the death of the original judge. However, two years ago the Court ruled that an overt act was no longer required. That is, merely agreeing with the so-called “terrorists” that the Palestinians are getting screwed by the Israelis or that US politicians support Israel because they are owned by big Jew money (say Sheldon Adelson’s) would be enough to make one an accessory of the shadowy “terrorists” and hence, a seditionist. By this standard, the thirty-five would have been convicted.

In Europe, there are formal laws against promoting “racial intolerance”. The first was passed in England around 1965 at the instigation of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. There also exist laws against “denying the Holocaust” and disputing any of the judgements of the kangaroo Nuremberg Court. History is thus judicially determined, not revised by hitherto unknown facts. The latest addition to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is known through her published statements to be hostile to unrestricted “freedom of speech”, especially such speech that enhances racial and sexual stereotypes. (She does not mean, of course, that men should be able to sue for such expressions as “male chauvinist pig” or SCUM – Society for Cutting Up Men.)

Free speech means the freedom to say nice things only about the people issuing self serve think camoflauged as law.Who those people are should be clear from the context of this posting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 11
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 14:52

If you were to call Ferdinand a black man, or a black footballer, or a black hero, then you also wouldn’t be charged,

Depends on where you live. In Brazil that would be an offence because you must use the word Negro and not black.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9
Opus July 11, 2012 at 14:59

Everyone knows that London is the Defamation capital of the world. It is a gold mine for celebrities and would be celebrities like the poor, tragic, unfortunate, innocent of any wrong-doing, McCanns (who have a PayPal button). There have been far too many simply appalling cases and I am not even thinking of Oscar Wilde, but what about Liberace who received record damages when a newspaper implied (implied only if you get their meaning) that he might not be entirely heterosexual.

Perhaps one of the worst cases was this: A book was published in South Africa. By chance a few copies made it to England. The author was then sued in the English courts for Libel. The Plaintiff was successful with heavy damages (you will be seeking as well as ordinary damages, both exemplary and special damages). We may no longer have large empire (just a few islands here and there) but we still insist the remit of the British Empire extends anywhere we choose, at least when it comes to defamation and those crimes committed abroad, by British subjects, which the Third World countries are unwilling or incapable of prosecuting. Further more (for what it is worth) we have abolished the double jeopardy rule, which to my mind is the barometer of tyranny.

You are so lucky to have a first amendment, but in spite of what PAN may tell you we haven’t even got anything to amend, as it is made up as we go along.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 11, 2012 at 15:10

Copyright violations are simply theft of intellectual property. If you appropriate someone else’s work for profit or self-aggrandizement, you open yourself to a copyright suit.

I have to object to this particular characterization. For an act to be theft, you must remove the property of another person from their own possession. Making a copy of something does not remove it from the owner’s possession. If I make a sketch of the court house, have I stolen government property? No. If I take a rubbing from the WWII memorial, have I stolen? Also no.

Copyright is a legal construct, giving a legal privilege to a craftsman (or the company he works for), reserving for him the exclusive rights to make copies of his own work or design, be it a book which he wrote, or a particularly funny looking lawn gnome. Violation of copyright law is not theft, since you are simply copying something, not removing this work from the possession of the owner. Copyright is, however, made illegal under our current system of government.

I deny, however, that copyright is even a right. It is a priviledge. It is a privilege that is reasonable for the government to provide, in limited quantity (far more limited than currently is done) in order to encourage innovation and artistry. However, it is still a privilege.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12
Opus July 11, 2012 at 15:11

I suppose I should say that I can still say anything I like (but I won’t) about the Holocaust, unlike the poor Canadians or Germans or French or Israelis etc. Contrary to popular opinion David Irving IS a Holocaust believer. You Americans are so lucky to have the First Amendment. I know I wrote that above but it is so good it is worth repeating.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Rebel July 11, 2012 at 15:18

In countries where suing has become commonplace, the next profession to engage into is the one usually refered to as “sewer”.
A promising future..that adds a new fragrance..

I heard it said that the “thought police” is not yet going at full speed. So, we still have, momentarily, some “freedom of thought”..

Enjoy it while you can.
So, what will it be: 1984 or Brave New World? Or a mix of the two?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 11, 2012 at 15:25

Are the comments I post ending up in the spam folder? Just wondering as I have three comments on three separate articles awaiting moderation. No hard feelings if that is the case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price July 11, 2012 at 15:27

Are the comments I post ending up in the spam folder? Just wondering as I have three comments on three separate articles awaiting moderation. No hard feelings if that is the case.

-gbfh

No, I just have to approve all your posts because you don’t put the email in the field.

Geography Bee Finalist himself July 11, 2012 at 15:52

Fair enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
J July 11, 2012 at 15:57

The good thing is, our constitution guarantees the right to correct itself to us, if that is still possible? Depends on one’s beliefs in government I guess? I personally am starting to wonder if the pieces are not just in place (because the pieces are always being put in place for power), but if they have not already been implemented decades ago?

The founders, at least they claimed, wanted to make an institution where the people could, en masse, tell government where to shove it when necessary. Since the Civil war, if not before, the federal governement has consistently consolidating it’s power base.

Government has a natural tendency to promote itself at our expense, and us vice versa! The problem is we have too many in power who are manipulating us. None of the issues are really of any concern, but how they can play us, to have us vote ourselves into their hands.

Yes, I am a conspiracy theorist! I just feel the conspirator’s have been with us for so long we actually ask them how their day is, rather than shooting them? Whoever “they” are, they have gotten real good I feel and either using a crisis, making a crisis, or both and getting our fear to herd us into the government sheep pens!

Hopefully I am just a narcissistic parnoid. I don’t feel that way though, the voices in my head say crazy people never know they are crazy and I should be quiet.

I guess I will just keep typing in my underground bunker and hug my guns! Still need to go get groceries, need to stock up!

(I’m kidding if you don’t know, My bunker is really large, and can withstand a nuclear attack, also the voices told me they love me, and I am not crazy!! :P )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 16:02

Off topic but this will annoy you in the US.

http://tinyurl.com/d96l8fp

I guees that the US Olynpic committe couldn’t just go over to Brooks Brothers for some clothes Made in the USA. They had to have Ralph Lipschitz (Lauren) put his commercial logo on everything that was made in China.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 9
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 11, 2012 at 16:05

@ J

If you mean correct itself with the necessary constitutional amendment(s), that takes at least 2/3 of the House of Representatives (290 members), 2/3 of the Senate (67 Senators), and at least 3/4 of the states (38 for the foreseeable future). Of the last seven proposed amendments (23rd-27th plus the failed ERA and the failed DCVRA), all except the 27th also had time limits (only the ERA received an extension) and all seven succeeded or failed before the Internet took off.

I am not sure an amendment would pass for the foreseeable future unless it had massive geographic appeal and enough states willing to impose their collective will on the rest of the country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Turbo the drycleaner July 11, 2012 at 16:36

As long as you say pre approved things, you can have as much free speech as you like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Gilgamesh July 11, 2012 at 16:40

@welmer “The thing is that one can be arrested now simply for making people ‘feel scared.’”

I’m pretty sure at least a few of us make women “feel scared” just by breathing. Isn’t that convenient?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
keyster July 11, 2012 at 16:46

We have something called “Political Correctness” with various grievance industry “watch dog” divisions that have our news media at their beck and call; corporations are not far behind.

If a public figure known to be a Conservative (or enemy of Liberalism) says something that does not conform to the standards of acceptable Newspeak, they are brought before the population for judgment and scorn. If they apologise profusely enough they’ll be forgive, but NEVER forgotten; typically damaging their career for life.

This is silencing those who disagree with you through coercion.

Communist Activist and former Obama “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones created a group Color of Change, that threatens corporations who advertise on programs that feature subject matter they don’t like. NOW, the NAACP, the National Action Network and La Raza have a similar modus operandi, but are more covert. Corporations pay them extortion fees in the form of “donations”, to stay in their good graces. If there’s an “incident”, they’ll be given latitude to make ammends.

You won’t be arrested and put in jail, but they’ll dessimate your career.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5
Carnivore July 11, 2012 at 16:55

@Whammer, that’s a riot. First thing I thunk of was “flight attendant”, as mentioned in the article. But WAIT, the women HAVE to wear a skirt?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
sf July 11, 2012 at 16:59

Some of the local chemtrails nuts put out a program on the internet that could be interpreted as advocating shooting down planes with black market SAM’s, under the mistaken belief that they are spraying aluminum oxide. This comes pretty close to the line, although they could probably defend themselves successfully by saying it was a philosophical discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/user/twrawlins/featured

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Russ July 11, 2012 at 17:36

The “hate speech” bills make it a crime criticise government policies favoring Privileged Identity Groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, mestizos, or any other non-White group).

Cite one case where this has happened.

–The Whammer

God, where do I begin. Here’s a short list:
Terry Tremaine
Simon Sheppard
Stephen Wittle
Ernst Zundel
David Irving
Henrik Holoppa
Gerhard Ittner
Sylvia Stolz

Simon Sheppard and Stephen Wittle, known as the Heretical Two, were imprisoned, in part, for questioning policies favoring women.

Ernst Zundel was imprisoned for questioning the Government’s official version of the Holocaust. His lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, was imprisoned for repeating what he said in a court of law and David Irving was imprisoned because he was subpoenaed to testify on behalf of Zundel and in so doing violated Germany’s hate speech codes.

23-year-old Henrik Holoppa was imprisoned (here in America) for pointing out that African immigrants were committing 95+ percent of the rapes in his home country of Finland. Of course, almost 100% of their victims were White Finnish women. (His sister, was equally “guilty,” but was never arrested.)

There was a Christian pastor (I can’t recall his name), a couple of years ago, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment in Canada for questioning the government’s policy on queer marriage.

Thousands of others have been imprisoned over the last two decades. When they pass “Hate Speech” laws here, they’ll start (after a few years, they like to leave a fallow period so passions can be memory-holed) arresting anybody willing to speak the truth to Jewish Power, or any of their allied Privileged Identity Groups.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 13
Antifeminist One July 11, 2012 at 17:59

O/T – Divorce, female entitlement

http://www.news.com.au/national/access-to-daughter-cut-for-dad/story-fndo4ckr-1226423829943

The dad was also accused of failing to acknowledge the six-year-old girl was suffering from separation anxiety after spending every weekend of the school year with him.

the father owed $200,000 to his legal team and the mother’s family was helping to pay her legal expenses.

The mother sought the extra time, claiming the father was having all of the fun with their daughter, taking her to Movie World, Dreamworld, Sea World, Alma Park Zoo and on camping trips.
She argued she was missing out on the opportunity to enjoy “down time” with her daughter because of her day-to-day responsibilities with homework, uniforms, school lunches and getting her to bed.

Odds are good that she broke up the family. But the fact is, her hamster is trying to rationalise that as his fault, therefore he should be somehow punished for it.

In addition, she feels jealous that the father has the ‘fun times’ with the daughter, and she has to, I dunno, perform her duties as a repsonsible fucking parent?

The court was told the girl had told her mother “I hate you” and “I don’t love you”, but the father had not “experienced any problems with his daughter”.

Hm, surprise anyone?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Antifeminist One July 11, 2012 at 18:01

Sorry, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are supposed to have been quotes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 11, 2012 at 18:01

Although I DO NOT advocate committing hate crimes due to the legal consequences (both federal and in all states except AR, GA, IN, SC and WY) and possible consequences of eternal damnation for the perp after the perp dies, there are several problems sown in both the federal law and the state-level laws that could contribute to their demise:

Covering religious affiliation: Although biological race and ethnicity or combinations thereof are immutable characteristics and deserving of protection for that reason, religious affiliation (except for minor children) does not meet the definition of an immutable characteristic.
I am NOT obligated to remain Roman Catholic any more than non-Catholic Americans are obligated to remain in their respective religions.
While the consequences of apostasy are not identical for everyone, there is no need to cover a trait that the victim could conceivably change and control and which may have resulted in a dismissive or condescending attitude towards the perp’s or perps’ religious convictions anyway in a nonviolent interaction.

Sexual orientation: While 100% of the population abstaining from sex would lead to humankind’s demise, there is no legal or ethical obligation on anyone to act upon his or her sexual orientation even with the consent of anyone else.
In addition, once “sexual orientation” includes the number of sexual partners a victim has had as well as the chronological order of sexual activity in addition to the biological sex(es) or absence of sexual activity (if asexuality is even covered by hate crime laws), how is a hate crime law supposed to cover over 7 billion permutations of sexual activity?

Other possible traits have flaws built in to them that render them unsuitable for protection (immutability or the inability to manipulate the rate or how the trait changes, for example).

Also, hate crime laws were never intended as a means of reducing overall rates of crimes as doing so would required the protected classes to be the most likely victims of crime when the statutes were enacted and then changed as other classes of victims surpassed the previous classes on the books.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
joeb July 11, 2012 at 18:25

I think there is a line between posing an idea and a threat . Its always Ok to pose an Idea for discussion . Like ” Is the government out of control with taxes and health care and what are we going to do about it.
Its a simple idea that needs to be discussed.
But . blatantly saying that you are going to hurt someone Is a threat .
Good sense must be adhered to when being forceful with an Idea .
All thought when a common sense Idea like anti- slavery is so rejected by elected officials. We have the right to protest in an orderly faction .
Now I think the original Idea was that the Government fears the people but, I don’t think they fear us any more .
Now just lately Sara palin gave idea’s of second amendment remedies and was never prosecuted So I’m thinking there is a bar here .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 18:25

@Russ- I meant in the US with a US citizen. And even in England

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
Russ July 11, 2012 at 18:49

@The Whammer,

Most of the cases I mentioned happened in the US.

Zundel was living in the US with his American wife. He was arrested and imprisoned for a time in the US even though he broke German laws. He was extradited to Canada, then sent to Germany.

If memory serves, David Irving was subpoenaed from the US.

Holoppa was arrested and imprisoned in America for breaking Finnish “Hate Speech” laws.

The Heretical Two are British subjects. They were sought by British law enforcement for things they said that were published on an American website. They fled to America to claim asylum (America’s policy on asylum has traditionally been that if you are being persecuted for something that is legal in America (like speaking freely) and you can make it to our shores, you will be granted protection. They, of course, were immediately turned over to British authorities for prosecution. As far as I know they’re both still in prison.

Terry Tremaine was also imprisoned for saying things on an American website that Canadian authorities deemed “hateful.” He’s also still in prison.

America doesn’t yet have “hate speech” laws that can be enforced. But it’s clear that if our officials are willing to enforce foreign “hate speech” laws in violation of American tradition, then when our Kosher overlords succeed in passing those kinds of laws here, they will eagerly enforce them.

Finally, because we don’t have “hate speech” laws here, our overlords have to be content with trumping-up charges on US citizens who say things they don’t like.

Attorney, Edgar J. Steele, a long-time adversary of Jewish Power is rotting in prison today on trumped-up charges.

So is Matt Hale.

Ken Zrallack, Jr. spent 9 months in a federal lock-up on spurious charges simply because he challenged the Jewish status quo. When he finally had his day in court he was found not guilty. During the two-week trial, the judge repeatedly dismissed the jury to scold the prosecution and demanded to know why Mr. Zrallack had been arrested when it was clear that the government didn’t have a single shred of evidence to show he was guilty of any crime.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 12
Rocco July 11, 2012 at 18:56

@ Opus

The right to free speach is truley a marvalous thing. Almost no where else does it exist.

Once the MRM realized they didn’t need to be PC we have started to see movement politically.

The Freedom of Speech Amendment is one of the strongest and most well tested of our rights in the US, one of the last thing that makes it great.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
criolle johnny July 11, 2012 at 19:05

Suppression of “free speech” in the USA began as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 by the Federalist Party to protect the Adams administration. Not being TOO obvious in protecting only their own president, the CON-gress added sunset clauses to the laws which ensured that the laws would expire when Adams left office.
The backlash from this legislation caused the coalescence of the Democratic-Republicans (under Jefferson/Madison) who dominated Congress until the Whigs branched into the Republicans under Lincoln.
LINCOLN suppressed free speech during the war, the Republican Party continued the tradition well into Reconstruction.
Republicans dominated American politics until the Great Depression when FDR ushered the Democratic Party into the White House and Congress.
DEMOCRATS dominated with “politically correct “speech and continue to this day … but the Republicans have their own versions. Bush II established “free speech zones” whenever he visited political hot spots, a tactic currently mimicked by the Obama administration.
Free speech (and suppression of) is responsible for the creation of Political Parties!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Eric July 11, 2012 at 19:25

Ryu:
I think I know what word(s) you mean. The kind that tend to invite visits from irritable looking guys in cheap suits and sunglasses driving cars without license plates.

Suffice it to say, they are usually very knowledgeable in explaining the limits of free speech, in great and vivid detail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Eric July 11, 2012 at 19:37

Price:
On paper, free speech exists—but there are so many unwritten and unspoken ‘speech codes’ within the social fabric that no one can claim his ‘rights’ since that same undercurrent of suppression is designed to put those rights in conflict.

For example, the mass media and academia maintain certain ‘blacklists’ (they all deny these things exist, but…) so that a person offending one particular institution can result in a de facto ban from the entire mass media (or academia) and nothing associated with the offender’s name will be allowed to see the light of day again. At least, in any venue they control.

Both political machines in the US too, heavily backed by Wall Street dollars, operate ‘think-tanks’ and ‘policy institutes’ which can mount effective smear campaigns, disinformation, boycotts, and fake protests against any group, person, or publication they wish to silence.

So while free speech technically does exist, it’s actual application is extremely limited, and open to suppression.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6
Eric July 11, 2012 at 19:42

Opus:
Thank you for posting these, because today’s Britain is the future America. It’s a fact too often ignored here, but the American political and cultural elites look to Britain and Australia as role models of governance and social order.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7
American July 11, 2012 at 20:04

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 26
American July 11, 2012 at 20:11

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 23
The Whammer July 11, 2012 at 20:14

I’d say that laws regarding copyRIGHTS are rights and not privileges because it is part of the US Constitution – Article 1 , Section 8, Clause 8

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”

And that’s exactly what happens for varying periods until the work. invention ,drug etc is in the public domain

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
freebird July 11, 2012 at 20:37

That’s called a patent,not the same as copyright.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
J July 11, 2012 at 20:46

@GBFH

Great point, it was written when there were only 13 states! Now we have fifty. You are starting to see my point. I see conspiracy, I just wish I was a nut! The fact is, so much of it is right out in the open, and most people of both poltical ideologies seem to agree one way or the other

Frustrating, but what can you do? The Gvment is so powerful, I hope our vote does mean something, if it does not, we are really screwed!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 11, 2012 at 22:07

@ J

Thank you.

Here’s a baffling question, at least in the arena of public health.

I don’t know where anyone else on this thread is, but where I am in the US, the Red Cross is always asking for more blood. (New York is pejoratively called the Vampire State; maybe the Red Cross should be called the Red Vampire due to its apparent inability to sate its need for blood donations.)

1) Since Latinos (and probably Latinas as well) are statistically more likely to be blood type O, or universal donor, the Red Cross has tried to recruit more Hispanic blood donors due to this biological reality. Needless to say, I would not be surprised if Latinos object to being objectified as walking bloodmobiles, though someone else would have to vouch for this as I am a guido.

2) All people from Cameroon and all seven countries that border Cameroon who were born in or who have lived in Central Africa since 01/01/1977, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as all of their sexual partners, are barred from donating blood as Central Africa is the crucible of all strains of HIV. The same applies to anyone who spent too long in these eight countries or who received health care involving blood or blood products.

3) All MSMs who have had such sexual activity since 1977 are permanently barred, and all their female partners have a 12 month waiting period, previously having likewise been barred for life as well. (The reduction in the waiting period has increased the number of females who have had sex with MSMs testing positive for HIV.)

4) All prostitutes are likewise forbidden, as are their johns, if the act was since 1977, regardless of context.

Given the statements above, if the Red Cross always wants blood, and is up front about wanting blood at all times, why is it so unwilling to be up front about not wanting certain behaviors to occur that are not in the Red Cross’s best interests?

For example, since the Red Cross always wants blood, and while Loving v. Virginia was decided 10 years before HIV started cutting its swath of destruction across the planet, and Richard and Mildred Loving grew up within striking distance of each other in Virginia, why does the Red Cross not openly admit that the last thing it wants is for anyone to get the hots for a Central African, especially a Latino?

Likewise, the Red Cross should be trying to get rural Nevada brothels shut down as well if it wants as much blood as it says it needs. (Apologies to prostitutes in NV even if they are not thought of as a target of hate speech.)

Reportedly males have been denied the option of even filling out the questionnaire is some locations because they looked like they had already slept with other males. If the Red Cross wants blood as badly as it says it does, why not only support lesbianism (except maybe if it involves one Central African woman) but openly oppose any MSM sexual activity, especially involving a Latino male? Shouldn’t the Red Cross also openly oppose virtually all male bisexuality and much female bisexuality?

Other examples exist that would render the potential donor unable to give blood, but the Red Cross does not seem to want to take a political stance about favoring policies that would be un-PC but would increasing the number of potential donors, albeit at the expense of civil liberties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Ted July 11, 2012 at 22:31

@Antifeminist One

“The mother says she has all the drudgery and hard work and the father has all the good times,” Mr Coker said.”

Mr Coker seems to have missed the obvious solution – give the father extra time with the child. He would then have more of a share of the drudgery and hard work. That’ll show the bastard!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 July 11, 2012 at 22:44

@Eric
“Thank you for posting these, because today’s Britain is the future America.”

It is true. America is usually around 10 to 20 years behind Britain and Australia. It takes that much longer to get the American sheeple lined-up and trained.

The difference is this: once the same laws are passed in America, the penalties for breaking them are much more severe than in Britain or Australia.

I would imagine that in the future mandatory prison sentences will be somewhere around 5 to 10 years for speech violations. These speech violations will be a bonanza for the prison industry.

It sucks to be an American man in the 21st century; we have such a repressed and isolated existence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire July 11, 2012 at 23:04

if there is any worthwhile boots on the ground activism for mra’s it’s not posting flyers in men’s rooms, etc.

it’s helping all who fight for free speech, and most importantly those who fight to keep the internet free and protect anonymity

and none of this need be done implicitly under an mra flag

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 11, 2012 at 23:09

@The Whammer

I will agree that copyright is mentioned in the constitution. The congress has the authority to create copyright laws if it so chooses, but it also has the power and authority to state that there will be no protection of copyright within the united states. As such, there is no constitutional protection for this priviledge.

Compare this with the intersection of property rights, and the right to travel. Combine this with Ammendment 14, section 2, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This would imply that my ability to travel, through use of my own property is a right which cannot be infringed upon by any state. Yet the current legal paradigm is that driving is a priviledge. How much more so is a priviledge which congress is explicitly granted the power to revoke?

As a final note, it is my right to act upon my own property as I wish. If I wish to take a book that I own, and photo-copy it with my own photo-copier, using my own ink, and paper, with electricity I have paid for, why that is my right. Since these copies are also my property, it is my right to sell or barter them.

However, the congress has been granted a reasonable power to restrict that right, for an acknowledged good of the nation. I do not begrudge this restriction of my rights, so long as this restriction does not greatly expand past what can be reasonably borne.

I do, however, insist on calling this priviledge a priviledge. I also insist upon differentiating breaking this law, which protects only privilege, with the act of theft, which has been acknowledge to violate property rights since the birth of civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
cooterbee July 11, 2012 at 23:12

It astounds me that some people have a sense that something is lost. The cops have always had the option of putting a bullet in your head for saying something they don’t like thus triggering an “internal investigation”. What are your rights then? Last time Gabrielle Giffords spoke in public, she didn’t get to say what she wanted to say and she’s a woman! There has never been a time when opinions that somebody didn’t like couldn’t be forever silenced by almost anyone. I guess it really is a copyright violation when they kill you for it.

Hate speech. Ahhh. I hear all the Republicans around me saying that “that naygur Obama ain’t even Amerkin and deserves to die so he won’t take are gunz” Seems to me there IS some hate in there somewhere. How does one categorize that? Especially if they explicitly say they HATE Obama?

No speech has ever been protected by the Constitution. A century ago some guy alleging that you called him “a real dirty name” could cost you your life. Saying “I want to join a union” or “where are the white women at?”, would have the same result. I fail to see any erosion of liberty at all.

Any sound you utter ;any scrap of parchment you read; or any symbol you scratched in the dirt has always been a mortal risk. Is it any surprise that it is nowadays too?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16
Eric July 11, 2012 at 23:14

WalkinginHell:
Our media over here is strongly connected with Britain and Australia. Both Republican and Democrat leaders admire both countries: the Socons lean towards the Australian model and the Liberals towards the British. But the whole Anglosphere is going in the same direction.

OT—but congratulations on being featured by Futrelle today. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh July 11, 2012 at 23:31

@evilwhitemaleempire
Good idea. Do you know which orgs are legit? (because I’m pretty sure the ACLU and Amnesty international are frauds)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
TiredGuy July 12, 2012 at 00:10

“A century ago some guy alleging that you called him “a real dirty name” could cost you your life. ”

This is the part of free speech that most people forget – ‘fighting words’ are not covered by free speech. These are words that you can not reasonably expect to utter without causing a law-abiding citizen to become violent. The most common use of ‘fighting words’ is threatening to kill people, which is a fairly black and white area… but when it comes to ‘a real dirty name’ its an extremely grey area of the law.

I generally advise people to let it slide, after all – if you get into a fist fight, knife fight, or gun fight – theres a fifty/fifty fight that you’re not going to walk away from it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
migu July 12, 2012 at 01:13

Lincoln imprisoned northern crtitics. A few newspaper owners, some regular folks. He suspended habeus corpus. Wilson used the alien and sedition act to do the same. Roosevelt concentrated the Japanese population into a few camps in flyover country. This is nothing new.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Eric July 12, 2012 at 01:56

Migu:
The difference though is that those presidents had the justification of wartime and revoked those laws after the national emergency ended. The current trend is a indicative of a power-grab. There’s no justification for it on any legal or moral grounds, except to deprive people of their rights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire July 12, 2012 at 02:18

Gilgamesh July 11, 2012 at 23:31
@evilwhitemaleempire
Good idea. Do you know which orgs are legit? (because I’m pretty sure the ACLU and Amnesty international are frauds)

—————-
unfortunately no

but a good guess might be any group that attracts criticism from both sides of the fence

but this doesn’t mean that biased groups can’t be beneficial

a red pill dispensary made possible by a ‘progressive’ outfit (yes, unlikely) is still a red pill dispensary ……….if they are unaware of your intentions

a red pill dispensary made possible by conservatives is still a red pill dispensary ………in this case if they are sympathetic to some of your intentions and unaware of the rest ……….heh, heh, heh

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus July 12, 2012 at 02:36

@Russ

I am happy to report that The Heretical Two (Simon Shepperd and Steven Whittle) have been released from Gaol, though Simon Shepperd is under House Arrest and forbidden from using the Internet, so I understand.

His writings on the subject of women are very perpicacious, but sadly his book thereon The Tyranny of Ambiguity seems to be out of print – it’s brilliant but isiocyncratic. He is a very bright chap and by training a Mathematician – and worlds away from the ‘Evil Nazi’ that the MSM present him to be. I am surprised that I have not previously made reference to some of his observation therein, at The Spearhead or elsewhere on the Manosphere, but I do not think I have done so – something to be rectified.

His imprisonment however was not for that but for some very nicely drawn and funny cartoons about the Jews, a sort of ‘Jewish Cartoons’. (Clearly making fun of Muslims is more acceptable and making fun of Christians even more so). That does not mean they were entirely fair, but when is comedy ever fair. Naturally his doubts as to the historicity of The Holocaust had the Judges foaming at the mouth. Clearly freedom of speech and historical investigation does not extend beyond the entrance to The Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand. If you read the Judgement of the Court of Appeal that upheld Shepperd’s sentance of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment, you can see what nasty and stupid people get to be appointed Justices of Appeal – and if I ever meet them socially I will tell them so. Some of the most stupid people you can ever meet are lawyers so don’t let them intimidate you otherwise. Happily the judgements concerning Shepperd and Whittle are there for all eternity to be laughed at. History will exonerate them!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
continent July 12, 2012 at 03:24

Because a lot of politicians and other comedians point someone in the audience, the person may feel honored by the recognition.
But I didn’t know than the speaker better keep the thumb down.
Another expression that may cause fear is by Mr. Price
“Additionally, in a number of states the threat does not even need to be verbal, but rather can be communicated by “innuendo” or body language (e.g. pointing a forefinger with thumb raised as in shooting at someone). ”
Traditional law teacher usually say “You cant shout “fire” in a growled theater as an example of banned speech. But feminist have manipulated language and gestures so the courts can consider the violations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Gamerp4 July 12, 2012 at 05:44

The Land of The Free People is NOW the Land of The Victims, Who ever claims VictimHood will surely receive fortune in return.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 06:03

The difference is this: once the same laws are passed in America, the penalties for breaking them are much more severe than in Britain or Australia.

As long as there’s a jury system it doesn’t matter what the law is because a jury can nullify it in any particular case by finding the defendant not guilty.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is something the crooked government would like to dismantle and just have “judges” decide cases.
And btw, these power hungry politicians don’t really care about gun violence and that’s just a pretext to disarm citizens. Almost all people killed by guns are criminals anyway. What they’re really afraid of is armed people who will use weapons against them and their thug enforcers if they ever go too far in violating rights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Firepower July 12, 2012 at 06:18

migu July 12, 2012 at 01:13

Lincoln imprisoned northern crtitics. A few newspaper owners, some regular folks. He suspended habeus corpus. Wilson used the alien and sedition act to do the same. Roosevelt concentrated the Japanese population into a few camps in flyover country. This is nothing new.

You’re seeing The Truth.

Which is why you get [incredibly,unfairly] downvoted for stating actual FACTS.
The problem in “amari’qua” is not so much as Price asserts – that some Big Guv Entity will Waco us, but the STUPIDITY of the common man who’s been school-indoctrinated by Socialists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
orecret July 12, 2012 at 06:50

Anyone ever wondered if the names of the readers of The Spearhead have been placed on a list somewhere???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
joeb July 12, 2012 at 07:33

I was just using a little prepositional logic here , a denial is often a tool for removing a misconception , The second logic point is a Denial Simply in a negative sense or negation would be used to oppose a preconceived idea .
Witch goes on and on But , The point I’m getting to is why you felt a need to warn us about threats .
Have you been threatened ?
Negation is vary hard for Americans to understand . But its a useful tool in my Business, I’m a P I .
Or did you consider the recent arrest of a fellow MRA a threat against your magazine .
I don’t want to draw a picture of W C Price being shook down by Government agents but , On the other hand if you are receiving Threats from certain agencies the best thing to do Is make your readership aware of the problem .
A threat to WC would be a threat to America .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Russ July 12, 2012 at 07:57

@Opus:

You are right, of course. I said they were imprisoned, in part, for their criticisms of feminist policy. As I recall they originally came to the authorities attention for their anti-feminism. But again you are right, they were actually imprisoned for their critique of Jewish Power.

One can say any untrue, hateful thing they want about Whites, men, heterosexuals, or Christians and not only will the not be punished in any way, but it is the surest way to promotion and access to the good life.

If you say anything critical of a Privileged Identity Group (PIG), other than Jews, you will be ridiculed, forced to recant, and probably lose your livelihood.

However, if you offer effective criticism of Jewish Power you will invariable be imprisoned and/or killed. There is a long list of people (including some Jews) to whom this has happened.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Peter South July 12, 2012 at 08:11

Here in American we have many rights.

However most of them are rendered moot for one reason or another. You can’t actually exercise those rights.

Sure you have free speech, EXCEPT when standing here, EXCEPT when talking about this person, EXCEPT when talking about this subject, EXCEPT when you work for this company.

“Free speech zones” and “Free assembly zones” are case in point. Here, stand right on this spot and do whatever you want (within reason of course, haha). lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Peter South July 12, 2012 at 08:14

Lincoln imprisoned northern crtitics. A few newspaper owners, some regular folks. He suspended habeus corpus. Wilson used the alien and sedition act to do the same. Roosevelt concentrated the Japanese population into a few camps in flyover country. This is nothing new.

They were both tyrants. Also, Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor because Americans weren’t sufficiently motivated to get into WWII.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
joeb July 12, 2012 at 08:16

There are so many different laws depending upon the state you live in . One big problem for MRAs is 50 some states under one Government , It is impossible to create the kind of forum we need in ALL the states .
I would think we MRAs need to focus on ONE state , a starting point. So witch state’s are friendly’s to MRAs .
Its always been a curiosity of mine to try to find the state witch leans towards are kind of thinking , That state would become saturated with hard working American Men witch we all know is the goal of any state .
A single focus on a single state would drive all are support together making us a real entity .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 08:21

@ joeb

It’s definitely NOT New York state, a state that does nothing for the rest of the country. I’m not trying to pass the buck. Instead I am trying to do process of elimination.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 12, 2012 at 08:36

Ultimately our Supreme Court has the final say on free speech issues. Now who would you rather have “interpreting” the 2nd Amendment; Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayer? Or Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito?

Seeing as how the President appoints Supreme Court Justices for LIFE, elections do matter. Read how the Liberals STRAIN to interpret, (if not re-write) the Constitution to suit the Progressive agenda. Note how the Conservatives take it quite literally. Be afraid of a Liberal tilt in the Supreme Court, very afraid. Their vision of America is very different from that of our founding fathers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 08:43

@The Whammer

Have you ever actually served on a jury? If so, I’d be interested to hear in your experience of the jury selection process, and the instructions given to the jurists.

In federal district court the Jurists must declare a lack of intent to nullify federal drug laws. Also, the majority of people on the jury are the same neighbors where 2/3 of them don’t vote, and the majority of those that do choose not to educate themselves on the issues and candidates before voting.

The idea that enough jurists would understand their jury nullification rights well enough to resist the judge’s instruction that there is no such right seems unrealistic to me. The idea that you will get a jury filled with people who want to nullify the law seems similarly unrealistic. I find it most likely that there will be at least one person that wants big government control and does not care to protect her own rights.

As a result, the best that you can hope for is a hung jury, leading to a mistrial. However, if a jurist is… less than cooperative… the judge and prosecuting attorney can have him removed.

The altered process of jury selection ensures that you will not be tried by a jury of your peers, but a pre-selected group of people who serve the desires of the court.

I would expound upon my own experiences inside the jury box, save that I made an affirmation to secrecy, in order to protect those who were being accused. I consider this too great a responsibility to shirk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 08:45

@Keyster

What about the coalition of Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayer, and Roberts?

I think that this is one of the few times you could get establishment progressive republicans to agree that “It’s Bush’s fault!” :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
joeb July 12, 2012 at 08:48

Geography Bee Finalist himself
Id have to rule out My home state Ohio and Michigan also . But If we could figure this one out Id move there , If 2 Million of us Moved there we would be a voting entity . A force .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
dragnet July 12, 2012 at 08:51

Aaaand it’s here—the war on boys in education has entered its next phase:

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/

The upshot: the Obama administration is expected to cap the number of males permitted to major in STEM subjects by 2014.

You know that 60/40 gender split on college campuses? Expect it get worse now—which has been the plan all along.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 08:57

Unfortunately for males (and females, but I realize that this is a men’s rights board) with disabilities in New York state, getting out of New York state is like trying to leave a cult. New York tries to pride itself on what it does for individuals with disabilities, but the whines when the trade-off is higher taxes and businesses’ unwillingness to set up shop or continue operating there.

Even worse, much of New York state tries to treat state of residency as if it were an immutable characteristic, like biological race or ethnicity, and guido New Yorkers are probably the worst violators of behaving this way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 08:59

It is fair to point out the iniquities of the past. Yes, Andrew Jackson slaughtered native Americans in violation of an order of the supreme court. Yes, Lincoln jailed reporters who were arguing for soldiers to desert. Yes, FDR jailed Japanese Americans.

Yes, it is reasonable to point out how the way that the US acknowledges the laws of other countries makes us all less free. You can be prosecuted in the US for innocently buying fish at a market, that happened to be farmed illegally across the border, with no criminal intent. The legal protections of mens rea, requiring the government to show criminal intent have gone down the tubes.

And yes, it’s reasonable to point out the many many many restrictions we have on free speech. For example, exposing a security hole in a computer program, to encourage people to move to a more secure platform, or fix the hole, a staple of white hat hackers (read: computer experts)… is now illegal, if the company involved cares to contest it. Thank the DCMA.

I think it is important to point out that while there have been violations of our rights in the past, the larger and more powerful the government gets, the more easily it can violate our rights, and the less fear it has. The more the government grows, the more our rights are violated every day, rather than in sharp spikes… to the point that our present lack of freedom would have been considered an unconscionable violation of rights even half a century ago.

The government is continuing to grab power, and as it does so, we become less and less free.

I disagree with the idea that “this is nothing new”. We have indeed seen spikes of tyranny in the past. What is new is the level of every day tyranny under which we now all suffer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Keyster July 12, 2012 at 09:21

What about the coalition of Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayer, and Roberts?
I think that this is one of the few times you could get establishment progressive republicans to agree that “It’s Bush’s fault!”

This has happened throughout history; Earl Warren, Sandra Day O’Conner and David Souter are three examples. Funny thing is that there alway seems to be right leaning justices that surprise everyone by siding with the left, but NEVER has there been a left leaning justice who suprised everyone by siding with the right – – on significant historical rulings. The Left is predictable, while the Right is more fluid and shifts with the times (cultural influence), regarding Constitional “interpretation”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
joeb July 12, 2012 at 09:23

Josh
We never seem to hit on the point . The power grab is all that they focus on. With authority Health and human services becomes a monster .
I like to call them the SS . (social services)
There has been open willingness of some pundits to talk of the misuse of VAW laws but, To most it is still taboo.
Simply talking about it in a open forum will desensitize the pundits that are still working under fear .

Poll – Witch state is the best for MRAs to work in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 12, 2012 at 09:27

Poll – Witch state is the best for MRAs to work in.

Wyoming.
It’s not the Bible Belt and it’s not high tax/feminist/blue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 09:28

@ joeb

My answer would be Utah, but I would wonder if any LDS men can vouch for whether men’s rights has traction in their faith.

Remember though, even if it were Utah, getting disabled men both into the MRM and out of any state similar to New York would require substantial resources.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
joeb July 12, 2012 at 09:53

Geography Bee Finalist himself
I like the way your think jumping to the next obvious question .
Critical thinking is what is needed .
Revenues created by an influx of disabled american veterans is a prize for any state , Plus disabled Americans can work freely within the homes .
Example -The feminists always focus on Homelessness because of the cash they can get from the government While building there centers .
Keyster
Wyoming. is good because of the population and still open to political action groups like us without The bible belt beat down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 10:10

@ joeb

I meant any male with a disability, not just veterans. I understand that veterans are going to get more empathy for their disabilities than most non-veteran disabled males, but the MRM needs the support of whatever males it can get.

New York state has largely penalized any sort of risk-taking behavior, a behavior more commonly found in males than in females. Unfortunately, disabled people are also not encouraged to engage in risky behaviors which might yield reward, even when there would be little harm to others, and even though all of us, disabled or not, will end up dead someday anyway.

New York is also probably the most litigious place in the whole universe and on of those places where almost everyone has a sense of entitlement on steroids.

Although New York claims it wants to help the disabled find employment, that is only true if the job in question is in New York state. New York’s economy has never been in good shape at all during my lifetime. The idea that New York wants to hoard disabled people, people who are unlikely/not encouraged to create jobs, and not have them secure employment wherever in the world it may be, sounds like bottom-feeding to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
joeb July 12, 2012 at 10:56

Geography Bee Finalist himself
Your right we need to focus on grant writing and enrollment. Feminist are little meticulous grant writers .
Issues such as disabilities, Homelessness , Drug abuse , veterans concerns are all cash cows for those resources . The problem is The Government only gives the money to the feminists that take the time to write the grant.
Men have little time to sit down and write . Have you ever seen the size of a proposal we are talking hundreds of pages and a full time writer .
This all goes back to the Idea of free speech without it we have no modem of securing funding .
Donating to this page is always a good idea it secures a forum . All that is needed is a few men to group together and work . But the male ego is always an issue . We can by pass that for now by saying Wc is the Boss .
I dream of walking down the street someday and seeing a male with a spearhead logo on his shirt . In my town its forbidden to talk about such anti- King religion topics such as men’s rights.
free speech is all impotent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 11:45

Pardon, but I’m curious as to what New York does, specifically, to make it harder for the disabled to leave New York if they so choose. Is there an exit tax for the disabled? Some kind of permit?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Keyster July 12, 2012 at 12:01

My answer would be Utah, but I would wonder if any LDS men can vouch for whether men’s rights has traction in their faith.

You have to be LDS to live in Utah, or you’ll have difficulty.
(Utah is 70% Mormon)
They are VERY clannish and very clique-ish.
There is NO traction for men’s rights in that faith.
Wives serve as church overlords to their husbands. Defy any of the church rules (like drinking a beer or coffee or curse) and they’ll rat you out to the elders.

If you’re not one of them you’re shut out of the community, business dealings, etc. – and forget approaching their women.

I lived there for 3 years, I learned all about it. Most Mormons don’t even like living in Utah – even though its a beautiful state – it’s very weird.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 12:57

@Keyster

Sorry, almost missed your post on judicial

I think that you may have a large miss on this one. The progressive appointees specifically advance the idea of a “living” constitution, which can be reinterpreted to mean things that it did not mean when it was signed.

Then there are institutionalism like Roberts, who may assess as more concerned with the appearance of impartiality than the actual impartiality of the court. They wish to “depoliticize” the court, or it’s appearance, and as a result actually make the court MORE beholden to politics. Grave errors indeed.

Then there are the constitutionalists, those who actually read the plain language of the document, and hold this in primacy. If interpretation does need to be done, they do so based on their best understanding of the context surrounding the writing and adoption of the document in question.

The groups most likely to be swayed by present political concerns are the progressives and institutionalists.

The progressives are the most fluid and flow with the times, predictably so. Those labeled “right leaning judges” tend to have the most institutionalists. They tend to bend with the times when they feel the reputation of the office is in jeopardy.

Or to put it another way… the progressives are dishonest men, but honest about their dishonesty. You can trust them to serve the interests of their own ideology. Institutionalists though… that’s a tricky sort of mostly-honest man. You never know when one is going to do something unpredictable and stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
joeb July 12, 2012 at 13:04

Utah would be an interesting choice. When the feminist choose a state I believe they those Massachusetts . They choose the Gay rights issue to piggyback on . Even know there is a large Catholic Majority in that state .
I might be wrong but, They went after the opposition in a small state instead of ducking the opposition in a large state .
Witch makes a state like Wyoming attractive . I have to do some research on this subject but, I’m severely blocked with redirects on the Net .
Its hard to get information when the inquiry always come back with pro feminist jargon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 13:13

This is an interesting concept, and similar to the concept worked on by the free state project. http://freestateproject.org/

A fair number of the points made by the Free State Project tend to be rather valuable, including small government leanings.

Unfortunately, they people advertising it seem to think that forcing residents to pretend that pairs of lesbians are married makes me more free. I could not disagree more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
joeb July 12, 2012 at 13:17

I think NY forces disabled men into health and human services . Witch seizes the money giving buy the federal government( SSI) and takes there cut then provides Housing , Food and utilities and a small monetary expense. Forcing the Male to live like they are on Welfare .
This is the slavery aspect of HHS , No longer free to move around the country .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 13:28

Hmmm. Pardon, but isn’t Social Security itself wellfare? Wouldn’t accepting SS money mean you are living on wellfare in the first place?

As far as New York seizing the money from the federal government… I suppose that if you timed your move right, you could use that money to move to a different state and set up a new life there… but you’d probably need to save up for months. Would that be plausible with the level of cash provided by SS checks, under the presumption that New York didn’t steal it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 13:36

@ Josh the Aspie

It’s not so much that New York asks for a tax on leaving or requiring the disabled to obtain a permit to leave (this would likely be unconstitutional for any state).

These days geographic mobility is low for almost everyone and it is possible that felons have more geographic mobility than individuals without criminal records in this economy. (Population estimates and censuses in the United States count inmates as residents of the state where the inmate is incarcerated if that is different from where the crime occurred.)

If push really comes to shove, and the economy for a disabled New Yorker is in the gutter for a significant radius within that New Yorker’s home, New York state starts losing interest in the disabled resident’s desire to work.

Simply put, in the hypothetical event that gainful employment can be found, if, and only if, the disabled resident leaves New York, there is no way the state will be interested in trying to assist the disabled individual because of the loss of a resident. The disabled resident will likely be told stories of how other states make far fewer accommodations for the disabled, but the fact that there is an inverse correlation between amount a state accommodating the disabled and the number of jobs available also does not get mentioned.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that in this economic downturn, the less feminist a state was, the easier a time it is having weathering the storm. Another thing worth asking is whether the fewer concessions a state makes for the disabled, the better a state is doing weathering the storm.

New York lost two congressional seats (out of forty-one in 1960) after the 1970 census, five after 1980, three after 1990, two after 2000, and two after the 2010 census. I am probably the only New Yorker who thinks that if New York loses a seat, it is New York state’s fault, but I digress.

In any case, I could tell you more stories of how ass-backward New York’s policies are towards the disabled than you would want to know, such as New York’s assertion that public transportation is always a reliable means of getting to work. This assertion may be true in NYC, where vehicle ownership is onerous, but no employer upstate will agree with the fascism of the state agency that assists the disabled on this opinion, nor are they constitutionally obligated to agree. In virtually all of upstate New York, reality is on the side of employers.

Trying to get someone who assists the disabled to think for themselves or take a dissenting opinion on any idea, be it reliability of public transportation or not, is probably going to happen after hell has frozen over and that shithole planet Venus becomes cool enough for humans to walk on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 14:02

Ah, so it’s not that New York is taking action to keep the residents in, but that it is not providing assistance in getting the residents out.

I am unaware of any agency in my state that would help me leave the state to get a job, either. With the possible exception of my receiving unemployment checks, if I used that money to move.

Also, I tried public transportation for a while, though in a smaller city than NYC. You were lucky if you only missed one connection due to buses arriving late or leaving early. Incredibly, bus drivers would often stop to just jaw with each-other even when behind schedule already.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 14:17

@ Josh the Aspie

1) Which state was this, if you don’t mind me asking?

2) The reality nationwide is that the only way a state can have a good business climate is by being unsympathetic and unresponsive to the comfort of its residents. It sucks, but reportedly in other parts of the country the attitude is “any job is better than no job.”

In New York the mentality is that life should always be pleasant even though reality will hand this mentality its ass.

Social justice just does not attract business because businesses only want to be (and can only possibly be) socially responsible for a limited number of causes. Forcing social justice down a business’ throat will only induce it to leave.

3) As far as 2) goes, New York largely behaves as though the rules of attracting business in the United States do not apply to New York. New York is not a right-to-work state (if anything, organized labor has everyone else in a headlock), a law which does not require being tweaked periodically the way tax structures have to be tweaked. Taxes are through the roof in New York as well, and the litigious culture in New York prevents people from wanting to do business here as it gives us a stereotype of thinking the world owes New Yorkers everything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Firepower July 12, 2012 at 14:21

orecret July 12, 2012 at 06:50

Anyone ever wondered if the names of the readers of The Spearhead have been placed on a list somewhere???

In order to validate your paranoia – NO.

Spearhead readers would have to do more than just “read” to be a threat to any fuckingbody. I can’t think of a more docile bunch of venters who curl up and go to sleep after they have their drunk shout. If you think Uncle Sam is “following” you haha. What for? Typing Crime?

Price is the only one who need fear Big Brutha.
He…does something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
joeb July 12, 2012 at 14:32

Common Josh the Aspie
If you work 30 years and get your arm torn off in a accident isn’t it different then never having a Job and applying for welfare .
I think the complaint being made is that NY , Oh , Mich see these disabled men as cash cows .
Doubling up and sometimes tripling there support . This includes Veterans witch do get hit three fold .
Id do believe its vary hard to pick up and move if your disabled . The word disabled in its self should testify to that fact .
But ,All that aside . HHS moves forward in its plan to monopolize the workplace .
So I still think all men that want a future should pick a state that is friendly to MRAs . Its a good start to a long fight .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 14:59

“As a final note, it is my right to act upon my own property as I wish. If I wish to take a book that I own, and photo-copy it with my own photo-copier, using my own ink, and paper, with electricity I have paid for, why that is my right. Since these copies are also my property, it is my right to sell or barter them.”

You are wrong. When you buy a book you agree to certain conditions. The same is true for computer programmes.

“This would imply that my ability to travel, through use of my own property is a right which cannot be infringed upon by any state. Yet the current legal paradigm is that driving is a priviledge”

We make laws through our representatives based on the Constitution of the US and the Constitutions of the States. The US Constitution trumps the states’ and the SCOTUS decides when there is a dispute concerning law. We can also determine what are and what are not rights based on the 9th amendment. No State has decided that driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is a right although you can drive around your own property without a license. These are simply public safety laws (like not firing a rifle across a public road) and I’d be more concerned with police abuse and unlawful searches of vehicles for traffic violations where they use some dog who barks and that gives them probable cause to seach.
Your ability to travel is not infringed by vehicle and traffic laws on the public highways which require that a person show that they have the minimal capacity to operate a motor vehicle and suffer from no disabilities that can make them a hazard on a public road.
You right to travel is not being violated by V+T laws because you can travel by train or have someone with a license drive you or on foot etc

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 15:08

@Geography Bee Finalist himself

1. Not a bit. I wouldn’t mind even if I wasn’t going to answer. ;)

When I said “my state” I meant Nebraska. Of course, I never said I was in Nebraska when experiencing my problems with public transit. ^_^

2 & 3. As far as New York goes, I visited once. It was dirty, smelly, broken down, filled with trash, and smelling of urine. The people I did meet were, with a few exceptions, not only rude but unfriendly. Traffic laws for pedestrians were flaunted openly, and if you actually obeyed them you were looked at with open contempt and derision.

Monuments were over-crowded and not a pleasant experience to visit. I waited a whole hour to get a 10-second peek out of a smudged and dirty window in the crown of the statue of liberty. The plays were also greatly over-rated. I saw Cats on broadway before it was closed down, and didn’t enjoy it. The city was also manifestly unsafe, even in the better areas.

Never mind running a business in New York… I would not be a tourist there again. I would not want to raise a family there. I would not want to make a business trip entirely paid for by my company, with extra leisure time built in, and a provided entertainment budget. To summarize: If you wanted to pay me to go to new york, the price would be exorbitant.

New York has a bad reputation not built on business or directly buitl on a sense of entitlement, and I think that it is entirely earned. I think that the sense of entitlement has likely lead to the majority of these failures.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 15:15

@joeb

If you work 30 years and get your arm torn off in a accident isn’t it different then never having a Job and applying for welfare .

Yes, I would agree that there are moral differences involved. I was talking about whether or not living off of Social Security Disability payments fell under the classification of living off of welfare.

Welfare is “financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government. ” Moneys from Social Security Disability would seem to qualify.

However in the following comment (emphasis mine).

I think NY forces disabled men into health and human services . Witch seizes the money giving buy the federal government( SSI) and takes there cut then provides Housing , Food and utilities and a small monetary expense. Forcing the Male to live like they are on Welfare .

it seemed to me that you were implying that Social Security Disability payments didn’t fall under this heading. I was seeking clarification of your stance, not posing an equality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 15:16

Hmmm. Pardon, but isn’t Social Security itself wellfare? Wouldn’t accepting SS money mean you are living on wellfare in the first place?

No, because you have to put into it 40 quarters (10 years in toto)to be fully insured.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 15:26

@The Whammer

You are wrong. When you buy a book you agree to certain conditions. The same is true for computer programmes.

No, when I buy a book I agree to no conditions. I exchange my property (US reserve note) for another peice of property. I have no hold over what the store does with that money after the fact, nor does anyone in the supply chain have a say in what I do with the book. I may read it, give it as a gift, loan it out as though I was a library, burn it, or make a series of paper hats from it’s pages, or draw a Hitler mustache on the image of the person on the front cover. This is the nature of property. In acquiring property, I make no agreement to any conditions of it’s use, unless there is a contract stating otherwise, to which I agree.

Now, there are laws which are passed to restrict uses of an object. For example, I may not shoot a man simply because I own the gun and the bullet, and the property on which we stand. However, that is no the same thing as agreeing to a condition when I make the purchase, especially since these laws can change after the purchase has been made.

These laws are restrictions of my property rights, in order to protect other rights belonging to others. However my property rights are intrinsic in the fact that I own the property.

“Copyright” and any privilege to it is a creation of the state, not an intrinsic or natural entity. Any privilege to copyright is dependent on the existence of the state, and it’s magnanimity. There is no intrinsic right to prevent me from acting as I choose on my own property. Granting an artist or craftsman this control over me is specifically a privilege derived through government, and as such cannot be a right.

I will address your points on driving in a subsequent post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 15:30

I think NY forces disabled men into health and human services . Witch seizes the money giving buy the federal government( SSI) and takes there cut then provides Housing , Food and utilities and a small monetary expense. Forcing the Male to live like they are on Welfare .

That’s not true and perhaps you should spend time reading the government literature on this and stop guessing or relying on some amateur on the internet.
The max SSI is $675 from the Fed Gov’t and it is means tested so you must have few assets (unlike SSD). But States don’t take anything from this and in fact they ADD to it. So in a place like California a person receiving the Fed SSI of $675 will actually get a cheque for $850 since the State kicked in a supplement (they also automatically get Medical)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 15:31

@ Josh the Aspie

Good points.

I actually live north of the state capital Albany (anagram: “by anal”, figuratively how anyone takes living in New York state, but I digress) in a small town, but it’s not much better there either. The town where I grew up (not the same as where I am now) was Menands (notice the first three letters of this town’s name), also outside Albany. Small towns with really small minds.

I’m not surprised that you had miserable experiences while visiting NYC. I have not been there since 2005 and would not go back unless I was in transit to somewhere else. The fact that the city is the UN HQ has probably gone to New Yorkers’ heads. The supremacy complexes of the people in that city are mind-numbing.

Unfortunately, being in upstate New York means being held hostage to the people downstate and their mentality as people upstate are going to be vastly outnumbered by people downstate for the foreseeable future.

Upstate New York shares parallels with downstate Illinois except the one thing downstate Illinois has going for it is that the largest city in that state is not called “Illinois City,” but it doesn’t stop people from thinking that if someone is from Illinois, the Illinoisan must be from Chicago. There is secessionist talk out in the Finger Lakes region of Western New York state just as there is reportedly secessionist talk in southern Illinois.

Albany is basically state government and virtually nothing else. If the capital of New York were moved, Albany would become a ghost town.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 15:47

Josh, you’re either an inexperienced kid or an uneducated adult. You ever hear that expression, ” ignorance of the law is no defence”? All of the laws are in statutes, codes etc. and are in writing and every county courthouse has a law library. It is incumbent upon you as a citizen to know the law. Now I know that you’re not a lawyer and it may be difficult for you to understand this but this is how things work in real life. You’re not in boyworld or gammer world anymore.
When you buy a book you may own the physical book and may read it but that’s all you own. You may not even lend it to someone else and just because people do this does not make it legal. Lending libraries lend out books but they either got an exception from the publisher or have to pay a royalty to him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 16:06

Spearhead readers would have to do more than just “read” to be a threat to any fuckingbody. I can’t think of a more docile bunch of venters who curl up and go to sleep after they have their drunk shout. If you think Uncle Sam is “following” you haha. What for? Typing Crime?

Yes, I’m afraid that most of them have delusions of grandeur :) This is what happens when the proles get their hands on computers lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Lyn87 July 12, 2012 at 16:13

cooterbee July 11, 2012 at 23:12

Ahhh. I hear all the Republicans around me saying that “that naygur Obama ain’t even Amerkin and deserves to die so he won’t take are gunz”

I call B.S. on that. And I’m not even a Republican.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 July 12, 2012 at 16:20

A few guys mentioned “fighting words” a while ago. It’s important to remember that uttering “fighting words” was not illegal. The difference was that if somebody assaulted you because you said them it was considered mitigating or even exculpatory. You weren’t prosecuted for using “fighting words,” but the guy who beat you to a pulp wasn’t prosecuted for battery, either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 16:28

Geography Bee Finalist himself
Id have to rule out My home state Ohio and Michigan also . But If we could figure this one out Id move there , If 2 Million of us Moved there we would be a voting entity . A force .

Joeb, it’s nice that people are picking up on my ideas over the past 40 years but you wouldn’t even need that number to control many States. Vermont has 1/2 m people and perhaps 1/2 are old enough to vote. All you would have to do is get 200k men to move into the State and you would control the government. And under the wacky US Constitution you’d also get 2 US Senators, the same as NY with 40x the population or California with 60 the pop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
joeb July 12, 2012 at 16:33

I just had a discussion about City’s like Albany . Boasting there economy is built on City workers and health care , What a drain on the State . Can you imagine Living there If you want to see what America will look like go to Albany . Who pays for this ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 16:36

Ahhh. I hear all the Republicans around me saying that “that naygur Obama ain’t even Amerkin and deserves to die so he won’t take are gunz”

Well then they are just idiots and no different than the democrat idiots. In fact, they are so stupid that they don’t even know what Natural Born means. I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii but it really doesn’t matter where he was born because his (white) mother was a US citizen. Even if he was born in Kenya he’d be a Natural Born US citizen and since there’;s no question that he resided in the US for 14 years he is qualified to be President.
In fact, if Obama never set foot in the US he’d be a Natural Born citizen and could in turn pass that on to his kids(they’d have to spend a year in the US to retain it and also pass it on)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
joeb July 12, 2012 at 16:37

Whammer
Like that idea . 200.000 a reasonable amount . But we are back to the same question of witch state will have us . Seeing that most men under HHS rule are transient the idea makes sense .Id move in a heartbeat to get out of the Bible belt . Its scary here .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 16:37

@The Whammer

I retract my statement that I will respond to the rest of your previous post.

I am arguing from basic legal precepts, and the basic philosophy of natural rights, on which the constitution was based. This does not make me immature, inexperienced, or unintelligent.

I was willing to have an amicable argument with you, but you are now bringing personal attacks into it. I could reply in kind, and with more evidence I think. I choose not to, as I doubt that mr. Price would enjoy having such an exchange on his blog.

Instead, I will wish you well. I hope that in the future our discussions can be more amicable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 16:41

Given that Albany is mostly civil servants, I would imagine it would be taxpayers, be they public sector workers or private sector workers, and that their taxes would go towards the salaries of every state agency payroll.

Albany has not yet had to declare bankruptcy like some cities in California, but that could happen at a later date.

It could be a while before New York state government requires all government employees to set some of their earnings aside for retirement, the way private sector employees are required to do. This change featured in the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 16:45

There’s only one problem with my plan. You’ll have an excess of men in the State. But this can easily be corrected by importing foreign brides. Females who can’t vote :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 16:45

@Geography Bee Finalist himself

Ahh. I was indeed thinking of New York city.

I’ve heard of this Albany, and I thought that it was just a suburb of NYC.

I can understand your complaints about being overwhelmed by the voters in NYC. I know some conservatives in Illinois who are quite upset at how this keeps happening. Due to Chicago’s reputation for vote corruption, and how close some elections have been, many are convinced that the only way this keeps happening is due to voter fraud. Of course, those places most libel to voter fraud are those least likely to institute voter ID laws, or other protective measures. After all, their politicians benefit from the vote fixing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 16:54

@ Josh the Aspie

Oh no. It does take several hours to get between Albany and NYC. Albany is in no way a suburb of NYC. New York state is slightly smaller than Nicaragua.

If I remember correctly, detractors of incumbent Illinois Governor Pat Quinn call him “Four County Quinn” as he only won the majority of the popular vote in four Illinois counties (out of 102 altogether) in the 2010 gubernatorial election in that state, one of the four where Quinn prevailed naturally being Cook County.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 17:02

I’ve heard of this Albany, and I thought that it was just a suburb of NYC

It’s a 150 miles up the river and feels like Moscow in January.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 17:14

Similarly in Nebraska, the state legislature is dominated by representatives from Omaha. Omaha is continually expanding by gulping up profitable parts of other municipalities, using privileges granted by the state legislature.

Only those municipalities already incorporated as cities can resist this encroachment. However, the state government forbids any city from incorporating if it might be gulped up by Omaha, and can’t prove that it has another reason for wanting to be incorporated as a city. Of course, as it stands, there is no other reason to want to be incorporated as a city.

Nebraska is primarily a single-party state. However, most voters vote party line, rather than looking at what they stand for. We basically have an old guard power structure, rather than any kind of system that serves the people. you’d think that school voucher issues would get passed under a legislature that’s over 70% republican. Or that they would pass voter ID laws. Or that a bill to grant legal privileges to those in the nation illegally would go down in flames. Nope.

And, like anywhere else, most people presume that a person from the party they strait-line vote is doing his job, and it’s nearly impossible to primary a representative.

Is it any wonder that Nebraska has some of the highest tax rates in the mid-west?

Then again, the only area where Democrats have a fairly firm hold is the Omaha area, and that’s the one with the worst laws and the highest taxes… it’s also the on with the worst corruption. Nebraska Politicians, Omaha ones in particular, are well known for spending public funds for their own private gains.

Then again, it’s all about the power structure. The Omaha school district (the largest, but not the only in Omaha) keeps gobbling up other districts, and getting the state government to give it more privileges and grow it’s bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the Lincoln (main) branch of the University of Nebraska grabs any and all funding it can from the other branches, as well as moving successful programs whole-hog from the other campuses to the Lincoln campus.

*sigh* The lesson, I suppose, is that the main concern of any bureaucracy is the continued existence, and growth of the bureaucracy, not the purpose for which it was established.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 17:27

Doesn’t Nebraska also have the only unicameral legislature (49 senators) out of the fifty state legislatures so there is no checks and balances within the legislative branch with another legislative chamber?

Also in presidential elections, such as the last one, doesn’t the statewide victor (as in Maine, which has two congressional districts) have to win in each congressional district (three in Nebraska) to be awarded all of Nebraska’s electoral votes? Obama managed to win the Omaha-centered 2nd congressional district’s electoral vote, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 17:55

@Geography Bee Finalist himself

Yep. The only state to have a unicameral. It’s more ‘efficient’. At this point, though, I’m convinced that a bicameral legislature wouldn’t make much of a difference, since any time there is a bill that the progs want to go through, it makes it through “with bipartisan support”.

It’s my understanding that Nebraska’s government as it currently exists was formed by some of the earliest examples of progressive power players inside the Republican party. Theodore Roosevelt was actually one of the early founders of the progressive movement. It’s a multi-headed hydra.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 18:01

Another interesting fact about Nebraska:

Nebraska is one of only two states to have a system to split electoral votes.

The way it works is as follows:

The two electoral seats that correlate to our senators go to whomsoever gets the most votes state-wide.

The votes in each congressional district are tallied in separate groups, and the candidate to get the most votes in each of those districts wins the electoral vote corresponding to that district.

One district represents the majority of the Metro area. The next represents the remainder eastern Nebraska (roughly 1/3 of the state by land), and the third represents the remaining 2/3 Nebraska (by land) to the west.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 12, 2012 at 18:31

Here in New York we have what is called “electoral fusion,” where ballot access laws allow multiple political parties to nominate the same individual as their mutual candidate.

One such scenario is that there could be eleven political parties on the ballot but only eight candidates as one candidate is the nominee of three political parties, another is the nominee of two other political parties, with each of the other six candidates either being independents or nominees of only one political party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie July 12, 2012 at 18:43

Interesting. I like that idea. It certainly does respect the fact that in most cases primaries aren’t actually a nominating process (where only those nominated by a party can get in), but rather it is an endorsement process.

There is another voting idea who’s time has come: the ranked choice / instant run-off voting. In such a system you rank your order of preference as far as politicians go. The one receiving the least 1st place votes is eliminated, and those votes go to whomsoever those people put as their number-2 candidate. This continues until someone has the majority, or is the last candidate standing.

That way, popular third-party candidates don’t “split the vote”, and it also becomes easier to get third parties started, and convince people to list them a third-party candidate as their first choice, since they won’t object to “wasting” their vote, even if they like the third-party candidate better.

Of course better verification of vote counting, and validation that those voting are allowed to are also important steps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
joeb July 12, 2012 at 20:39

Here’s the shimmy , Iv been waiting all day to wrap this argument up .
I ordered a pizza , And I’m going to take the last piece and stick it in the computer and send it to John in Cincinnati .
It not working why , Because you can’t send a piece of pizza over the net Its not real .
Michel facult one of the greatest thinkers of are time debated weather a cognomen was the Author . He surmised that the Cognomen could not be held responsible for a crime he committed in a book .
Sherlock Holmes is a cognomen, He’s a drug dealing detective in a book with today’s laws The cyber police would be looking to arrest Holmes for being Immoral but , The truth is the author is not the Cognomen His name is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle . He’s a writer he write fiction novels.
I’m sure Mr Doyle would tell the Cyber police Go ahead arrest Sherlock Holmes . Because the cyber police would be out of there minds to try to arrest a fictional cognomen from a book .
Although I use the Name joeb Its not my real name its a avatar , a cognomen . And really this is all not real . If you think it is your an Idiot and id hope that some wise old man in the state department would realize that before the cyber police arrest Dorthy for killing that witch . You no the One with the flying Monkeys .
One of the first Laws of the computer was Metaphysical Pizza . This means I’m not real ether is your cognomen . Sorry wake up , You can’t arrest my cognomen because he’s Evil .
You can try but , If you do your an Idiot . If they start arresting authors for the crimes of the Cognomen we should have a war because somebody’s out of there Mind . Maybe the Cyber police have been Drinking to much of the Cool aid .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 12, 2012 at 22:16

I disagree with the idea that “this is nothing new”. We have indeed seen spikes of tyranny in the past. What is new is the level of every day tyranny under which we now all suffer.

—————
people living hundreds of years ago, even under dictatorships, often enjoyed more freedom

this was because their leaders didn’t have the technology they have today

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 12, 2012 at 22:25

living constitution means dead constitution

spread the meme

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
joeb July 13, 2012 at 06:35

Some ware around 2002 three journalists sued the 7 major telecommunications co. saying integrity in Journalism is being corrupted by intentional lies that that the big 7 where making on a regular basis .
This case went before the supreme court .The court rule in Favor of the big 7 . What dose this mean for you .
1 hour of truthful media a night was taken from you , in its place opinion based media like Fox news and nbc filled the space .
It means; you don’t have to tell the truth ,The truth is a religious idea and highly suspect to someone else’s truth .
Are wacky political have lost sight of the truth , or like we call them self evident . With this new rule of no rule they closed are parks by saying bums and drunks have taken them over . Feminists have have been vary successful in kangaroo family courts with the idea of no truth .
Its given us Sara palin bill Oriely and the whole crew at msnbc .
The supreme court tells us anything that is self evedent will stand on its own , But the problem is there is about five guys in are nation smart enough to know that , The rest of my nation has gone Nuts Bat shit nuts .
Authoritarian figure from HHS, CSA , Nss , and all the fear based protectors of the flag . Make there own rules now based on religious prognostication .
So here we are back in the days of Judge Roy been . All townships and county’s are on your own , Its the wild west .
Next time the Judge asks you to tell the truth , Just make up a lie because its legal .He dose it all the time .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Opus July 13, 2012 at 10:21

It is only fair, for the sake of Posterity that I record that this afternoon after a four day trial, which turned on the question (as I mentioned above) as to whether during a game of football and in response to baiting, the expression used by the assailed Defendant and in the heat of the moment ‘fucking black cunt’ broke the law as being spoken maliciously. Apparently on this occasion it did not. John Terry is innocent. That the State however is prepared to wreck the life and career of one of its sporting heroes for a wrong (in its definition) word perhaps reveals their agenda and reveals the pressure ordinary white folk (in the country of their ancestors – most of us or rather our ancestors arrived here some fifty thousand years ago) are now under in what it is surely not mistaken to describe as anti-white fascism.

It would probably be illegal for me to say more except to say that surely this could not have happened in The United States with its wonderful 1st Amendment!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ted July 13, 2012 at 15:53

“That the State however is prepared to wreck the life and career of one of its sporting heroes for a wrong (in its definition) word perhaps reveals their agenda ”

Its agenda is to keep the peace. If they didn’t do that, an easily identifiable group with a grudge could be exploited by enemies of the state. You wouldn’t like bombs going off on the buses.

“anti-white fascism.”

It certainly seems like that sometimes. But it’s a consequence of immigration, necessitated by low birth rates, itself a consequence of women not Manning Up and producing more children. As usual, you don’t get something for nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Ted July 13, 2012 at 15:54

PS I’m very glad to see the right verdict for once.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus July 13, 2012 at 16:23

@Ted

I certainly agree that the low birth rate (a woman’s right apparently) has an effect on immigration. The state certainly want to keep the peace but have enbarked on policies that threaten it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 13, 2012 at 17:06

“….reveals the pressure ordinary white folk (in the country of their ancestors – most of us or rather our ancestors arrived here some fifty thousand years ago)……”

How do you know that? They may have always been there. Sure, people may travel around but you can’t trace where the first humans appeared.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Dan July 14, 2012 at 00:22

The raison d’etre of government is to grow and expand it’s
power and control. This conflicts at a fundamental level with
ALL rights that men are born with, not just the right of free
speech. Because of this ALL governments attempt to limit,
constrain, infringe and ultimately destroy ALL rights.

You only have those rights that you are willing to fight
for, kill for and die for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American July 14, 2012 at 10:22

Russ… “Privileged identity Groups”, “PIGS”, i love it!!
The perversions that Gender-Raunch have instilled into the US legal system to persecute hetero-males will at first just make hetero-relations with women a “legal liability”. It will get worse from there until hetero-women start to feel the effects of what Gender-raunch is doing to them and their chances for a fammily.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Russ July 14, 2012 at 12:46

American,

Yup. “Privileged Identity Groups” is my favorite label, for the corrupt coalition of hate groups seeking to destroy White nations, because the acronym is so great.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Firepower July 16, 2012 at 11:18

The Whammer July 12, 2012 at 16:06

Spearhead readers would have to do more than just “read” to be a threat to any fuckingbody. I can’t think of a more docile bunch of venters who curl up and go to sleep after they have their drunk shout. If you think Uncle Sam is “following” you haha. What for? Typing Crime?

Yes, I’m afraid that most of them have delusions of grandeur :) This is what happens when the proles get their hands on computers lol

I hear ya: like, who the fuck would run around thinking the CIA and Eric Holder was after them – for not doing a goddamn threatening thing MORE than bitching on Welmer’s Forum.

oooooh! Scare-ay!
It’s a bunch of aspy nerds, thinking they’re MMA fighters cuz they
watch it
on TV

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: