Morning Report
Via Instapundit, this story was linked from the AP:
KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 7 -- Three years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan's first popularly elected president, Hamid Karzai, was sworn in Tuesday in a dignified, heavily guarded ceremony attended by hundreds of Afghan and foreign guests, including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In a brief inaugural address, Karzai expressed his thanks to the Afghan people, who defied Taliban threats to participate in largely peaceful national elections in October, and to the United States, which led the international coalition that ousted the Islamic fundamentalist regime in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
There's more American tyranny in your eye, eh?. Evil Americans. Sacrificing their own lives so that people might be free and pursue their happiness and all...
And now let's change directions just a bit and have some fun with Canada, shall we? If you missed it, here's a great Tucker Carlson exchange with ultra-liberal Canadian politician Carolyn "Coalition of the idiots" Parrish a few days ago -- I just love this:
"I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States," said Carlson.
"We're a very secure nation because we haven't ticked off the rest of the world. We march with the world. We're not out of step," replied Parrish.
At one point, Carlson said he didn't believe the average Canadian held negative feelings toward the U.S. because they are too busy dogsledding.
"There's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking," responded Parrish.
"Welcome to our century," said Carlson.
Of course Tucker's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek while making these comments but I just love his tactic here. If they're going to relegate us to imperialist, greedy, fascists than we're going to relegate them to dogsledders who would get their asses kicked by Norway in a war. Way to go, Tucker. Read the whole exchange if you have time. It's classic.
Have you seen the Celebrity Nativity Scene on display in London? Some world we live in when it's only fitting to display a nativity scene as long as it's derisive in nature.
And here's a beaut from the Lancaster News. It seems the Democratic City Council there is attempting to prevent a man from displaying a picture of President Bush at his bakery stand:
“I’m just trying to sell a few cakes and give honor to the president,’’ he says.
Amen, brother.
City Councilman Nelson Polite (responds): “It should come down. This is a public market.” Besides, says the Democrat, “Bush didn’t win here (in Lancaster City). It is like rubbing salt on a wound.”
Now, I'm somewhat schooled in Constitutional Law and I'm fairly certain that the State has to have a better justification for abridging free speech than, "I don't like what you're saying". Hitler and Stalin I'm sure would disagree.
Republican bakers everywhere, unite!
KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 7 -- Three years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan's first popularly elected president, Hamid Karzai, was sworn in Tuesday in a dignified, heavily guarded ceremony attended by hundreds of Afghan and foreign guests, including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In a brief inaugural address, Karzai expressed his thanks to the Afghan people, who defied Taliban threats to participate in largely peaceful national elections in October, and to the United States, which led the international coalition that ousted the Islamic fundamentalist regime in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
There's more American tyranny in your eye, eh?. Evil Americans. Sacrificing their own lives so that people might be free and pursue their happiness and all...
And now let's change directions just a bit and have some fun with Canada, shall we? If you missed it, here's a great Tucker Carlson exchange with ultra-liberal Canadian politician Carolyn "Coalition of the idiots" Parrish a few days ago -- I just love this:
"I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States," said Carlson.
"We're a very secure nation because we haven't ticked off the rest of the world. We march with the world. We're not out of step," replied Parrish.
At one point, Carlson said he didn't believe the average Canadian held negative feelings toward the U.S. because they are too busy dogsledding.
"There's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking," responded Parrish.
"Welcome to our century," said Carlson.
Of course Tucker's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek while making these comments but I just love his tactic here. If they're going to relegate us to imperialist, greedy, fascists than we're going to relegate them to dogsledders who would get their asses kicked by Norway in a war. Way to go, Tucker. Read the whole exchange if you have time. It's classic.
Have you seen the Celebrity Nativity Scene on display in London? Some world we live in when it's only fitting to display a nativity scene as long as it's derisive in nature.
And here's a beaut from the Lancaster News. It seems the Democratic City Council there is attempting to prevent a man from displaying a picture of President Bush at his bakery stand:
“I’m just trying to sell a few cakes and give honor to the president,’’ he says.
Amen, brother.
City Councilman Nelson Polite (responds): “It should come down. This is a public market.” Besides, says the Democrat, “Bush didn’t win here (in Lancaster City). It is like rubbing salt on a wound.”
Now, I'm somewhat schooled in Constitutional Law and I'm fairly certain that the State has to have a better justification for abridging free speech than, "I don't like what you're saying". Hitler and Stalin I'm sure would disagree.
Republican bakers everywhere, unite!
posted by Wonderdog | 10:18 AM | Permalink
|
2 comments
2 Comments:
Loved the story out of Lancaseter.
Let's see, if this was a religious item on public property, there is a body of law, agree or disagree, that suggests there might be an issue.
But a picture of the sitting president? This guy who wants to ban all photos of the president on government property might run into a little problem of Federalism, given that the president's photo is always on display in Federal offices, courts etc. This is a very clean first amendment case for the photo owner. I don't know that you can outright ban political speech on government property.
The whole think is laughable.
You're right on target, Stewdog. Free speech is categorized as either content-neutral, content-based, or viewpoint-based. Content-neutral is speech that is not based on a particular subject matter, clearly not the case here since the subject is politics. Content-based speech is, however, based on a particular subject matter, i.e. politics. This would apply here. However, viewpoint based speech is based on a particular viewpoint of that subject matter, i.e. Republican politics vs. politics in general, which would seem to be the case here. Viewpoint based abridgement requires that the government show a compelling interest in preventing it. The fact that some members of the City Council dislike Bush is hardly compelling. Case closed.
Post a Comment
<< Home