Western Missouri resident David Jungerman is upset with national Democrats so he posted this sign on his property:
[Don Bradley – Kansas City Star]
“Are you a Producer or Parasite
Democrats – Party of the Parasites”
An unknown person or persons responded by burning Jungerman’s trailer — twice — and a vacant house on his property. Local Democrats are not happy with the arsons or the sign:
“Local Democrats don’t want to be linked to the arsons. Jungerman has every right to speak his mind, said Kay Caskey, a Bates County Democrat and wife of longtime state Sen. Harold Caskey.
“Obviously our country is in disarray now because of economics, jobs and foreclosures,” she said. “We are hurting as a country. But there are too many people who want to tear it down instead of build it up. Yes, there is anger out there, and we are a long way from Washington.
“This man has a right to do what he did, but around here some people might wonder at what point do you cross the line?”
Jungerman said he didn’t mean to direct his sign at local Democrats. Many of those are old-fashioned Harry Truman Democrats, he said.
“They’re more conservative than many Republicans,” he said. “I should have put an ad in the paper to explain that. No, I meant the national Democrat parasite base that is sucking this country dry. The ones that just take from the government and not give anything back.”
Jungerman says he’s not even a die-hard Republican. He voted for Claire McCaskill when she won a U.S. Senate seat in 2006.”
I guess the targets of free speech are more likely to think critical speech has crossed the line.
As detailed in the linked article, this isn’t the first time Jungerman has stuck to his guns on something he believes in. Literally.
A Harvard University student who emigrated illegally from Mexico to Texas with his family at age 4 will be allowed to stay in the U.S. for an indeterminate period.
The student, Balderas, had been traveling on a Mexican passport until his most recent trip, when he tried to use a student I.D. after losing his passport. Immigration reform advocates point to cases like Balderas as reasons to support the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to illegal immigrant children who pursue some college education.
The Instapundit asked Stewart Baker to guestblog on the Internet Kill Switch story. He makes a strong argument that it’s not really a kill switch and it’s a good thing because it helps protect us from cyberattacks.
The Obama Administration claims a new email shows Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan did not thwart military recruiting at Harvard Law School because military recruiters were allowed to interview through another organization. They argue that even though Kagan banned military recruiters from using the HLS Office of Career Services — the office designed and funded to help potential employers schedule interviews with students — Kagan should be forgiven for denying military recruiters those services because they had access through another venue.
If that shows how fair Kagan is, I’m interested in her position on America’s ‘separate but equal’ laws.
President Obama issues a weekly address that he calls Your Weekly Address. This week’s address entitled Republicans Blocking Progress rants about the GOP because of its “dreary and politicalfamiliar politics.” Obama especially wants Republicans to agree with his plans to spend more money and pass energy legislation. Obama’s bottom-line message:
“Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we’ve got an obligation that goes beyond caring about the next election. We have an obligation to care about the next generation.”
Of course, most if not all of Americans care about the next generation. This is Obama’s typical strawman method of presenting an argument he can’t lose, while also conveying that Democrats care and Republicans are greedy jerks.
Both as a candidate and as President, Obama has had a special ability to speak in generalities that most of us agree with and that inspire people to believe in him. This is another in a long line of examples. But the time for inspiration is during a campaign and being President requires specific plans, policies, and positions — something I know President Obama has plenty of but he refuses to share with Americans.
In West Texas, both in law and in life, this approach is called “laying behind the log” because you hide what you plan to do until the last minute. It can be an effective and successful strategy if your opponent isn’t paying attention, and I think this strategy is one reason why Obama tries to appear open-minded until the last minute before supporting or implementing a policy or proposal.
But this strategy isn’t as effective with a determined, knowledgeable and forthright opponent who pushes early and often to identify the opposing positions. That’s why I want Republicans to force President Obama to take a specific position, even if it makes them look obstructionist, so we can let the American people decide what’s best for the next generation. Because what we’ve learned over the past 18 months is the American people often don’t agree with Obama’s policies after they see the details.
How much free time is a chief executive allowed during a time of crisis? When it comes to President Obama, apparently quite a bit:
“… here are some of the things the president was doing instead of meeting with the company during the 58 days since the spill began: playing six rounds of golf, chilling with the Yankees, meeting with his “buddy” Bono, singing with Paul McCartney, raising money for Barbara Boxer, calling Rahm Emanuel to set up more golf time, vacationing with his family, dining with Michelle on a date, and doing something involving Kelly Clarkson.”
This started as a jaywalking citation. Was it it really so important that the woman get a jaywalking fine that she needed to be chased down and thrown against the patrol car? Even if she was trying to avoid the fine, seems like at some point you realize what’s at stake here (a single incident of someone undermining your authority to get away with a petty crime), and just let it go.
It’s amazing to me how far these radical libertarians take their anti-police prejudices. He actually wants cops to let people go because they are disobeying lawful orders.
Incredibly, a sizable number of his commenters are having none of it.
Uncut video here. If you are going to opine, you really should watch the whole thing.
Join the Constitutional Vanguard! We're a group devoted to promoting the principles of the Constitution, liberty, and the free market. Sign up here!
The archive of the Constitutional Vanguard can be accessed here.
The forum for Constitutional Vanguard members is here.
Check out Liberty Classroom, a site that teaches economics and history from a liberty perspective. I am a lifetime member. You should be a member too.
Help keep the site alive!
PayPal only (no credit cards):
Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite):
Subscribe for $9 per month:
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...