Good. That’s an important step towards protecting liberty that only a few other states have undertaken.
I think that at a certain point the state is entitled to ask you to give up secrets, but it does have to be at the end of a full court process, so I think I’m with the state on this one.
Please answer: Why you need to explain your rights to the police chief.
Of course they are. That’s always the rationale.
As the Jews were being killed in Paris…were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?…This is a war…Now, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, and after the Garland attack, what are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?
And she points out that if the media were willing to run the 2005 cartoons en masse, the jihadis would be forced to give up their censorship attempts.
Unlike what the NY Times and Gary Trudeau keep on claiming, there is none. All speech is hateful to somebody, and the moment you take the cowardly position of blaming Pamela Geller for what happened (such as Juan Williams did) is the moment when you think that Trudeau, the staff of the NY Times, and anyone else who ever offends someone should be attacked, just like Geller’s event was. It’s all the same, and discussing restricting speech even a little bit is simply a totalitarian idea to introduce a tool to restrict political opponents’ speech – that much of the left is growing increasingly fond of.
Surprisingly, there are still some journalists who get this.
The Patriot Act section authorizing bulk data collection expires May 31st. It should not be re-authorized.
Right to work passes. You can’t be forced to join a union if you don’t want to.
Yeah, it kind of throws due process out the window. If you can find someone who knows the gun owner and thinks that the gun owner shouldn’t own a gun, you can get their license suspended unless they spend the time and energy to fight the situation in court.
Of course, I live in one of the few states where things are still going backwards.