A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

I started doing some research on two protests that have been compared a lot lately: The TEA Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street events. I’m hoping to put together a comprehensive list of items comparing these protests side-by-side, but I thought I post a teaser here after this morning’s work on the piece:

ITEM #1: Origins

TEA Party
This movement was first sparked in 2007 as loosely-organized events popping up across the nation. The events originally worked to carry on the message of Ron Paul support rallies throughout the libertarian congressman’s presidential campaign. The message was to stop government spending on just about everything, end the Federal Reserve, and, thus, reduce taxpayers’ obligations to the federal government.
Reference

Occupy Wall Street
This event was first envisioned by media group Adbusters in July 2011 as a Wall Street, New York City, occupation starting September 17, 2011, and lasting “for a few months.” There were no specific demands for action, only the expressions of hatred toward corporatism in the U.S. Soon after the original Adbusters call, a separate group organized a schedule of events and protester-supporting donations through its website, occupywallst.org.
Reference
Reference.

Thanks to Jon Stewart for calling the media out on this.

Plus, in Gov. Perdue’s latest email list post, there was no mention of the word “Republican.” Wow. That’s new.

I subscribe to emails from the office of North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue so I can keep an eye on what she’s trying to do to keep herself in power. Usually, the emails are fairly innocuous: the usual attempts to take credit for good things that are happening in N.C. and boast how she and the people in her political party are working to make sure more good things will happen.

This morning’s email, though, was different. Titled “Gov. Perdue fights for education,” it opened by criticizing the budget passed by the N.C. House because of the need to make cuts in education. In reality, the cuts would have been needed no matter who was in charge. Perdue is just spinning it for the sake of partisan politics since her party no longer holds the majority in the House. Let’s review:

In 2009 Perdue took responsibility for the cuts made on teachers, including a mandatory 10-day furlough. “What it does is asks teachers and state workers to step up and help us as we move forward,” Perdue said. This was in lieu of eliminating the overpaid, extraneous administrative positions and departments which are sucking the education system dry. Those proposed cuts amounted to a modest $65 million allocated for all state employees combined. Read more here.

The economic situation hasn’t changed. We still have to make cuts. But…

This year Perdue is taking advantage of the new Republican majority in the House to blame them for making budget cuts affecting public school teachers. “North Carolina’s classrooms, colleges, teachers and children will become the victims of some staggering cuts,” Perdue said. These proposed cuts to education amount to a bold $360 million allocated for public school employees and included adjusting rules around tenure and evaluating of teachers based on performance rather than years of service.

But here’s the kicker: the email exploited a letter her office received from a six-year-old child from Chapel Hill purely for the sake of those same partisan politics. Anyone who has worked with children know how they absorb the words and emotions of the adults around them. This letter is a clear indication of such: a child who has heard that Republicans are bad and will ruin her school and make things hard on teachers, and who has heard that Gov. Perdue has the power to defeat these “bad guys.” Some of the words that popped into my head when I saw Perdue’s office exploiting this letter were “gall,” “nerve,” “malevolence,” and “child exploitation.”

I won’t say anymore. I want the letter to speak for itself. Here’s the letter posted in partial context posted by Chrissy Pearson, Communications Director at Perdue’s office:
http://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/Blog/post/2011/05/06/We-agree-Amelia.aspx

In case that disappears, I’ve captured a copy here:

In May 2011, Gov. Perdue's office posted a child's letter in an effort to exploit its reference to partisan politics.

BJ, I’ve gotten to know you a little during the 2010 campaign, and I supported you as the best option we had in my congressional district to move toward liberty in Washington. I have really believed in you, and I looked forward to supporting you again in 2012.

However, reading this email I just received, I’m just disappointed. You already decided to cling to Burr during your campaign instead of Beitler, but I understood that as Burr was the top of the ticket for your chosen political party. But now your campaign is going where I can’t follow… encouraging financial support for Ellmers.

This is a woman whose campaign spent thousands on TV ads about the misnamed, misrepresented, and completely irrelevant “ground-zero mosque” instead of how she hopes to solve the real issues facing our nation. That shows a lack of responsibility.

This is a woman who has lots of the same rhetoric as many socially conservative Tea Party candidates, but offers no solutions or alternatives to turn rhetoric into action. That shows lack of planning.

This is a woman who, on some social issues, is very anti-liberty. That shows lack of respect for an individual’s rights.

Ellmers is not for liberty… or logic… or even good sense! She is not ready to represent my parents (who live in her district) in Congress.

BJ, this isn’t about parties, it’s about people. Unless you have a contractual obligation to the Republican party beyond your voter registration, I encourage you to “go rogue” on this one. I’m not saying to come out in opposition to anyone in this situation, but let Ellmers and her supporters fight their own battles if there’s a recount. Don’t encourage your own supporters to set aside their individual values to support this party affair.

I am proud to continue to support Liberty in our state and in our country, and thus neither my money nor my support will go to Ellmers or Etheridge.

The film Indoctrinate U is a no-nonsense look at how college students and faculty are trying to socially engineer their college campus environment. Part of that is overbearing restrictions on free speech to appease a group of students or faculty who want to keep you from saying, showing, or doing anything they disagree with.

I had hoped my alma mater and current university, N.C. State, was open-minded enough to resist such unreasonable bigotry. Yesterday, though, I saw that there are students opposing certain types of free expression in the Free Expression Tunnel. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your opinion, if you show open intolerance to someone of a different opinion, that’s bigotry. The artist may be a bigot, but the artist isn’t trying to take away the rights of other students through his expression. The protesters are the ones taking their bigotry too far by assuming that the artist should not have a right to this type of expression.

The unfortunate reality is that these students see what they’re doing as “the right thing” against what they see as “hate speech.” I can’t blame the students, really; most have been indoctrinated into this bigotry and closed-mindedness from school experiences. I understand where they are coming from, but I also live above the influence of hate speech. I know that if we have to qualify speech based on its emotional response, we essentially lose the freedom of expression. What’s my freedom of speech without my freedom to say something you might not like?

I hope that, in time, these students will put aside their bigotry, toughen up, and learn to live above the influence of hate speech.

Sidenote: Terms like bigotry and closed-mindedness were often used by those seeking social justice for certain social and racial groups with regards to how they were treated by law. Now that the law has made significant strides in repairing old discriminatory practices, it’s interesting to see this new “reverse” bigotry and closed-mindedness toward private individuals who disagree socially or politically.

The attorneys the LPNC has been working with on the ballot access lawsuit discovered something buried in some state tax law changes (S.B. 1177) passed by the General Assembly last session and signed into law in early July. The GA has implemented an important change in the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund that was requested by Gary Bartlett at the State Board of Elections office to resolve a conflict in the definition of “political party” between the state’s election law (G.S. 163) and the public campaign financing law in G.S. 105-159.1. I’m happy to report that the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund now refers to G.S. 163-96 for that definition instead of establishing some arbitrary requirement within G.S. 105. Consequently, this means the LPNC will have equal treatment under the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund as other qualified political parties, and will be able to receive their proportionate and designated shares of that fund.

Here are the documents of note:

• The bill that was passed and signed into law (S.B. 1177)
• The N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund (not yet updated to reflect these changes)
• G.S. 163-96 with the state’s definition of a political party

I composed the following statement to a recent press question when asked to comment on immigration policy in North Carolina, especially when reflecting on recent legislation in Arizona:

Immigration policies like Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 2010 are a discriminatory practice, allowing law enforcement to judge who can enter and why. The only reason this discrimination exists is to protect government entitlement programs that shouldn’t be in existence to start with. The solution, then, is to open the borders and eliminate the entitlement programs that are the real source of animosity and hyper-defensiveness. Furthermore, I personally believe such a “let me see your papers” attitude is a violation of the natural rights of those whose papers are required or requested, and that it’s the role of government to protect those natural rights for both naturalized citizens and unnaturalized guests.

Enjoyed meeting folks in the N.C. Cannabis Patients Network today at the Marijuana March. Hope to see you again soon at other events! http://www.nccpn.org/

I have added “More Choice in Medical Treatment, including Marijuana” to my issues page here. Please take time to read those couple of paragraphs to see where I stand on marijuana prohibition and on legislation such as H.B. 1380 allowing patients in North Carolina who need the benefits of medical marijuana to obtain and use it without fear of prosecution.

This post is a follow up on my post from yesterday about the unreasonable new restriction on flag and sign poles by the N.C. State Capitol Police.

Turns out someone with authority has a sense of reason and liberty. According to today’s N&O, the ban will be lifted/not enforced for the Tax Day Tea Party event at the State Capitol this evening. The article states that the decision”was made this morning by N.C. Crime Control and Public Safety Secretary Reuben Young, and questions whether such a ban is legal.”

Read the full article at this link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/15/438534/ban-on-flag-poles-lifted-for-tax.html

Thusfar, the Tea Party activists have had peaceful protest demonstrations across the U.S., including many locations in North Carolina. This includes groups meeting at the State Capitol in Raleigh on such occasions as Tax Day (April 15). Demonstrations include a scheduled slate of speakers, people carrying flags and signs or just there to listen to the speakers, and political organizations manning booths and distributing information.

Not yet has there been any hint of the peaceful demonstrations in Raleigh turning into a violent mob. But people are clearly are afraid of this passionate and multi-faceted group of folks who are “taxed enough already.”

So today, there’s this article in the N&O: http://bit.ly/9uvV2q

My reactions were: Seriously? Wait… WTF? *facepalm*

Here’s what wrong with the State Capitol Police’s decision:

(1) Flag poles and signs on poles aren’t weapons. By that standard, folding tables, chairs, and tent poles would qualify, too. Oh, and womens’ purses: some of those are pretty dangerous behind a strong swing, you know! Where will they draw the line?

(2) We should all have a right to carry weapons to defend ourselves at any time, in any place. Proclaiming that a peaceful demonstration could turn violent seems to suggest prior knowledge that the crowd will be provoked into acts of physical aggression. Police: if you know something we don’t, please share! Otherwise, this is taking away our rights based on something they don’t know and can’t predict in the name of “safety.”

NOTE: It’s in our U.S. Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, not the First Amendment, where the true violation lies in these actions.

It sounds to me like the State Capitol Police is trying to make it easier for themselves to “control,” and potentially dispel, the fervent freedom-loving crowd. From their perspective, I understand trying to look out for safety against a mob mentality. However, this ridiculous new restriction is not going to save any lives, and it only serves to limit the power of our free speech.

Or… maybe that’s the point?

Express your thoughts by contacting:
Scott Hunter Chief, N.C. State Capitol Police North Carolina
417 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: 919 733 4648 Email: scott.hunter@ncmail.net