the IDIOT

the criminal arrogance overflows. in case you weren’t aware that copyblight is tyranny:

[…] In the interview, John Moe asked Agent Hayes a very simple question: given that these domains were all seized based solely on the fact that they link to infringing content hosted elsewhere, and all of the same content is also linked from Google, will the Feds seize Google’s domain name? Well, more specifically, Moe asks if ICE could seize Google’s domain name. Amusingly, right after being asked, Hayes conveniently gets cut off, but he does call back and the question is asked again. You can hear the whole thing here: […]

Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google

hear the discussion and catch mike masnick’s refutation of the imperial nut wizard. (more…)

this nonsense is to be expected anymore:

8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment.
A. Right to bear arms
B. Due process
C. Religion
D. Right to counsel

obvious to non-morons, none of the supplied answers is correct. the quizzers assert “C. Religion” is.

the first amendment bars, supposedly, congress from making laws regarding certain areas. that’s it. nothing in the constitution (yes, including the fabled “fourteenth amendment”, ooh-ooh assholes) bars the several states from legislating against religion, even to prohibition of its exercise.

similar to the proud fools thwapping up a hayseed convention over sarah palin noting correctly that the US vice president is “in charge of the united states senate”, here they come thinking they’ve found some new ridiculous thing about christine o’donnell. they’re only parading their ignorance. oh, and shrilling “eek, a mouse!”

ken paulson, “President, the First Amendment Center”, piles on the uneducated smarm: (more…)

according to tom dilorenzo, (more…)

watch the mises.org fools get spanked. watch the mises.org fools have no rebuttal to their spanking:

S oliva:

[...] It’s certainly tempting to say the states should be bound by the second amendment. But the language was clearly written to limit the federal government. [...]

mark:

Oliva claims “the language [of the Second Amendment] was clearly written to limit the federal government.” Is he reading the same Second Amendment I have in my copy of the Constitution? The First Amendment begins “Congress shall pass no law…”. Clearly, the First Amendment was intended to limit the power of the Federal government. The Second Amendment never limits its restrictions to Congress. [...]

(more…)

drivel boy’s feeling the pressure. after his public diss by LRC’s upstart golden boy robe sniffer — sniffed away hurriedly by a cantsellyaian peripheral wound lick — he’s back to do what? not show anyone where in the US constitution is contained language excluding generally the states from the constraints of the “bill of rights”. oh no!

steffy cantsellya has more argument by authority for ya, this time with the N word (negro). (more…)

OMG, steffyboy “kevin gutzman’s droolcup cleaner” kinsella is back at it, pretending to add clarity (and, of course, an air of smoking jacket collegiality among fellow JD airheads and sellouts — well, not so applicable in the case of butler shaffer) while fucking the boat with a large unpluggable hole. stephan P cantsellya is again trying to sell falsehood, alleging that the “bill of rights” is generally (not specifically, as in the case of the first amendment) inapplicable to the states. well, i’ll ask the same old question… again: where in the US constitution, droolcup retard from hell, is that inapplicability expressed statutorily? (more…)

an unusually observant commenter at the mises blog has just raised in an SK post, innocently and dispassionately, one of “lawyer” steffy kinsella’s more embarrassing failures. (more…)

ultra-dummkopf and terminal psycho poser stephan kinsella is back at it, attempting to snow newbies and peripheral types on his contrarian platform of bullshit re kelo v. city of new london.

as usual when using any opportunity at the LRC or mises blog to blow his horn, child kinsella sports, passive-aggressive style, any positive response to his filth he can find. here he points to an old blog post from lew rockwell in which lew writes, “Actual libertarian legal scholarship: N. Stephan Kinsella on ‘A Libertarian Defense of ‘Kelo’ and Limited Federal Power.’”

okay, here’s a challenge to lew rockwell, steffy “IP boy” kinsella, and everybody else who makes or supports the false claim that the “Fifth Amendment’s provisions on eminent domain limit the federal government only”: (more…)

steffan kinsella the psychopathic fool has again asserted that the “bill of rights” isn’t applicable to the states. catch this “logic”: (more…)

can we please finally fuck away for all time the generalized claim that every proposal to reduce something having to do with “speech” is unconstitutional? (more…)

okay, i couldn’t resist. i watched the first two episodes of the first amendment project on the sundance channel.

piety! ignorance! stupidity! arrogance!

i’m surprised the leftist buffoons have the balls to read the first amendment, even as little as it appears in the episodes (a disjointed, rushed reading at the show start). if you click further from the site for commentary, it naturally relies on mid-to-late 20th century “jurists” to provide grist for the government worshiping fools who prance around in robes with “government opponent” stamped on the back. don’t be fooled.

as explained in great detail at this site (wholly unnecessary if you just use your brain and eyeballs), the first amendment of the US constitution is a restriction only on the US congress. period. all the wank-wank bullshit as at firstamendmentcenter.org is an attempt to deny that indisputable fact. don’t believe me? read the fucker:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

supreme court lovers counter with, “incorporation doctrine!” claiming that the fourteenth amendment “incorporates” the first ten (or worse, an arbitrary selection of them) amendments as laws binding upon the states. duh! they already were — though many supposed conservatives will argue that they weren’t intended to be, and therefore were not. well sorry, but they were. there’s nothing in the US constitution that marks the bill of rights as applying only to the federal government. on the contrary, the supremacy clause marked the entire constitution (including future amendments) as “the supreme Law of the Land” (plus, the sixth amendment refers directly to trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”). the problem for leftist dogmatists/opportunists is that even accepting the ludicrous “incorporation doctrine” premise, the first amendment may only be “incorporated” as written. in other words, it only applies to congress. sorry, but there’s no way around it except with lies.

the big problem for leftist first amendment bullshitters is that they put their love and faith in the first amendment as a smaller part of the US constitution. there is such an overwhelming interpretation favorable to their biases that they avoid discussing directly the amendment they claim to support. pretty bad. yet, the full calamity surfaces when you get them to extend beyond the first, into the second amendment. suddenly, people-power interpretation is swapped out for trust in and love for government. government, not the people, is the great protector.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

now the phrase “well regulated militia” not only means something, it means everything!

the phrase “the right of the people” (same as in the first amendment) now changes to mean “the right of the people who work for government”.

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” now means “the revocable privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

“shall not be infringed” becomes, “may not be whittled beyond a bare thread”, so that we can say at least something (a thread) wasn’t taken away. [yes, i've noticed the contradictions among these translation paragraphs; all are held concurrently by some anti-gunners.]

these implied and explicit change attempts are purely to suit the biases of the person claiming them; the constitution is merely pointed to as a support for bullshit, selectively and dishonestly.

yeah, i know i’ve written this before. sorry.

want the real deal on the US constitution? here it is in one paragraph:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
 ~Lysander Spooner, 1870

sundance channel, take the “first amendment project” and shove it right up your ass. your cluelessness is outweighed only by your sanctimony.

anybody who can’t understand what i’ve written so far surely won’t understand that liberty would have been enhanced had the first amendment been honored as written. can’t even bear to get into that now, but i touched on it in the article linked previously.

(and even more related ranting.)