freedom | Ain't Complicated

Shop. Drop. Hop.

Shop — as in, shop all you want and set up shop all you want.

Drop — as in, drop the above notion(s).

Hop — as in, hop right along to other ventures and venture-ers.

Now, before any further explanations of the title or of the above explanations, a quote to rivet in your head:

“We don’t make haphazard decisions about risks here at CPSC.”
Scott Wolfson, CPSC spokesman

Good. That sounds commendable enough to me. I mean, any reasonable person should be in favor of not making that kind of decision.

With no further introduction or commentary….

New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide

Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15 million, thanks to a new government campaign.

The “Resale Round-up,” launched by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, enforces new limits on lead in children’s products and makes it illegal to sell any items that don’t meet those limits or have been recalled for any other reason.

[…]

In order to comply, stores, flea markets, charities and individuals selling used goods — in person or online — are expected to consult the commission’s 24-page Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers (pdf) and its Web site for a breakdown of what they can’t sell.

Violators caught selling anything on the enormous list face fines of up to $100,000 per infraction and up to $15 million for a related series of infractions.

Waddle that do for eBay, Craig’s List, Amazon, Roth’s Curiosity Corner, Anabaptist Bookstore, and your great aunt’s garage sale?

😯

Breaking Discovery: I was ready to publish this post. I decided to pause long enough to have a peek at the CPSC site. Here’s a quote:

CPSC’s Internet surveillance team
is monitoring
online retailers and auction sites
for sales of recalled and hazardous products.
CPSC 9 Aug 09 Press Release

Canada: Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

More good news (I guess) on the freedom of speech front:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

It also marks the first major failure of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

[…]

All sides seem to agree, however, that the stage is set for pitched battle in federal court, where CHRT rulings can be appealed. Another less likely outcome is for Parliament itself to repeal or amend Section 13, a law that even supporters say needs updating in the age of the Internet.

Source: National Post — Hate speech law unconstitutional

Military Internment Camps

In the USA???

American concentration camps…for American citizens???

In his piece More On Internment Camps, Chuck Baldwin (whoever he is), quotes some other guy:

“When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist.”

That other guy (as I recall) had this to say at the end of his own piece on the subject of FEMA concentration camps:

FEMA Prison Camps

We choose to elect politicians who don’t want us to bring water bottles onto planes, because (for better or for worse) that’s what’s important to our society right now. I don’t remember anyone electing a politician who wants to throw millions of Americans into prison camps. To make effective electoral decisions, you need to maintain a healthy skepticism, and not go off the deep end and suppose that every Halliburton contract is a slippery slope leading to Americans being gassed in military concentration camps. If you see barbed wire around a train yard, consider the possibility of other explanations (like the train company doesn’t need stuff being stolen) before you conclude that the Illuminati are out to kill you.

So what’s the truth?

How should I know?!

But, if nothing else, it’s an interesting story that includes a conspiracy theory, American concentration camps, and the Illuminati.

We report; you deride. 😆

Are You a Fishing Spot?

Or to put it another way, did you cause anyone’s flag to wave?

Still not getting my drift?

Facts are stubborn things: Flag the fishy spots!

Facts are stubborn things, indeed. 😯

OK, so maybe Macon Phillips will end up resigning or being fired over that Facts Are Stubborn Things, If You Smell Something Fishy, Be An Informant post at the White House blog. Or maybe we will end up losing some of our trust in those with whom we interact, as we wonder whether they will find us fishy in some way. Or maybe freedom of press and informants will co-exist just fine

But, really, what about what we say?

How did your speech and/or email communications qualify today? Or Facebook or Twitter or MySpace or Xanga or Blogger or WordPress or other online forums?

Something fishy?

Will you and your writing/speaking make a good fishing spot?

Would you want someone to inform on you?

Look. What the White House is thinking and opining is important enough.

But what God opines and thinks is infinitely of greater importance and consequence.

“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise” (Proverbs 10:19).

“He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction” (Proverbs 13:3).

“Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23).

“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:36,37).

“I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me” (Psalm 39:1).

“Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

Oh, you’re wondering why I would file this under Endangered Christians? Hmmm. If this fishing expedition sticks, do you really think it will be remain under its publicly posted limitations?

Now chew on that one, will ya?

After all, facts are stubborn things!

Life and Freedom Today

The Game of Life

The online version of a popular board game from many Americans’ childhood includes an option for players to choose homosexual marriage and child-rearing as a way of life.

Through the Shockwave.com website, even children can download and play a free trial version of The Game of Life, the first game ever created by Mr. Milton Bradley in 1860.

The player’s first option in the online version is to choose a persona based on pictures that clearly depict men and women. Shortly thereafter, the game invites players to choose a spouse, regardless of the potential spouse’s sex.

So that’s life.

But do they also create the option for skipping marriage altogether and just shacking up with your “significant other” (I despise that expression!)?

And the option to divorce?

Or have an abortion?

For the record, the board version of the game also allows taking a same-sex spouse.

So…add another point to freedom’s score. 🙄

And speaking of freedom….

Freedom in the 50 States

Index of Personal and Economic Freedom

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on other individuals’ ability to do the same.

[…]

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom.

As I recall, Oregon ranks #27 overall.

For perspective, I expect many people in the world would say we don’t have anything to fuss about regarding freedom here in the States. Even if they would have to live in New York or Maryland.

Islam: What Will You Not Say?

The Erosion of Free Speech

Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped, terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

Islamabad informed the European Union countries that the backlash to perceived insults to the “religion of peace” could jeopardize “inter-religious harmony” and result in uncontrollable attacks on other diplomatic missions abroad. A high-level delegation representing the Pakistani government was to travel to Brussels to further warn EU officials of the liabilities of free expression.

This apocryphal grandstanding, in which Islamabad seeks to eradicate free speech and reclassify it as an offensive hate crime, is part and parcel of the insidious Islamic effort to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate under shariah law. Paradoxically, in most of the Muslim world, the right of free speech is nonexistent. Verbal and physical attacks on non-Muslims are rampant, as is death for apostates, terrorism training for youth, hate indoctrination of non-Muslims in mosques and schools and the oppression of Christians, Hindus and Jews. But Muslims feel free to use democratic precepts in the service of their own radical ideology to, ultimately, overthrow liberty, eliminate individual rights and destroy freedoms in Western societies. They seek prohibitions on free expression to strengthen Islam, pave the way toward Islamization and keep the Western public ill informed and unaware of potential threats to the democratic way of life. By couching this effort as merely the elimination of offensive speech, they conceal their true goal of undermining the laws of Western societies, specifically the very foundation of democracy – free speech.

This goal was dramatically illustrated in March of 2008, when the 57 Muslim states that make up the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) struck a blow against free speech by successfully forcing through the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The amendment, requiring extensive changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, officially characterizes as abuse and an act of religious discrimination any criticism of Islam. It also calls for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report any individuals and news media issuing negative comments about Islam.

In June, this limitation on free speech was further underscored when representatives of two non-governmental organizations sought to address stonings, honor killings and female genital mutilation sanctioned under shariah law. As part of the effort to mute criticism of Islam, the Egyptian UNHRC delegate demanded that the speakers be silenced, proclaiming, “Islam will not be crucified in this Council.”

Thus, banned from UNHRC sessions is criticism of shariah laws that oppress women, condemn homosexuals and threaten converts and non-Muslims. Also banned are statements against Islamic law-sanctioned child marriage, honor killings, the hanging of homosexuals and the murder of apostates.

The United Nations is not the only front where Islamic gag orders are in place. Canada’s Human Rights Act….

Be sure to read more (if not all) of the full article.

HT: Persecution.org