Posted on

Reader calls residents who don’t Kiss Arse ,”very disruptive”

free speech

Kim rarely ever finds the good in the town or in people, you never see him around town at the pride event, gun violence and awareness, daffodils festivities at van ness, seen at resturants, seen at any park or graydon. Does he volunteer anywhere? Not sure the motivation but it’s very disruptive. If he knows better, perhaps he should run for an open seat upfront, not preaching from the back seat.

Posted on

A new tone for public comment limits in 2017?

Village Council Special Public Meeting

file photo by Boyd Loving Village Council Meeting

Matt Kadosh , Staff Writer, @MattKadosh6:30 p.m. EST December 25, 2016

Belleville BOE may ditch ‘Gong Show’ clock


Such is the sound heard by residents who speak longer than the permitted times during Belleville Board of Education meetings.

In Essex County, time lmiits are imposed by some municipal councils and boards of education, and not by others.

Posted on

Reader says Civility actually encourages disagreement, conflict, and the passionate exchange of ideas



Reader says Civility actually encourages disagreement, conflict, and the passionate exchange of ideas

I’m curious how a brainstorming meeting about respecting others, complete with disagreement, could become “social intimidation tactics”, disallowing the raising of an eyebrow. And as per the intro Patrick Henry graphic, I’d like to include the rest of Henry’s statement: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry was a slaveholder.

Democracy requires disagreement. It’s only in totalitarian societies that dissent is silenced. Civility actually encourages disagreement, conflict, and the passionate exchange of ideas. Civility provides a platform for debate. Civility is not antithetical to free speech. We all have a lowest common denominator and our exercise of free speech can devolve into insults, verbal abuse, or hate speech. And while I think we can generally find a more grown-up way to express ourselves, I am single-minded about free speech being the cornerstone of a free society.

The problem is, when the mud-slinging starts, we can all get dirty, and whatever the “political debate” was about does too. In a democracy, not only should everyone have a voice, but it is the civic duty of everyone to use that voice. Insults, character assassinations, namely a suspension of civil, respectful disagreement – that silences dissent.


Don't wait to WOW her! Save 25% when you select early delivery for your Valentine's Day orders at Use Promo Code: DLVRCUPID at checkout. (Offer Ends 02/12/2015) 14 dyas free

Posted on

“If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill”, Report Finds



“If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill”, Report Finds  | 21 January, 2015

This post is about an issue that is by now a bit dated (though the topic as such certainly isn’t), but we have only just become aware of it and it seemed to us worth rescuing it from the memory hole. In late 2013, the then newest issue of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short) defined a new mental illness, the so-called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

As informs us, the definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:

[…] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

In short, as Natural News put it: According to US psychiatrists, only the sheeple are sane.

Every time a new issue of the DSM appears, the number of mental disorders grows – and this growth is exponential. A century ago there were essentially 7 disorders, 80 years ago there were 59, 50 years ago there were 130, and by 2010 there were 374 (77 of which were “found” in just seven years). A prominent critic of this over-diagnosing (and the associated over-medication trend) is psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan.

(Excerpt) Read more at …

Posted on

Reader says Criticism and the resulting public discourse, I believe, does much more good than harm


Reader says Criticism and the resulting public discourse, I believe, does much more good than harm

I am a strong believer in free speech no matter how stupid, hateful, or unpopular that speech is, but I suppose if you twisted my arm I could compromise and allow bans on one form of speech. That would be blowhard elected officials singlehandedly defying the New Jersey State Sunshine Law by egotistically grabbing the public microphone (!) and executing one of the most exquisite, hypocritical, logic-twisting, irony-defining, triple-twister-with-a-backflip dives into the capacious pool of numbnutted man-child foolishness imaginable by breezily calling for censorship and limits on free speech – which I find hateful and “excessively objectionable.”

I’m just kidding of course, because by allowing people to express their wrongheaded opinions at imprudently-convened unofficially official privately public meetings, you are giving others a chance to respond to and criticize those ideas (see: these comments). The resulting public discourse, I believe, does much more good than harm. And although some mistakenly claim that restrictions on free speech are unlikely to be abused in Orwellian and Authoritarian ways in the USA (what with our infallible government and all), you’ll find plenty of such instances from the last century of American history alone.

TaylorMade RBZ Stage 2

Posted on

Obama administration looks to curtail free speech and squelch dissent with New IRS 501c Regulations


Obama administration looks to curtail free speech and squelch dissent with New IRS 501c Regulations

commentary by Ron DuBois
Jan 27

Well, once again I am saddened by the illegal and unconstitutional machinations of our Government. The fraud and illegal maneuverings of the last three elections pale in comparison to this. The IRS is issuing “regulations” that would prevent 501 (c) (4) organizations – mainly Conservative organizations – from doing just about anything opposing the President. People cannot support a group or candidate, or even mention them, can’t donate money, or even volunteer their time. They cannot do a get-out-the-vote drive, hold a bi-partisan meeting, or hand out flyers. Nothing. This would effectively prevent any opposition from being mounted against any Democrat, the President, or any Presidential appointment. The IRS does this knowing there is insufficient time to mount a legal challenge prior to the November elections.
I would hope there would be a way for Congress to intervene, but the Democrats still control the Senate. This is a major, major, development.                    Ron D.

New IRS Regs can Tip 2014 Elections

With his signature ‘stroke of the pen’, Pres. Obama’s IRS has proposed sweeping new powers to oversee campaign laws. As you will see, these rules stack the deck against opposition to the President.

Under a proposed regulation, Pres. Obama is using the IRS to close the loophole that allows §501(c)(4) groups to spend 49% of their budget on elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

By itself, that disclosure may not be bad, but the new IRS regs do not stop there. If these rules go into effect, many of the activities readers are engaged in right now could lead to fines and imprisonment.

The new rules require reporting on all §501 (c)(4) donations that engage in any form of political activity.  (See below for the expanded definitions of ‘political activity’.) But, the same does not hold true for groups like Planned Parenthood that can segregate their donations between abortion activities and other activities.

While most conservative groups use §501 (c)(4) organizations, liberal groups tend to use §527 organizations that do not fall under these new rules.

For the first time in our history, the rules consider administration appointments and the confirmation process itself as political activities.  This give the IRS the authority to police opposition to any administration nominations.

Once an issue has been raised for or against a candidate or appointee, the IRS sees discussion of that issue or even retaining information about that issue in website archives as political activity that can be controlled.  This includes distributing voter guides, registering voters or getting out the vote drives.  While one can argue that voter guides can be distributed by either party, therefore this applies to liberals and conservatives alike, not really. Once the practice is controlled by the government, the sitting administration is the only one left that can guide the electorate.

These are the proposed regulatory changes:

1.       The IRS would declare that a broadly expanded category of “candidate related political activity”, including voter registration drives and non-partisan voter education, is not beneficial to the community as a whole and does not promote social welfare.  Therefore it is treated as political speech.

2.       The definition of “candidate” is expanded to include anyone who is proposed by another for selection, nomination, or appointment to any public office in a political organization, or to be a Presidential or Vice-Presidential elector.

3.       “Candidate political activity” would include the appointment and confirmation of executive branch nominees.

4.       Issue oriented communications would be treated as “candidate related political activity” even if it is neutral or non-biased or if it is just intended to explain a non-electoral action such as a vote on pending legislation.  Voter guides and get-out-the-vote drives would be defined as “candidate-related political activity.”

5.       “The Treasury Department and the IRS contend that content previously posted by an organization on its Web site that clearly identifies a candidate and remains on the Web during the specified pre-election period would be treated as candidate-related political activity.”

6.       Any event an organization hosts within the 60/30 day election timeframe, at which a candidate appears, whether or not it was previously scheduled, would constitute “candidate-related activity.”

7.       The definition of “express advocacy” is radically expanded to include any communication that makes “reference to a particular issue or characteristic distinguishing the candidate from others.”  (For example, during an election that included Pro-Life and Pro-Choice candidates, any reference to the abortion issues would become express advocacy, even if the election was not mentioned.)

8.       The IRS would include statements about political parties, not just candidates, in its definition of express advocacy.

9.       Any contribution to a §501(c) organization that engages in “candidate-related political activity” would itself constitute “candidate-related political activity” by the donor.

10.   Contributions would be defined to include in-kind donations and volunteer services as well as cash.

This regulation severely represses Free Speech and Free Association of those opposing the president, while leaving his supporters relatively untouched. While it is likely most of this ruling is unconstitutional, the point is moot for the short term.  By the time any opposition case makes its way through the court system, the 2014 elections will be over.

Then there is the perception issue.  The media will hail the fairness of finally forcing §501 (c)(4) organizations to reveal their donors while ignoring the colossal trampling of Free Speech.

There still is an opportunity until February 27th to make comments to the IRS on IRS REG-134417-13.