Democrat NH Legislator Wants to Make State "So Unwelcoming That Some Will Choose Not to Come"

Jan. 4, 2013 - A state legislator in New Hampshire thinks that restricting people's freedoms is a good idea. Really. Cynthia Chase, 69, Democrat and fan of Saul Alinsky, is worried about a movement called the "Free Staters," who are Libertarians determined to "free" New Hamphire. Chase is a member of New Hampshire's House of Representatives. She represented the Cheshire 3 district from 2010 to 2012, and has represented the Cheshire 8 district since December 5, 2012.

"Thanks to the Free State Project," says their Facebook page, "thousands of liberty-minded people are moving to New Hampshire, working within and without its political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The plan is to inspire 20,000 or more pro-liberty activists to join our efforts to reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, opt out of federal mandates, protect individual rights, expand free markets, restore constitutional federalism, and much more."

(Video) The Last Best Hope (Rendezvous With Destiny)

Why should you vote this November? Here's the answer, in a 3:10 video. How should you vote this November. Again, here's the answer, in a 3:10 video. Ronald Reagan has a voiceover in this: "This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." (Turn up the volume.) ALSO SEE:

Valentine's Day Red Light Camera Protest

UPDATE, FEB. 14, 2010: See our report at "Video of Red Light Camera Protest in Chicago." Nothing says "I love you" more this Valentine's Day than by protesting those damned red light cameras. Join in the fun and attend a Nationwide Red Light Camera Protest on Valentine's Day in a city - or intersection - near you! A Facebook group, aptly named "Nationwide Red Light Camera Protest" is pushing the idea protesting the cameras. Most of the events will begin at Noon (see the list of cities below for times and locations). The Facebook group is produced by the Liberty Restoration Project, which has video from past red light camera protests. You can hold your own protest in your neighborhood. If you have red light cameras in your city, make signs, gather near a red light camera, and protest! We can supply you with information to hand out to inform drivers of the top 15 reasons why they should be concerned about red light cameras and 5 ways to prevent red light running. Our other suggestion is that you hand out contact information for all your city council representatives, ask drivers to call them, and if you have a bill in your state banning red light cameras, add that information to a flier as well!! If you decide to hold a protest, give us the location of your protest and we'll add it to the list below. Let's make our voices HEARD all throughout the country that we want to BAN THE CAMS! PLEASE be sure to add your photos and videos of your rally to this page afterward!! List Updated February 10: Here's an updated list to the cities that are getting involved and protesting Red Light Cameras this Sunday, Valentine's Day. If your city is on the list, we ask that you join in this protest. If your city is not included, we urge you to rally the troops and have a protest in your city!! We're getting word that the word is getting out about this Valentine's Day protest. Check out the event page for information to print out and distribute in your city. Here's the list of cities already involved: LOW COUNTY RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - SAVANNAH, GA Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon Location: Intersection of Derrene and Abercorn KANSAS CITY RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - KANSAS CITY, MO Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon - 3pm Location: 39th and Southwest Trafficway COLUMBIA RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - COLUMBIA, MO Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon Location: Intersection Broadway and Providence Road AUSTIN RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - AUSTIN, TX Date: Sunday, February 14th, Noon Location: TBA SPRINGFIELD RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - SPRINGFIELD, MO Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon Location: Intersection of Glenstone and Sunshine SANTA MARIA RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - Santa Maria, California Date: Sunday, February 14, 2pm Location: TBA CHICAGO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - CHICAGO, IL Date: Sunday, February 14th, Noon to 3 pm CT Location: Intersection of Addison & Western PHILADELPHIA RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - PHILADELPHIA, PA Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon Location: S Broad St & S Penn Square ST. LOUIS RED LIGHT CAMERA PROTEST - St. Louis, MO Date: Sunday, February 14th, Noon to 3 pm CT Location: Intersection of Clayton and Hanley Road PHOENIX CAMERAFRAUD PROTEST, PHOENIX ARIZONA Date: Sunday, February 14, Noon Location: American Traffic Solutions HQ in Ahwatukee 9801 S 51st Phoenix, AZ 85044 There is another Facebook group called "Red Light Camera Protest" by the Cook County Campaign for Liberty. RELATED: The Liberty Restoration Project - Red Light Traffic Cameras Chicago Red Light Camera Protest: Feb 14th City of Chicago - Red Light Camera Violations (official) Kansas City Courts Overwhelmed By People Protesting Redlight Camera Tickets Tribune Exposes Suburban Red Light Camera Scam - Parking Ticket Geek Chicago 'burb ditches red light cameras, no safety advantage EDITORIAL: The traffic-camera scam - Washington Times Photo Radar Protests Spread Nationwide - CameraFRAUD.com Pinal Cty. sheriff leads protest against speed cameras Video results for RED LIGHT CAMERAS, PROTEST Residents protest red-light cameras at Heath council meeting - NewarkAdvocate.com Police Cameras at Protest Draw Protest - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com Mississippi House Votes to Ban Ticket Cameras; Missouri and Maryland Protest Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed

Tea Parties' "Old" Arguments are Timeless

Commentary by Tom Mannis - Chicago News Bench (CNB) I received a stunningly ignorant comment from "Sam" on Sunday. He thinks that the Tea Party "movement" is ineffective because it is pushing "old tired arguments that just don't work anymore." Poor, dumb Sam. He's wrong, but he's also right - for reasons he does not understand. "Interesting photos. Looks like about 50 people," wrote Sam (it was more like 250 people), "I'm struck by the references to Obama, socialism, communism, etc. Many of the people who engaged in civil rights protests in the early 1960s were tagged as communists and socialists by the white establishment power structure who were against integration. Funny, how standing up against segregation got a lot of people tagged as socialists and communists. It seems to me that many supporters of this "tea party movement" bring little or nothing new to the table, and have to trot out old tired arguments that just don't work anymore. Sam is right in one small way: The arguments are indeed old. In fact, the Tea Party movment's argument for freedom from tyranny is ancient, from the old Greeks and before. But Sam is wrong when he says they are "tired." Sam's notion that being "old" invalidates an idea, or argument or philosophy as "tired" is fundamentally flawed. There are many examples that easily prove this. The belief that murder is wrong, for one, predates known history, but is still universally outlawed. Would Sam argue that laws against stealing are "old" and therefore "tired," meant to be tossed into the "Thing That Don't Work Anymore" trash bin? Everything ages and becomes old, but some things have no expiration date. The human desire for freedom is one of those. One such thing is the argument for freedom from tyranny. After you sift through all the slogans about healthcare "reform," taxes, bailouts and so on, you're left with the essence of the Tea Party "argument," and that is the demand for less government interference in everything from corporate boardrooms to your medicine cabinet. It is the demand for freedom, a demand that is older than ancient Greece. It is a demand that is millenia old. It is the argument around which the Tea Parties orbit. It is older than human memory, yet is desperately screamed out by hundreds of millions of souls around the world everyday. It is older even than humans. Put any animal in a cage and it will scratch itself bloody trying to free itself. "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" When Patrick Henry, on March 23, 1775, made his most famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech to the Continental Congress, the argument he made was ancient. Still, it spurred the First American Revolution. Today, it powers the Second American Revolution, which is being driven by the Tea Partiers. Sam thinks that the "tired" and "old" arguments for freedom "just don't work today." Sam seems content to just give in and let the Government run his life. Not me, not most of you, and certainly not the Tea Partiers. Sam and his Fellow Travelers never seem to be able to admit that Karl Marx, a dead old white man, espoused theories that were old centuries before Marx was born. Marx died in 1883. In 2009, his arguments could be fairly called "old." Although I vehemently disagree with Marx, I am not naive enough to call Marxism "tired," because the reality is that that there are many who clamor for it. That said, it should be noted that far many more millions of people risk their lives and sometimes leave their fortunes to seek freedom from tyranny. The essential argument being made by the Tea Parties, one against tyranny and for freedom, still works. It still motivates. It is what drove people to happily rip apart the Berlin Wall, to stand in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, to ride rafts from Cuba to Florida. Sam wrote that "the white establishment power structure who were against integration." I'm certain he meant Republicans, but there he is wrong again. The power, in the 1960s, was in the hands of the Democrats. In 1966, when the first black person was elected to the U.S. Senate (Edward W. Brooke, a Republican of Massachusetts), everyone in both houses of Congress was white. Many were opposed to civil rights, and most of those opposed were Democrats. It is a fact that some of the people in the civil rights movement of the 1960's were actually communists or socialists. "As the 1960s saw a resurgence of political activity, especially on the Civil Rights front, the [Communist Party] began lending support to groups like CORE and NAACP, both of which had made their way to Seattle and Washington State to help solve the problems of segregation and racism." (Source: Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies at the University of Washington) The fact that communists supported civil rights does not invalidate that cause, of course, but it puts the lie to Sam's implication that communists were not involved with in the civil rights fight. The vast majority of Americans who were supportive of civil rights, of course, were neither communist nor socialist. What Sam seems unaware of is that many of those civil rights soldiers were Republican white kids from Republican families above the Mason-Dixon Line. The Republicans have always been, to the surprise of many public school graduates, in the forefront of civil rights. Republicans, not Democrats, have initiated most of the significant federal civil rights legislation in the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 could not have been passed if not for the Republicans in Congress. With their persistent support, President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) was able to fight his own party to win its passage. Here are the numbers: The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it. (Source) In 1965, Lyndon Johnson sent federal troops to Alabama to ensure school integration. That is often talked about on television and in every public school in America. What you don't often hear about, however, is the fact that Eisenhower supported the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Sadly, however, "the final act became a much watered done affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats. The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realised [sic] that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones." (Source) In the same year, Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas to protect nine black students, as they entered the newly integrated Central High School in Little Rock, Ark. "The Little Rock Nine have become icons of the modern civil rights movement; President Eisenhower has not. How is it that, at the same time we honor and celebrate the dignity and heroism of the Little Rock Nine, we overlook or - even worse - forget Eisenhower's role in this historic event? In "A Matter of Justice" David A. Nichols aims to redress this state of affairs, indicating through the double entendre of his title not only the timeliness of the struggle for civil rights during this pivotal decade, but also the need for a more searching and just appraisal of Eisenhower's legacy." (Source) Why is Eisenhower's role in that event overlooked? Simple. Liberal teachers, leftist news media and the ignorant people produced by their misinformation either purposely omit this good accomplishment by a Republican, or simply don't know about it. Eisenhower the Republican did not stop his civil rights efforts in 1957. Three years later, Eisenhower introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. This, too, is overlooked. The 1960 Civil Rights Act was Eisenhower's response "to a violent outbreak of bombings against churches and schools in the South. Though Eisenhower is not automatically linked to the civil rights issue, his contribution, including the 1957 Act, is important as it pushed the whole civil rights issue into the White House." (Source) The Eisenhower civil rights initiatives took place years before Martin Luther King, Jr. was a national force or Lyndon Johnson became president, and years before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was passed in spite of Democrat efforts to defeat it. Democrats in 2009 are still very excited to have elected the first (half) black man to the presidency, but the Republican Party has a better record for putting black people in major positions. If Sam would open his eyes, he would see that the ideas he calls "old" and "tired" are still fresh. They still invigorate. If they didn't, and if he was right, then two million Tea Partiers would not have marched on Washington recently. If he was right, the Tea Party "movement" would not have been born, the USSR would not have crumbled, and we would not be having this discussion. Photos (c) T.H. Mannis, taken at the Chicago "Silent NO More Tea Party" on October 17, 2009. Conservative Caps, Shirt and more! Leave a Comment - Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Visit us on Twitter!

Gun Control is People Control

"Black Sphere" blogger Kevin Jackson is upset. On second thought, he's downright pissed off. It's a righteous pissed-offedness, as displayed regularly in his excellent blog. His recent rant on the stupidity and dangers of gun control are a good case in point. Mad as hell, K-Jack focuses on his object d'ire and shoots a sidewinder missile straight into it. So the guns in Mexico are supposed to be from the US. Who cares? Like the gun control Liberals really need that as an excuse to try to get rid of the 2nd Amendment? The recent shooting incidents will undoubtedly provide even more manna from heaven for the gun control crowd. And that manna is the potential for money. Like any "crisis," gun deaths in America can be exploited too. There are those who exploit the issue by overstating it, then using it to raise money (for "non-profit" organizations that pay fat salaries) or to build a political career upon. Or both, sometimes. Guns have replaced rich White Republican men as the new Boogeyman, despite the fact that guns don't shoot people. Like Democrat Liberal lunatics care about the facts. We all know that it was Bush getting teenage girls pregnant, and not horny teenage boys, right? The logic of putting the blame where it belongs is lost on Liberal nitwits. Try telling a Liberal that a gun (an inanimate object) doesn't kill people, it's people who kill people. Gun control hasn't worked at all in keeping firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. Watch their eyes roll back, the tick under their left eye speed up, their breathing become shallower. They cannot grasp the fact that plenty of murders are committed with cars, baseball bats, butcher knives, rope, beer bottles, bare hands, and so on. The bad guys have their guns, and they far outnumber the police, who cannot be everywhere at once. Guns have been politicized, but not baseball bats or other blunt objects. And that's the point. It's the politicization of guns that has people crazy over the issue. That insanity has killed people by denying them the right and opportunity to effectively defend themselves from attackers. It makes as much sense to outlaw guns, as it does to outlaw cars. How many auto fatalities are there each year because of cars? Thousands. If there were no cars, then there would be no drunk driving, or crazy spouses running over each other, or people talking on cell phones while driving, who kill pedestrians. Get my point? I get your point, Kevin. The average Lefty doesn't, sadly. As you point out in your post, however, there are some Leftists who do get it. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Kim Jung-il, Pol Pot, and a long list of others. Oh, and Barack Obama. Chicago News Bench RSS Feed CommieBama Hats and More

In Illinois, Freedom is Just a Word

Freedom's just another word for nothing in Illinois. A fine post today from Chicago Bungalow tells us that Illinois compares poorly to other states in terms of economic freedom, personal freedom, overall freedom. We all know that corruption costs the citizens of Illinois money, and lots of it. But is the government intrusiveness characteristic of Illinois Democrats also costing us our freedom and our ability to prosper? The Mercatus Center, George Mason University, has published a new study that ranks American states on the level of economic, social, and personal freedom... Get over to CB to read the George Mason Univ. study, as well as more of CB's own good observations. RELATED: Unfree in Illinois - Steve Chapman Chicago is a Miserable Place America’s 10 most miserable cities Chicago, city of broad strictures -- Chicago Tribune Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Cool Stuff...

Obama Threatens Our Constitutional Rights

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is part of our Constitution. Obama and his Chicago Mafia, however, don't like the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they don't much like the Constitution as a whole. But let's concentrate here on the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Gun owners - legal, law abiding gun owners - have been under attack by the anti-Constitution crowd for decades. But now, as pointed out by NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the rights of gun owners is in greater danger than ever. (As a historical note, you should know that the first thing that any dictator does when they first take power is to take away the guns away from those they wish to subjugate.) The NRA-ILA states on their web site: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will take oaths to uphold the Constitution, but we know by their deeds and their words that they believe the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must be severely restricted. We know the people Obama will appoint to his cabinet and to other federal offices will be almost universally anti-gun. Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is a perfect example of the hostility the Obama White House will have for gun owners’ rights. Emanuel, now an anti-gun congressman from Illinois, was once described as the Clinton administration’s "point man on gun control." Continued... Back to the dictators and gun control: In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany's freely elected government enacted a "Law on Firearms and Ammunition." This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities....."Proof of need" was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license....As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits....Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared. Full essay... ALSO SEE: Six Things You Should Know About the Second Amendment Jews and "Gun Control" In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Chicago, Least Free US City

Friend John Ruberry takes note of a recent article in Reason Magazine that ranks 35 US cities in regards to personal freedom. Most freedoms: Las Vegas. Least freedoms: Chicago. "There are tons of nit-picky laws in Barack Obama's hometown - although the widely ridiculed ban on foie gras was repealed," notes John. He goes on about the ever-increasing number of police cameras, too. "Perhaps the people who live and work near these boxes feel safer, but to me, it's a heads-up call that I've entered a high crime area. Roll up the windows and lock the doors." Indeed, and CPD Supt. Jody Weis just loves the cameras and recently told the City Council that he wants more - but the kind you cannot see. You can read John's entire post at Marathon Pundit... So, John, we'll just have to keep the windows up and doors locked at all times. Of course, as soon as the City of Chicago's unconstitutional handgun ban is thrown out, you can carry one of those in the glove box.

Those Canadian Bastards Hate Freedom

The Canadians do not have the same free speech rights as we do south of their border. But don't worry - the Democrats in the U.S. will fix that soon enough. A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report. "We know under the Supreme Court of Canada [and] under tribunals of this country that there are reasonable limits [to freedom of expression,]" Faisal Joseph, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Steyn dispute, said in a LifeSiteNew.com report. FULL STORY.... RELATED: Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada? Why are Canadians Forbidden to Express Their Church's Teaching? Blogs For Victory » Liberal Fascism

Anti-Eminent Domain Meeting Successful

A group of freedom loving Chicagoans met at the Lincoln Restaurant at 4008 N. Lincoln Avenue on Tuesday evening, March 11. The excellent recap was written by Ralf Seiffe – ralf29@att.net , the moderator of Tuesday night’s events provided the text of the recap and Rich Johns, another speaker, added the links. The meeting had approximately 40 people in the audience. A lively conversation followed several speakers. Also in attendance was Antoine Members, who is running for Congress in the 1st Congressional District against (Black Panther) Bobby Rush. Mr. Members is strongly anti-eminent domain. I intend to write more about this issue for a long time. I hope fellow bloggers - liberal, conservative, Left, Right, Democrat, Republican - can all agree that the abuse of eminent domain is an abuse of human rights. This issue cuts across all political lines. It's really that simple, folks. Finally, I hope that groups such as the Castle Coalition, the Save Lincoln Square folks, and the recently defeated Lawndale Coalition Recap of Chicago Town Hall Meeting on Eminent Domain Tuesday night (3-11-2008) saw another lively meeting of Chicago ’s Town Hall Conservatives at its regular monthly dinner at the Lincoln Restaurant. This month’s topic was Eminent Domain as seen from a practical, theoretical and an historic point-of-view another year after the Kelo Supreme Court decision. Three perspectives were presented by Imre Hidvegi, an owner of Chicago Soccer; John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute and by Ralf Seiffe, Moderator, respectively. Alderman Gene Schulter was also invited to add the government’s perspective. Unfortunately neither the Alderman nor a representative appeared; we understand that the Alderman may be suffering from a new municipal disease known by the initials “E.D.”. This topic logically follows last month’s Tax Increment Financing topic. It is related and timely because Chicago is busy with at least two large-scale municipal takings in the Lawndale neighborhood and in Lincoln Square . One of the targets is Mr. Hidvegi’s business, Chicago Soccer - www.chicagosoccer.net , a large sports retailer located on Western Avenue just north of Lawrence . He recently learned that the city was targeting his business to turn it into a parking lot in one of three plans apparently supported by the truant alderman. Mr. Hidvegi reported that he later met with city officials who were unable to tell him what his business would be provided in the plan or whether he would even own his property under the plan. It is easy to understand why he thinks the city’s plan is simply a scheme to “steal” his property. Nevertheless, a coalition has formed to challenge the city and the neighbors have derailed the city’s plans—at least temporarily. John Tillman is the CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, a fast-rising think tank devoted to expanding liberty and free markets in the hostile environment of Illinois . - www.illinoispolicyinstitute.org . Mr. Tillman asked why ostensibly conservative politicians begin to move left soon after taking office and why leftish politicians just continue to move further left. His answer was the irresistible lobbying by those who benefit from government spending. The solution, he reported, is to add a third source of influence that operates outside of the political parties and politicians. He said it is a mistake for liberty lovers to put our faith in politicians or political parties that instead we should establish permanent support for freedom. He closed by assigning a bit of homework, asking “How can we make liberty cool?” Carl Segvich , the 11th Ward Republican Committeeman also gave an extemporaneous report on the situation in the Bridgeport neighborhood. Bruno Behrend, the WKRS radio host Monday and Friday 10:00 AM to 11:45 AM 1220 AM or anywhere at www.WKRS.com gave a stand-up on the Constitutional Convention question which will appear on the November ballot. He’s for it and has boasted he will appear at any group’s meeting to explain why. Keep that in mind when you need a dynamic speaker. The question and answer session distinguished between a “quick take” version of condemnation and the legitimate police powers of government when a property threatens the health and safety of a neighborhood. One of our first time attendees gave a report on the Lawndale situation and how it was going badly from the resident’s point of view. One other development—and potentially the most important—is the growing realization that there are many issues that are not “left” or “right” but more about us versus city hall, liberally defined. Tom Mannis - http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com - noted that we are not very good at getting the word out about our topics and that freedom lovers should depend on each other and take advantage of the new media networks that have developed over the last several years. So, we’ll send this to Tom and keep him up to speed on the Town Hall Conservative schedule. We’ll convene again on April 8 for another sparkler. Related links: Save Lincoln Square www.savelincolnsquare.com The Castle Coalition – a project of the Institute for Justice – join email list for updates http://www.castlecoalition.org/ Ben Javorsky’s TIF archive at The Chicago Reader http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/ Alderman Schulter protests mischaracterizations in Lincoln Square eminent domain case Inside: January 23-29, 2008 http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/58554_162.htm Council OKs acquisition of private property - News-Star: January 16, 2008 http://www.pioneerlocal.com/newsstar/news/741706,sn-eminent-011608-s1.article Council backs off Lincoln Square seizures - Chi-Town Daily News: January 3, 2008 http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago+news/2008/1/3/Council_backs_off_Lincoln_Square_seizures Breaking news in Lincoln Square - - Alderman Schulter pulls eminent domain ordinance from City Council agenda - Sun-Times Neighborhoods with Mark Konkol: December 10, 2007 http://blogs.suntimes.com/neighborhoods/2007/12/breaking_news_in_lincoln_squar.html Chicago’s Lincoln Square faces eminent domain threat -Illinoize blog: December 4, 2007 http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2007/12/chicagos-lincoln-square-faces-eminent.html Fair warning The Reader: September 14, 2007 http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/070914/ Community Development Commission, The City of Chicago – with meeting schedule – if link below doesn’t work start at www.cityofchicago.org - click on City Departments at the top of the homepage, scroll down to and click on Planning and Development, under Commissions/Agendas click on Community Development Commission where there is a schedule of upcoming meetings. At last month’s meeting Ben Joravsky mentioned details of these meetings are often not announced until 24-48 hours before the meeting http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1801314163.1203539738@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadedgiggemkcefecelldffhdfgn. Other local news sources: Inside – serving Chicago ’s north side neighborhoods - look for Peter Buol http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/1592_162.htm Medill News Service – look for John Riley http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=81085 News-Star / Chicago Journal – look for Lorraine Swanson http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=142&ArticleID=3985 Liberty / Freedom related links: Free to Choose – 10-part documentary with Milton Friedman streaming online http://www.ideachannel.tv The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman http://www.freetochoosemedia.com/production/POC/index.php The Road To Serfdom – Friedrich Hayek – Reader’s Digest version, April 1945 http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf

Nanny State Threatens Freedoms

Canadian writer Arthur Weinreb points out the dangers of letting the government become too powerful. As one of only three countries in the world where it is illegal to pay for most medical services (Cuba and North Korea being the other two), it is easy to justify more and more laws regarding health. Using the rationalization of keeping the costs of tax and spend governments down, governments feel justified in passing more and more legislation that takes away what little freedom Canadians have left. A couple of recent events tend to show that converting the country into a full blown nanny state will accelerate during the next year. FULL ARTICLE...

Nanny State Update: Chicago and Yale

Big Brother is Big Nanny. The government bureaucrats and their philosophical cousins in academia just knows they can run your personal life better than you can. And by God, they're out to control every aspect of your life. Bit by bit, drip by drip, the State's claws dig a bit deeper into your soul every day, the Constitution be damned. Here are two examples, one from Chicago's City Council and one from Yale University: City: Smoking Ban Will Apply To Actors Onstage Broadway In Chicago: "Ruling Violates 1st Amendment" Imagine those Broadway classics -- or plays about Prohibition, organized crime or smoke-filled political rooms -- being performed in Chicago by actors who don't have cigarettes dangling from their lips or smoldering in their hands. It could happen, now that aldermen have taken a stand that, a colleague warns, runs contrary to the First Amendment. By a 4 to 2 vote, the City Council's Buildings Committee voted Friday not to exempt actors from Chicago's smoking ban -- not even when smoking is an "integral part of the theatrical performance." FULL STORY, CBS-2... Yale’s theater edict — Thumbs down A New Haven Register editorial 05/02/2007 In a weird overreaction to the massacre at Virginia Tech, Yale banned realistic stage weapons from student productions. For a brief moment, Yale actors were staging sword duels with balloons or wooden cutouts. The edict by Betty Trachtenberg, dean of student affairs, has been reversed by Yale administrators who cited concerns about inhibiting free speech. It should have been dumped for simply being silly. Now, however, student productions must warn audiences in advance when performances will contain scenes with fake weapons. The requirement of a warning is as fatuous as the ban. Will the next production of "Hamlet" at Yale carry a triple-X rating for extreme violence? (Source:

Cool Video: Song Sung Blue in a Burqa

The ladies sing in English. Don't let the German guy scare you off, this is cool.

The Taliban of Afghanistan banned music and forced women to wear burqas. Things have changed, and this video highlights it. Several women in this video rock out, sarcastically wearing blue burqas. Their lyrics note that women in Afghanistan can even wear blue jeans now. This video is a report from "Die Nacht" (The Night), a German language news show. It's fun because it's happy that these women are freely expressing themselves, but also because they sing in English. There are German subtitles, of course, as this is a German show. But I was most fascinated by the fact that this rock video gives a glimpse into life in Afghanistan today, and it was shot mostly outside on the streets of some city (I assume Kabul) in plain view during the day - and without any apparent fear of retribution. God Bless America. BIG hat tip to Backyard Conservative for this one.