Permits, Insurance and Tea Parties

I started the morning knowing exactly how I wanted to respond to the Florida governments decision to cancel the Tea Party.

When I went to bed, I had no idea whether the protesters would do the right thing and buck the Government and meet anyway or if they would bow and let the State win.

Late this morning, word went out that the protest was back on, thus everything I had written earlier was pretty much irrelevant.

Come to think of it - not everything. I still have a peeve to pick with Florida and any other State that says you have to have insurance and permits or any other such nonsense in order to protest.

The idea of needing such is against the first amendment, which clearly states:

"Congress shall make no law... 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."

Insurance and permits are a law created illegally by the Government. Two laws that restrict protests. That is unconstitutional!

Throughout the day I've read people saying that the government insisting on permits and insurance are logical.

No, it's not. Like we saw over the weekend. The illegal limitations, of which they are, tried to stop "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

From what I understand, the only reason the Tea Party is going to be held is because someone foot the bill.

That was the wrong thing to do. The right thing was to assemble anyway. Whether the Government likes it or not - it's our right and there are a lot of people out there who say the same. And since I'm coming to the end of my word limit for the night, let's say...

To be continued...protesting against the odds - Flashback to the 1980's Atlanta protests.

tea party, cape coral, florida, protests, constitution

Owners drop Freedom Tower name for new WTC skyscraper - CNN.com

What's the reason for the name drop?

"...as the building moves out of the planning stage and into full construction and leasing, we believe that going forward it is most practical to market the building as One World Trade Center...we have the responsibility to make sure it is completed and that we utilize the best strategy to make certain it is fully occupied." --Stephen Sigmund

Ok...so keeping the name Freedom Towers will cause the building to not be "fully occupied." Who would be offended by it? Not England. Not France. Not Italy. Not Spain. Not India. Who? Arabs and other clods who hate freedom and sponsor terrorist activities.

So, like, do we really want those type in our country to begin with? No. I don't.

Bloomberg, to no surprise, has taken his usual liberal approach to the renaming.

"If they could rent the whole thing by changing the name, I guess they're going to do that, and they probably from a responsible point of view, should."

Responsible? Yes, let's let money rule the day. Let's put it before the lives of the thousands who died that day. The thousands who died at the hands and bank accounts of those they've changed the name of the towers for, so as not to offend them. G-d forbid we should criticise murderers.

Here's more of Bumberg's thoughts on the subject.

"From a patriotic point of view, is it going to make any difference?"

Mr. Bumberg, you obviously have no idea of what "patriotism" is, so let me remind you.

"Patriot: One who loves, supports and defends his country." --American Heritage Dictionary.

Yes, changing the name does make a difference. The reason the name has changed is to fill a building full of businesses who would be offended to be in a building named "Freedom Towers," a name that was to "demonstrate the country's triumph over terrorism."

Changing a name to make the part of the world that rejects freedom happy, is the opposite of patriotism. It's not defending one's country. It's spitting on it.

To read the full article, click here.