Tag Archives: Free speech

Hypocrisy On Parade: Michelle Obama Praises Free Speech on China Trip That Banned Journalists

ObamaChina

There is no shame felt by those who think they are gods and gifts to mankind.

The White House banned journalists from accompanying Michelle Obama on her trip to China and explained that it was because the purpose of her trip is not political. Some news outlets even repeated the White House’s assertion of the non-political nature of the visit without mentioning that the press was not allowed to accompany them. So much for the “most transparent White House in history”.

In a speech rife with political overtones, she lectured the Chinese:

“And that’s why it’s so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media; because that’s how we discover the truth.”

“Truth” is of course whatever the Obama regime says is “the truth”.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.

So Michelle Obama lectures a communist police state about free speech standards, while Obama is busy spying on journalists and spurring the Democrats in the Senate to redefine who is allowed First Amendment Press and Speech Rights, while restricting access to information in the U.S.

 

First Wookie In China

Call the Hypocrisy Police: Michelle Obama Praises Free Speech on China Trip That Banned Journalists

The White House banned journalists from accompanying Michelle Obama on her trip to China and explained that it was because the purpose of her trip is not political. Some news outlets even repeated the White House’s assertion of the non-political nature of the visit without mentioning that the press was not allowed to accompany them.

But in a speech that sounded at times to be extremely political, she also said the following:

“And that’s why it’s so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media; because that’s how we discover the truth.”

So Michelle Obama lectures a communist police state about free speech standards, while the White House is spying on journalists and restricting access to information in the U.S.. Double-standard much?

Then, Michelle Obama goes on to give the U.S. media a not-so-subtle jab (maybe because she thought they were shut out of the event):

“My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens. And it’s not always easy, but we wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.”

Based on the White House’s reputation for failing to be transparent and the President’s griping about the press, this ironic platitude was fluffier than the rice that came with her Peking Duck.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to 2011, when President Obama expressed this sentiment, as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

Gotcha, Mrs. Obama. Not for anything in the world.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, Politics

Obama To Surrender Remaining U.S. Control of Internet Over to ‘The Global Community’

TrojanObama

Russia Invades Ukraine, Obama goes on vacation.  China flexes muscle over Japan, Obama plays golf.  While the world preps for WWIII – Obama cuts military forces to pre WWII Levels.  Today he surrenders U.S. control over the internet.

All one can say is – Trojan Horse.  That is what Obama is.

Kiss the last frontier of free information and communication goodbye as the Obama hands it over to the screwed-up mess that is the ‘global community’.

U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet

The Obama regime announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move likely to please international critics but alarm many business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.

It’s WaPo – so link to headline and description ONLY.  But further info can be gleaned here:

Internet giveaway weakens cybersecurity, opens door to Web tax

The U.S. government’s plan to give away authority over the Internet’s core architecture to the “global Internet community” could endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S. — and open the door to a global tax on Web use.

“U.S. management of the internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away — especially in return for nothing,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences.”

The U.S. Commerce Department announced late Friday it would relinquish control of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the organization charged with managing domain names, assigning Internet protocol addresses and other crucial Web functions — after its current contract expires next year.

In response to months of mounting criticism from the global community over sweeping National Security Surveillance programs leaked by former agency contractor Edward Snowden, the administration surrendered to allegations it had too much influence over the Web through ICANN, which designates the roadmap from web-connected devices to websites and servers across the globe.

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton said. “If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes.  It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

ICANN’s Lebanese-born CEO Fadi Chehadé had already recently discussed setting up an office in Geneva — the location of the largest U.N. presence outside New York. If folded into the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union, the organization would have access to a significant revenue stream outside of member contributions for the first time.

“What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone,” Whiton said.

The greater danger posed by the giveaway lies with the security of the Internet itself. While the U.S. has never used ICANN in a war or crisis situation, the potential exists for it to obstruct Internet commerce or deter foreign cyber attacks – powerful tools in the globalized information age.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Sharia Implementation: Posting Anything “Mean” About Muslims, Is Now A Federal Criminal Act

ObamaShhhharia

The First Amendment is dead as U.S. Attorney says posting anything negative about Islam is a Federal violation of civil rights laws.

The hits from the Obama regime just keep on coming, and coming and coming.

Yesterday it was reported that Obama’s regime (with help from John McCain)  is committing treason by arming Al Qaeda-backed rebels in Syria who slaughtered an entire Christian village.

syria-christian-massacre

Members of the Free Syrian Army reportedly attacked the Christian-dominated al-Duvair village in Reef on the outskirts of Homs on Monday, where they massacred its citizens, including women and children…The U.S. and other Western governments that are backing the FSA have acknowledged the presence of jihadists but insist that they’re only a small part of the rebel movement. However, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups have been at the front of the rebel movement since day one of the Syrian war that began two years ago. According to German intelligence, 95 percent of the rebels aren’t even Syrian.

The slaughter was committed as an effort by the Jihadists to implement Sharia Law in Dictator Assad’s formerly secularist Syria.

Why is this issue of concern for us in America?  Well, aside from Obama helping to create an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East, the Obama regime is implementing by default, Sharia right here as part of Federal Law.

U.S. Attorney for the Obama Federalies  asserts posting the truth about Jihadists and radical Islamists is now a violation of Federal law.  This is defacto implementation of Sharia Law under the guise of protecting ‘civil rights’ for Jihadists and radical Muslims.   Interestingly, that application of ‘civil rights laws’  does not extend to Christians.  Everyone, including Muslims are free to demonize, denounce and insult Christianity and Christians for their faith and no such criminal violation of  ‘civil rights laws’ will be applied or upheld.

Well, I for one will continue to post the TRUTH about Jihadists and radical Muslims until I am forced to stop.  And you can be sure, this regime is going to attempt to force us to shut up.

Why do you think they obtained all that data and collected all those e-mails, cell numbers and texts from the press corps?

You need to be asking yourself, ‘how long before speaking ill of homosexuals, or the Democrats or Obama will be made a Federal crime?’  My guess is soon now.  This regime has reached the point of power that it believes it can do whatever it wants to do without any consequences.   Obama and the MarxoFascist war on the First Amendment and the press has reached the bombardment phase.

Think Hitler versus the Munich Post in the 30’s.  Think Soviet, because that is where we have arrived.

From Breitbart today.

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be a Criminal Action Under Federal Civil Rights Laws

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it’s outdated.

Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, “Well, this is America, that can’t happen here”?
Oh yes it can. Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” … Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

The posting he offers as a “for instance” is an egregious one. And yet this country has long protected, absolutely, egregious speech, such as hardcore pornography, for a simple reason: Either you are at liberty to say what you will or you are not. If you are constantly double-thinking every word you might say, for fear of being prosecuted, you are self-censoring, in anticipation of a possible prosecution by the government.

Rather than having a system in which people were constantly worried about imprisonment for speech, our country has evolved a simple bright-line code: Speech of all kinds, with a few exceptions that can be counted on three fingers, is absolutely protected.

Remember, the importance of this bright-line, no-exceptions rule of free speech was preached to us, even when some of us might not have liked it so much, as when hardcore pornography was afforded absolute protection under the First Amendment. In the case of hardcore pornography, it was argued — successfully — that having each artist weigh the possibility of an obscenity prosecution was too much of a burden on his free speech rights, and would have, unavoidably, a chilling effect on speech.

That was the rule then, and that was the rationale.

But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.

Remember when Ari Fleischer said that, without suggesting any kind of legal penalties? Remember how the media freaked out?

But now comes the US Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee explicitly telling you that you may be imprisoned if a political appointee decides your political speech has crossed a line.

Somehow, I don’t think Tim Robbins will be portentously howling us that a “chill wind” is blowing across our rights of free expression this week.

More from Flopping Aces, who dug up video of Obama “joking” about using the IRS to punish those who he does not like to make the point that much of what Obama ‘joked’ about or made mention of during 2008-2009 – is being IMPLEMENTED.

Obama: Islam Trumps First Amendment

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”. – Barackus Obamanus I

“This is to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are…Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction. That’s what everybody needs to understand,” - Bill Killian Federal U.S. Attorney on behalf of Obama DOJ

4 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, War On Jihadists

McConnell: DISCLOSE ACT Will Silence Criticism of Obama By Intimidation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the nation is still reeling from the outrage over the ObamaCare ruling and Obama’s Policy Directive abolishing the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday raised the alarm bells on another bill that will be voted on in the Senate on Monday.

The DISCLOSE ACT (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act), Or The Mob Intimidation Act as Mark Levin called it, is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Monday.  is not about disclosing – it’s about intimidation.  DISCLOSE ( another ridiculous misnomer by the Democrats) is an attempt to require ALL 501-C4s and 3’s to disclose political causes and contributions made.  Under the prism of ‘transparency’ in campaigns, the Act according to McConnell is not at all what is being painted by the Democrats.

Mr. McConnell stated on Mark Levin’s radio program on Friday evening that the bill is a “direct threat to the First Amendment” and will require disclosure of all 501-C4s for this Administration in order to intimidate those pesos and corporations that disagree with the Obama regime by using the IRS and the FCC.

McConnell said that Democrats and bill Sponsor Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  “Jury rigged this bill to exempt all unions from any of requirement imposed on non-unions”, one of the major political arms of Obama and the Democrats.  He went on to state that this bill not at all “serious” about transparency, rather it is a cynical attempt to silence any bad-mouthing of Obama or the Democrats.  McConnell did not mince words by stating that the bill is “designed to quiet the voices of Conservatives who complain about Obama….using this bill as an enemies’ list”.  McConnell suggested that persons and groups who are critical of this Administration face intimidation by the FCC or the IRS for blogging or supporting groups upon this bill’s passage.

Schumer is a sponsor of DISCLOSE, and admitted is a ‘deterrent effect’ to quiet the voices or scare away those who oppose Obama and his policies.  The Senate Minority Leader was more pointed by claiming that the bill is designed to ” Shut up their critics and intimidate people” while at the same time creating a massive ‘power grab’ of American’s free speech rights.

The NRA is also pushing hard to help defeat this.

McConnell closed by stating that “This Administration is a real threat to America as we have known it”.

US News & World Report also weighs in and also classifies this Act as a mechanism to intimidate any supporters for Romney:

Obama, Democrats Push DISCLOSE Act to Intimidate Romney Donors

Snip:

On Monday the U.S. Senate is going to again take up the DISCLOSE Act, an effort the Democrats and their allies want to pass in order to be able to intimidate donors to the GOP, to Romney, and to conservative causes.

….It’s not the new system they don’t like—even while they attack it. It’s that without knowing the identity of the donors who are giving the money to the GOP, they can’t send their mobs arising out of the “Occupy” movement and like-minded groups to the homes of donors in an effort to intimidate them into closing their checkbooks. Last week, for example, hoards of protesters descended on a neighborhood in New York to picket the home of a couple holding a Romney fundraiser, including a plane towing an obnoxious banner overhead.

Other donors to Romney have been singled out by name by the Obama campaign, triggering boycotts of the companies with whom they are affiliated. No such actions have been taken, on the other hand, against individuals or events organized to raise funds for pro-Obama groups. The hypocrisy of the left on these issues should be apparent to anyone who cares to look. They don’t want an even playing field. They don’t want fairness. They want to force, through new law or through intimidation, the GOP’s money out of the political process so they can do all the spending they want, unmatched by anyone who disagrees.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Sharia Law USA: Efforts To Criminalize Speech Critical of Islam Now Underway

Secretary of State Clinton and Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting to discuss implementation of mechanisms to limit speech critical of Islam… in America.

Thanks to LMonty for the heads up on this story.

If you think your head is spinning trying to keep pace with the rapid and deadly threats to our liberty by our this government tyranny over us (just last night they passed the bill to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial anywhere in the world), then this news is not going to ease your dizziness – only accelerate it.

While this regime in power says it is working to fight “terrorists” (without mentioning Islam or Jihadists) – at the same time, they are working to CRIMINALIZE any speech critical of Islam under the justification that  such criticism “incites hatred and violence against Muslims” which they equate  to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and therefore have legal precedent to restrict.

The Islamists and their apologists seek to impose an aspect of Sharia Law here in the United States, where it is illegal to criticize Islam.  Of note, there is no effort whatsoever to extend similar protections to Christianity or Judaism.  It’s still open season on the biblical faiths in the West.

On top of that, obviously the First Amendment is now moot and abolished in the mind of this Obama regime, as prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion is their legal right, while establishing protections for Islam as a matter of law, is perfectly legitimate.

Read very carefully what Clare Lopez states here at the American Thinker about this ‘working initiative’ between the OIC, and Clinton.  Note at the link in particular, the statements of the OIC charter to impose global Sharia Law and what the Obama regime has ALREADY implemented in it’s ‘anti-terrorism’ efforts domestically.  It should chill you to your bones.

Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented — in America

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what these two leaders intend to do.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and expression.

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4thAnnual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”  Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.

The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.  Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad.

Incitement to hatred under the OIC definition includes artistic expression like the Danish cartoons, literary expression like Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, or Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of his personally owned copy of the Qur’an.  According to the “test of consequences,” if Muslims feel compelled to burn, loot, riot, and kill in response to such exercises of free expression, under the laws the OIC wants the U.S. to enact, it would be the editor and cartoonist of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Salman Rushdie, and Terry Jones who would be held criminally responsible for any damage or deaths that ensue.

Last March, the State Department and Secretary Clinton insisted that “combating intolerance based on religion” can be accomplished without compromising Americans’ treasured First Amendment rights.  But if that were so, there would be no possible excuse for engaging at this level with an organization like the OIC that is openly dedicated to implementing Islamic law globally.  This is why it is so important to pay attention not only to the present agenda, but to a series of documents leading up to it, issued by both the U.S. and the OIC.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, the DoS and OIC working teams will focus on implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 was hailed as a victory by Clinton, because it calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech — except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”  But if the criterion for determining “incitement to imminent violence” is a new “test of consequences,” then this is nothing but an invitation to stage Muslim “Days of Rage” following the slightest perceived offense by a Western blogger, instructor, or radio show guest, all of whom will be held legally liable for “causing” the destruction, possibly even if what they’ve said is merely a statement of fact.  The implications of such prior restraint on free speech would be chilling (which is precisely the point).

In fact, the “test of consequences” is already being applied rigorously in European media and courts, where any act or threat of violence — whether by a jihadist, insane person, or counter-jihadist — is defined as a “consequence” of statements that are critical of some aspect of Islam and, therefore, to be criminalized.  ….. Now, if the OIC and the Obama administration have their way, it’s America’s turn.

I contend that is already well underway.  Consider Obama’s speech in Cairo that preceded the militant Jihadist overthrow of Mubarak.  Consider Obama’s celebration of every Muslim holy day with White House Pronouncements, but never once an address on Christmas or Easter.

Once it’s understood that under Islamic law, “slander” is defined as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike,” the scope of potential proximate causes of Muslim rage becomes obvious.

….Consider what is likely to be a bloodbath for Coptic Christians that will occur as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies are firmly in control of Egypt.  This provision means that any Western media that accurately report that coming massacre could be legally charged with “incitement to imminent violence” under the test of consequences, in effect blaming those who raise the alarm instead of those who perpetrate the violence.

….It would not be overreaching to conclude that the purpose of this meeting, at least from the OIC perspective, is to convince the Obama administration that free speech that rouses Muslim masses to fury — as defined by the “test of consequences” — must be restricted under U.S. law to bring it into compliance with sharia law’s dictates on slander.

It is important to note this section in the article at the Thinker, and consider the NDAA bill they passed last night that gives government the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely:

…the White House published “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” in December 2011.  The plan makes clear that “violent extremism,” not Islamic terrorism, is the primary national security threat to the homeland.  According to this “strategy,” the solution is partnership with “local communities” — the term used for the administration’s favored Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which already are using such relationships to silence their critics, both inside and outside government.  These new rules of censorship state that the term “violent extremism” can no longer be used in combination with terms like “jihad,” “Islam,” “Islamist,” or “sharia.”  And these new rules are already being taught to U.S. law enforcement, homeland security offices, and the military nationwide.

It is already policy in the Obama regime to strike and strip any reference to Jihadist Islam in conjunction with terrorism.  The entire focus of this regime is to paint Conservative Americans, returning vets and the TEA Party as domestic terrorists and extremists, with no reference to Islam whatsoever, AS POLICY.

The agenda of this week’s Department of State/OIC meetings may mark an important “milestone,” as Sayyed Qutb might put it, on the pathway to sharia in America.  If — under the “test of consequences” — those who speak truth about Islam, sharia, and jihad may be held criminally responsible for the violent actions of those who say they find such truth “offensive,” then, in the future, “violent extremists” could be just about anyone…anyone the government, in obedience to the sharia dictates of the OIC, decides they are.

Further, if the rubric is to be based on this “test of consequence,” then it creates a real temptation to any administration so inclined to “create” consequences that will justify a change in America’s free speech rights.  By way of example, analysts have suggested that the motive for the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, now under congressional investigation, may have been to create a “crisis” — a “consequence” — caused by U.S. guns shipped across the border to Mexican drug-dealers (and used in multiple homicides, including an American Border Protection officer) to “nudge” public consensus to expand gun control laws.

Even if Obama’s State Department seems fully enamored with a “test of consequences” on speech critical of Islam, most Americans across the political spectrum will realize that this perverts the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.

Much more at link.

2 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, War On Jihadists

The Ruling Class Moves To Silence The TEA Party.

On top of being called “Hobbits“, “Terrorists” and “Extremists” by our nation’s leaders including the Vice President; Commissioning the DHS to draft an Assessment that classifies them as “Domestic Terrorists“; enacting a national strategy to ‘counter violent extremists’ – Conservative Americans and TEA Party members have yet another effort being suggested by our nation’s leaders to deal with them: Silence their freedom of speech.

This is where it begins folks – the full-on efforts by the Ruling Class and our political leaders to not only criminalize you – but silence you.  First by the same methods Hitler initially used; via shunning and boycott which is never enough for tyrants who will historically ALWAYS resort to using thugs to physically bully and intimidate them into silence, before the State purges the threat they declare upon their political enemies.

It is now a wide use tactic of the Left in this nation, when confronted with the truth – to state that your concerns or questions are “not legitimate”.  This gives them cover with the aid of complicit media to dodge any accountability or public scorn.  Soon however, that becomes unnecessary as raw contemptuous arrogance replaces any need to attempt a deflection such as when Nancy Pelosi was asked what authority the Constitution gives them to mandate the American people must buy health insurance – whereupon she replied “Are you serious?” followed by contempt in refusing to answer the question and declaring “That’s not a serious question”.

From there historically, it moves to the demonization of the opposition as ‘terrorists’ that we witnessed last week, which will be followed by efforts to mandate that any and all concerns by the opposition to the ruling class be ignored and discarded.  When the opposition to the ruling class resort to their own efforts and assymetric solutions towards their cause and message getting out – the ruling class will simply make those efforts illegal and penalize anyone giving aid and comfort to those opposed to them.

Warner Todd Huston lays it all out, as former Presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry states that Conservative views are not “real”, “legitimate” or “factual” and suggests that the news media not cover the opposition viewpoints to this regime now in power.

As Mr. Hudson rightly notes – this is just the latest evidence that the Ruling Class intends to quash free political speech of Conservatives.

Want Proof of How Democrats Would Shut You Up, Tea Partiers?

On MSNBC, John Kerry told us that Tea Party ideas are not “real” ideas, not “factual,” and thinks that the media should stop reporting on anything that smacks of ideas or news coming from Tea Partiers. If this isn’t proof of how Democrats and leftists would use the power of government to quash free political speech, what is?

Not long ago, several Democrats tried to once again raise the ugly head of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that was killed during the Reagan administration in order to limit the free political speech of conservatives. In those dark days when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, several Republicans talked about forever outlawing the anti-free speech rule. Democrats at the time spoke up in favor of the Fairness Doctrine and countered that they wanted to bring it back.

Fortunately, the Fairness Doctrine has not come back. But this un-American policy idea has been talked about by leftists every few years since it was torpedoed by Reagan in 1987. They would love to bring it back. And despite what they claim, the left would use a new Fairness Doctrine to squelch the free political speech of those on the right.

Video at link.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

You see? You Tea Partiers are not “legitimate.” You are not “real,” not “serious.” Why, your ideas are so “absurd” that he thinks the Old Media should stop reporting on any politician or activist that spouts those “absurd notions.”

The media, Kerry said, “has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance.” This means he thinks any ideas that don’t toe the far left, liberal Democrat ideological line should be excluded from reportage, eliminated from the public debate.

Now, imagine what he’d do if he had the power of a renewed Fairness Doctrine under his control? Imagine if he had the power of law behind his claims.

If John Kerry and his comrades on the far left had their way, they’d use the force of law to shut you up, Tea Partiers. The left would not use the Fairness Doctrine for anything “fair.” They’d use it as a but another Alien and Sedition Act to shut down the access to the public square now enjoyed by conservative ideas.

Talk radio, cable TV, newspapers, magazines, the Internet all would be targeted for Kremlin-like control of their contents by Washington D.C. if the left had its way.

In fact, speaking of the Internet, there is a new stealth Fairness Doctrine in the works. It’s called Net Neutrality, just another way for the left to impose state control of the news.

3 Comments

Filed under Media Bias, Obama Marxist Tyranny

The Obama Strategy of Kagan Nomination to SCOTUS

Tyrants often reveal what their intents and plans of action to impose tyranny and oppression upon their targets are, by writing or speaking about them well in advance.

If one wanted to know What Hitler planned to do to the Jews and to Europe , all one had to do was read his little autobiography “Mein Kampf” and listen to his speeches through the late 1920’s and early 1930’s to understand what he intended to do.  The Munich Post understood what he was up to and tried for over a decade to warn Germany what kind of a monster he was going to be.

No one listened and eventually, once Hitler secured total power for himself, went to war to control all information – and executed the editors and writers of the Munich Post in 1933.

Tyrants tend to follow similar blueprints, because they work.

Obama is a Marxist ideologue.  Much of what he has already done he wrote and spoke about in clever subtle language during his campaign and in his two “autobiographies”. Obama has surrounded himself with Marxist ideologues, Maoists, Communists and Socialists. Everything he does, is to advance his Marxist agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America.

And he has already largely succeeded.

His nationalization and takeover of the banks, GM and Chrysler, Student Loans, the Health Care industry and soon energy and the Cap and Trade scheme – is all part of the game of chess he is playing to transform the nation into a Soviet-style dictatorship.

What does this have to do with the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens?

Simple.  She shares Obama’s radical ideology and will help him implement it at the Highest court level in the land.

Like all tyrants, controlling information is vital to keep and sustain a totalitarian regime, because of the lies it lives on to keep their people enslaved, fearful and desperate.  Free speech is a poison to a tyrannical regime.  It is said that one of the main tools used to collapse the Soviet Union was the Fax machine.  For the Communist Dictatorship – it was a death mechanism of their rule because the winds of free speech and ideas broke out of their iron grip.

For Obama, the Internet, Talk Radio and various mass communication networks and devices are a huge problem he seeks to control and regulate.  In his mind, technology – like speech should only be allowed if it serves the State, and disallowed if it is a risk to the State.

I find it interesting that Obama’s commencement address to graduates at Virginia’s Hampton University on Sunday – bemoaned technology and information that he felt was wasteful and not being used for proper political purposes.  In short, ultimately – what Obama was talking about, was free speech and the ability to disseminate information that he does not like and does not contain value he respects.

I think his words on Sunday to Hampton University Graduates is a window into the soul of reason why he picked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be on the Supreme Court.

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Of course, we can be sure that the Soviet masters thought the same thing of Fax machines and free speech in the Soviet Union.

You see, Obama does not see value in free speech unless it serves the greater values of the State.  He chides us for using technology and information to entertain ourselves, rather than use it as a political tool to further the values of the state.  Values such as Social Justice and Minority Empowerment.  Obama’s civilian security force if you will.

Which brings me back to Obama’s nomination of Kagan to SCOTUS.

The Washington Examiner reports this interesting statement signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens:

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Isn’t that peachy?  

Considering that Obama is nothing more than an academic with no practical experience – it’s elementary he would nominate another academic with little practical experience.  Because experience is not what counts in the eyes of an ideologue.  It’s the ideological agenda that matters.

And controlling information and speech by deciding the cost benefit to society versus the value the State assigns to any speech is the ultimate goal here.  I think Obama’s remarks at Hampton with the nomination of Kagen are quite revealing in what his intentions are regarding speech and information.

Notwithstanding how Kagen will vote when the various state lawsuits against ObamaCare come to SCOTUS for challenge.

I’m sure in that case, the societal costs will be deemed to outweigh the Constitution.  The smooth-as-Ken-doll Republicans in the Senate would be wise if during confirmation they asked Kagen what her view was concerning whether or not it is Constitutional for the state to demand private citizens purchase insurance they may not want in order to live without penalty.

But I’m not holding my breath for the Senate GOP to turn tables and do what the Democrats did with the Court Nominees of the previous administration. 

And this is how societies succumb to tyrants and maniacs.  They do not consider what the intentions of the tyrant are based on what they have said, what they wrote or what they do.

Untold misery and death always follow such paths.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Obama Issues More Gangland Assaults On Free Speech in Public

Coupled with the stories below of the thug tactics and Stalinist threatening by the Obama Campaign comes yet ANOTHER story of the efforts Barrack The Hussein Obama is making to silence the free speech of anyone not worshipping at his altar.

Isn’t it always interesting that the people and ideology that screams the most about free speech, are the very ones engaged in silencing and suppressing speech they do not like?

There’s a title for such people: hypocritical tyrants.

The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star reports that the Obama Campaign and college supporters have forbidden any signs or banners at the “Public rally” the Obamanation is scheduled to speak at today:

NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally–or a McCain rally or a Nader rally–justify taking a little off the top of Americans’ most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for “security” reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no “part of the sign could be used as a weapon”–e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, “We encourage people to make signs at our events.”

Regarding today’s event, one would expect better from a campaign bearing the name of a former professor of constitutional law. (See Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a lawyer: “one skilled in circumventing the law.”) And one would expect much better from a university that, in pursuit of a day of celebrity, a boost in prestige, and profits from its book store’s planned commemorative Obama T-shirts (now scotched), shaves away an American liberty purchased by men who turned white snow red and dry dirt wet with their sacrificial blood. This is a lot to swap for a mess of pottage. Remarks the Rutherford Institute’s John Whitehead, who has turpentined the Bush administration’s civil-rights record, “The Secret Service has a better free-speech viewpoint than the college.”

The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, petition of the government. Will one who aspires to the title Defender of the Constitution begin inhibiting these First Freedoms even before he is in office–at a public university?

Michelle Malkin also makes not of this on her blog:

More Obama gangland tactics: Signs banned at Virginia rally today

By Michelle Malkin 

Reader Ron e-mails that the Obama campaign has issued a decree banning all signs at a rally today at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.

It is a public campus on public property.

Just more Chicago gangland tactics from Camp Obama.

Careful out there. The Goon Squads are watching.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Obama’s Stormtroopers Demand Law Enforcement Crack Down on Anyone Opposed To Obama

Barack The Hussein Obama campaign is demanding Missouri law enforcement targets anyone who they claim ” lies” or runs a “misleading TV ad” during the presidential campaign.

Obama’s “Truth Squads” aka: Marxist Brownshirts are fanning out across the country to silence anyone who questions or opposes their annointed messiah by claiming they are ‘lying’ or ‘misleading’.

What that means is that they want law Enforcement to shut down and criminalize anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions, statements and policies – or calls Obama on his own lies and misleading ads.
So much for Free Speech and the First Amendment eh your worshipfulness?????

This is tyranny folks, brought to you by the man who wants to “change” America into this twisted version of tyranny he envisions for the country.

Missouri Sheriffs & Top Prosecutors Form Obama “Truth Squads” & Threaten Libel Charges Against Obama Critics

More Hope and Change for Missouri…
St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can’t even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is. 

It’s one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

Link to VIDEO

UPDATE:  Breaking: Gov. Matt Blunt Releases Statement Condemning Obama’s Missouri Goon Squads

 

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt released a statement moments ago on the news this week that leading Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs supporting Barack Obama were forming “Truth Squads” to intimidate and threaten his critics.
For Immediate Release:

Gov. Matt Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”

3 Comments

Filed under Culture War, Politics

Free Speech and Press Police

gagspeech.jpg

It’s a funny thing that so many folks cannot see the correlation between the erosion of God from our culture, and the rise of tyranny and opression of men to replace what was once liberty.

In recent years and months, the power of the State has been increased at home and abroad to silence opinions and dissent that go against the mainstream thought process guided by the arbiters of Political Correctness. We have been warning about the efforts to criminalize Christians who oppose the acceptance of sinful lifestyles; the push to make thoughts and motives not approved, illegal.

What is notable, is that the Islamic enemies of the West have studied and have discovered how to best defeat us: from within, using our own squeamish sensibilities against us.

Two recent situations have come to the fore regarding the efforts of government and lobbyists to silence the ideas and liberties of those who criticize Jihadists and Islam.

We’ve seen how beserk the Islamic world went over the publishing of cartoons critical of Islam in Denmark. Now, the Politically-correct enabling-of-Jihadist’s bureaucracy that makes up the Socialist regimes in Britian and Canada are demonstrating the efforts the state will take to silence those who dare cross the established lines of Political Correctness.

Recalling how Canada has made any negative comment about Homosexuality a Hate Crime – even in church, I gues we should find it no surprise that the same rule now applies to anyone making negative comments about Islam. But America should take note – because this very effort is now beginning to happen here too, albeit thusfar it’s in the courts. Just take a gander at what’s been been happening to radio talk host Michael Savage in his battle against CAIR.

Dead man writing

Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” – one federal, one provincial – had agreed to hear their complaints that their “human rights” had been breached by this “flagrantly Islamophobic” excerpt from my book, as published in the country’s bestselling news magazine, Maclean’s. Several readers and various Canadian media outlets have enquired what my defense to the charges is. Here’s my answer:

I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn’t have to.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post’s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian “human rights” tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These “human rights” censors started with small fry – obscure websites, “homophobes” who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus – and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old “libel chill” over critical areas of public debate. The “progressive” left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.

Lights Out Up North

Ezra Levant, my old boss at The Western Standard, has just (as I type) begun his grilling by the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission. He is charged with the “crime” of reprinting the Danish cartoons:

As a lawyer, I’ve been in different courts and tribunals, but I’ve never experienced a kangaroo court first-hand. I will have a more comprehensive report later today. In the meantime, I leave you with… the hand-scrawled complaint filed against the magazine by a radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for sharia law to be imposed in Canada…

And why shouldn’t he? He’s a member of the “Supreme Islamic Council of Canada”, and when the Supreme meets the chicken of the west’s one-way “multiculturalism” it’s no contest. No doubt some of the above “hate speech” is hurtful and dehumanizing and offensive, but that’s the point: The price of liberty is eternal offensiveness. There is a name for societies that successfully outlaw offensiveness from the public space: Totalitarian.

Nevertheless, in Maclean’s this week, there’s a fairly typical letter from an ever-so-reasonable reader, Lauren Demaree of Windsor, Ontario:

PLACING LIMITS on free speech is a slippery slope, but that is not the only issue in play here. There is often a fine line that is crossed between opinion and hate propaganda and our laws need to reflect this more effectively. Where do we draw the line…?

This is the future of “multiculturalism”: a society in which, in the interests of protecting the “collective rights” of various identity groups, individual rights are circumscribed and public discourse is ever more regulated by the state. Good luck making that work, Canada. The “Islamic Supreme Council of Canada” has your number.

Now despite the grilling by the Supreme Soviet – errr, I mean the “Human Rights Commission” – there are apparently SOME in Canada who have the fortitude and the guts to spit in the face of tyrants , and tell them where they can go. Too bad there are not more people like this guy – willing to risk it all to defy a tyrannical act of government:

3 Comments

Filed under Culture War, Politics