Call Assange’s bluff and take him down

I”m really sick and tired of this guy. He has documents that he is going to release piecemeal but he threatens that if he is arrested or shut down he will release them in a giant dump, I say release them in a giant dump and get it over with.

At this point we are most definitely dealing with a terrorist who is holding these documents (and potentially innocent people) hostage. He has now moved from being the self proclaimed harbinger of freedom and free speech to a thug of the worst order when he threatens the United States (and let’s face it, WE are his target) with this dump of information. This latest threat really shows his true colors. He’s an ordinary thug who is willing to put at risk people and nations to protect himself.

Why would we negotiate with him? Why should we?

And while I’m on this topic, who is aiding him? All this information did not come from one lonely, miserable PFC. Assange claims he has information damaging to BP and most probably Bank of America. One mischief making private didn’t give him all those documents. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this same private gave him the State department cables.

It’s time to release the dogs on Assange and bring him down. This little “sissy” irritant has had the headlines long enough and his attempts to intimidate and control American policy has to end.

Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSNBC Off Airwaves

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future.”

Please click on the link below to watch the clip of Rockefeller telling us what we WANT to watch:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSN…, posted with vodpod

 

Jeffery Lord: NPR CEO was a Soviet “fixer”

Peasants in the Belarus region of the Soviet Union

This is an excellent read by Jeffery Lord of The American Spectator about the CEO of NPR and her interesting history in the Soviet Union, when it was still a soviet union. Apparently, Vivian has enough experience with Soviet style journalism to justify how and why she fired Juan Williams.

According to Mr. Lord, Vivian was a “fixer” in the old Soviet Union: someone who could not just speak the Russian language, but was able to navigate around the society and the country and “make things happen” for her American guests.

Judging by her recent purge of Juan Williams, Vivian learned how to silence an opinion she finds disagreeable, too.

NPR fires Juan Williams for not being politically correct enough. With an update.

Update: Listening to John Gibson this morning and he mentioned that this is “PLEDGE” week at NPR.  Firing Juan Williams appears to be a calculated decision at NPR in an attempt to raise more funds from the left and its leader, George Soros.

Well Juan, how does it feel to be the one thrown under the bus? How does it feel to no longer be simpatico with your leftist amigos?

NPR is taxpayer funded and yet they have the power to silence – to censor – voices that don’t go along with their leftist ideology. He’s a news analyst,  someone who gets paid to broadcast his opinions.

Now let’s be clear, until I read this quote from Juan:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

I can’t remember a time when I did agree with him. The one time he actually puts words to the feelings that most people have, he gets canned. He’s been fired for saying, finally, what most Americans think and feel by a news organization that is paid for by those same Americans.

We all know how left leaning NPR is. This is not a news flash. But to censor speech because it is contrary to what some higher-ups in that organization believe, that crosses a line. We pay the salaries of those same higher-ups and pay them to make decisions, not to cram their leftist ideology down our throats. How much more arrogance are we going to tolerate from people who are essentially on OUR payroll?  The heavy handedness of this firing due to a statement that is not politically correct enough for the bleeding hearts at NPR is not just cowardly, it’s the height of arrogance.

Which one of us taxpayers gave them a promotion to speech policemen?

Along with getting rid of the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts and privatizing the post office,  we need to call for pulling the plug on NPR and PBS. And firing someone for having an opinion that disagrees with the so-called bosses, is one more good reason for doing so.

Next on the agenda – stealing the right of free speech

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there. Clare Booth Luce

If you watched Glenn Beck today, you are informed on what the Obama regime (I’m going to be Limbaugh’s standard barer from now on) is planning for the internet and then talk radio. I think we have reason to be worried. This regime is coming at us from all sides with well managed assaults. He has the correct people in many places and they are coming after us from all directions.

I can’t imagine a more lethal attack on Americans than to restrict and censor speech. And I cannot imagine that Americans will allow this to happen. Nothing is more fundamentally American than “it’s a free country and I can say whatever I want.”  My God, we were saying that as kids. And now we have a regime that is about ready to remove that unalienable, God given right.

How will Americans react to this?

Please sign this petition and send along to your friends and family.

SCOTUS rules to protect free speech

4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are in favor of book banning and speech censorship. F-O-U-R  of them. And the 5 who voted in favor of the First Amendment are being called ACTIVISTS. Now, isn’t that ironic? To be in favor of the Constitution is now considered radical.

Amazing.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission was decided last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, in a sqeeker vote that should scare all Americans. This case has unveiled to the public, the justices who would be in favor of censoring free speech and who are willling to ignore the first amendment’s stark and direct language:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

How much clearer could the Founders have been?

From the AP:

When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?

Stewart said that it could.

“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle.

“If it has one name, one use of the candidate’s name, it would be covered, correct?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

“That’s correct,” Stewart replied.

“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘And so vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.

[David] Bossie [founder of Citizens United and maker of Hillary the Movie] said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.

“That sent a chill down the Supreme Court,” Bossie said. The argument became a “point of demarcation.”

The marxists progressives are now screaming outrage. This from the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies” and other “special interests.” Mr. Obama didn’t mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one’s special interest. New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for “for-profit corporations.” Liberalism’s bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.

But the marxists progressives make no mention of networks like MSNBC that is owned by the corporate giant General Electric and that has been nothing short of the communications center for the Obama administration. This case protects their free speech, as well.

As David Bossie writes at BigJournalism.com:

Finally, as the Court acknowledged, the position that corporations cannot engage in political speech has a fatal logical flaw.  Almost every major media outlet in the country is owned by a corporation and most of them advocate for or against candidates via endorsements, opinion columns, or politically-oriented programming.  Why should General Electric, which owns MSNBC, be permitted to use its nearly unlimited resources to influence elections, while I, who made Hillary The Movie using corporate funds for roughly .03% of the budget, could be put in prison for airing the documentary?

What is really frightening is that TheOne has 3 more years to appoint justices. One more liberal appointment could change the entire complexion of the Constitution and it’s protection of Americans. Those appointees have to be confirmed by congress. This is just another urgent reason that Constitutionalists must be elected this  year.

Will Rush be history in less than 3 years?

Mark Lloyd

While serving as a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, [Mark] Lloyd called for the government to reduce the number of broadcast outlets a company own as a means of reducing the number of radio stations carrying conservative programs. He wrore that “no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.”

Lloyd also said that no one entity should own “more than four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial stations).”

Currently, an entity may own no more than eight stations in a large market. Lloyd’s recommendation, were it to become policy, could force station owners carrying programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin to sell their stations. CNSNews.com

This man is dangerous. Well, hell  knock me alongside the head – the whole administration is dangerous – what am I thinking?

Not only is Lloyd calling for the censoring of conservative radio hosts, but he’s lowering the bar at how many stations a private business can own.  Obviously, a consumer driven market means nothing to this guy. Or he’s not smart enough to understand the basic economics of it.

Or maybe the real true answer is that he understands this all too well and it scares him.

How did we get all these communists in power at one time? Where is Joseph McCarthy now? Don’t answer those questions… like you, I already know.

Okaaaaaay… the all time fun place to be: Daily Kos!

I need to update this story because I’m behind the times and didn’t pay attention to dates etc on his blog. This all occurred way back in August. Since then Lee has apparently found a home at HuffPo and with Tommy Christopher at his blog, DailyDose.

 

But it’s still an interesting and funny episode, just the same:

This guy, Lee Stranahan apparently wrote a pretty innocuous story about the John Edwards scandal that pissed off the powers-that-be at the Daily Kos.  He feels this is not a ban-worthy story but lo and behold! he was banned! And banned a couple more times.

The Kos is publicly censoring their commrades and when the opportunity arises, they resort to ridicule (calling Lee’s supporters trolls and sock puppets) to ostracize those not in lock step with the party line.

It’s a funny story and if  you have time to read Lee’s blog about it, you should find it as enjoyable as I did.

Controls on internet speech – it’s here now

Once again, I want to direct anyone who reads here, to take a minute and read Arlene’s blog. This is the future of the internet.

Be sure and read the comments.

Let’s see: girls beat each other up, record it on their phones and then post them on YouTube. In Chicago, gangs beat an honor student to death in the street, record it and post on YouTube. Adults film their toddlers being forced to smoke pot and post it on YouTube.

But post on YouTube anything remotely anti-gay – considered hate speech – and you are removed.

Blogger’s important warning

Arlene, I think this is important for all to know. Hope you don’t mind that I’m sharing it on my blog. People need to understand that our free speech is under attack and being slowly dismantled. It’s been well documented that Google (owner of YouTube) is very cozy with the White House. None of this should come as a surprise but so many people are unaware of what’s going on.

This is Arlene’s blog where you can read more about this.