Free Speech Impediment (With Every Purchase!)

Here's an open letter to President Obama that he will never see. Not because I didn't send it. I did this weekend in the form of faxes. I just want to stick it up here on the interwebz Mr President, in case you would like to refer to it later. You know, in case you forgot.

Dear Mr. President,

Sir, Please stop what you are doing and listen to the people you serve. We don't share your view of America. We The People want you and Congress to start over on Health Care Reform. There are better ways to help people get medical care than enslaving the rest of us (US).

Just had to get that out of the way.

Now, today's topic is Free Speech or more aptly, the restriction of it.
Why you ask?
Because I made this cool Motivator. That's why.

Back in August 2009, Barack Obama said that he wanted his critics to shut up and get out of the way.

Then, in October 2009 he cosponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations.

In an article at Human Events Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch quotes legal expert Eugene Volokh:

"If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech," he explains, "presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it"” He adds that in order to be consistent, "the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that incites hostility will indeed be punished..."

More recently, speaking of the POTUS's State of the Union Address,  Robert Spencer rightly calls out Obama for criticizing the Supreme Court:

"During his State of the Union address, Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court for overturning major portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. But the Supreme Court was upholding the freedom of speech: when the high court struck down key McCain-Feingold provisions last month, its ruling declared that "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Is there a pattern here?



Whatever he says he deplores, he deploys.

This man is the biggest threat to our freedoms in the last one hundred years, possibly evah. While he's cosponsoring resolutions at the UN which denounce incitement and hatred, he has shown that he has had no qualms with those tactics in the past, as when he suggested using those same tools against his opponents during the presidential campaign.

Watch him. Watch what he says, then watch what he does. I guarantee you the two are diametrically opposed.

So now, we are invited to watch his narcissism on display as he is obsessed with shoving his beloved Health Care Plan down the throats of an unwilling populace. (Sorry for that visual.) Are we to sit idly by while this happens? That is what the authors of this little play would have us do. That or fawn all over them like sycophantic groupies backstage at a rock concert.

I can't and won't do it.
Period.

Send your faxes also.


Side note-
Thinking out loud - I can't be sure but I would think that there could be an effect on the mind of someone who is constantly told A when Z is actually true and is proven to be so. One could also speculate that it would be akin to a psychological torture or conditioning of some kind if perpetuated time and time again. (Lather, Rinse, Repeat.) I wonder what that might be called...

Any psychiatrists/neurologists in the house?

Read more...

To Bully or Not To Bully

That, is the TSA's Question... at least a couple of their um, well, bullys' agents' question. Check out the story at LMA.

Read more...

Free Speech? Nah - None For You

The blitz continues. What kills me is, I am funding it. Waddup widdat?

Little Miss Attila hooks and lands a big one... Via Boing Boing

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It’s bad. Very bad.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

• * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
  
• * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
  
• * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
  
• * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM) 

And I was worried about the (minute) possibility of some small time local misrepresentation. Silly me.

Please excuse moi while my head asplodes.

Read more...