Orwell is that you?  I know the 80′s are back in style but I was hoping it wasn’t 1984 – I was wrong.  In fact, maybe they should have named the bill H.R. 1984 instead of 1966!

Democrats scream bloody murder when progressive Republicans usurp the Constitution, but suddenly suffer from double standard glaucoma when their own progressives are running the show.

This is one insidious piece of legislation because it completely violates our first amendment rights.  It will now be considered a FELONY, yes, a felony, to say anything offensive over email, on the Internet, through a blog, or anywhere else over the web.  Any individual who may not be PC on any given day could face up to 2 years in prison.

This is pure thought/mind control and is the reason why the PC society we find ourselves in does more harm than good.  Here is a section from the bill:

a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(b) As used in this section-

(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received;

(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

 We all know this is unconstitutional, but hypothetically speaking, if this section of the Hate Crimes bill passes, who will be in charge of deciding whether something was offensive to an individual or not?  I would make a wager that there will be an emotional distress czar appointed by Obama…unfortunately Stuart Smalley is currently working in Congress, but he’ll probably pick a liberal like Depak Chopra.  If Obama does in fact pick a czar for this – your freedom of speech will be politicized.  “Right wing extremist” talk, blogging, tweeting, and the like, will all be banned and we could all find ourselves in prison.  Emotional distress is so vague that a simple civil argument could possibly offend someone and cause, in their eyes, distress… Like all things in America, a policy like this would be used to excess. 

Wouldn’t one think that hate crimes would include every race, creed, religion, and sex? In a common sense world sure – but in DC, never.  Take for example the fact that a black teen mob attacked a white family in Ohio.  There was barely any mention of this in the news!  I know for a fact that there are racists in every group, so why wouldn’t this be a hate crime as well?  Why can’t white people be discriminated against?  Heck! I was when I lived in Baltimore! 

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend’s home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

This could also be Obama’s back-door way to create an Internet czar to monitor the web, much like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea… getting the hint?  Remember the fairness doctrine and net neutrality?  I gaurantee that famous blogs will be taken down, conservative hashtags on twitter will give people away, and radio talk show hosts will be accussed of causing emotional distress.  

I better watch myself!  Here I was thinking I was an equal opportunity proponent by offending everyone – there goes my humor…

Here are the members of the House sponsoring this section of the bill:

Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39] (wrote the above section)
and 14 Co-Sponsors

* Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
* Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
* Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
* Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
* Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
* Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
* Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
* Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
* Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
* Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
* Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10] (he is not a Republican vote him out! – he voted for Cap and Trade too)
* Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
* Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] (I would give my right arm to run against this man in Maryland)
* Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]

Share on Facebook

The Adoring Barack Coverage is the new name for ABC – it certainly isn’t American Broadcasting, since they leave out at least half of America when they bow at the feet of their new cult icon, Obama.

Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson will be live at the event, which will begin dramatically in the East Room of the White House and move over to the Blue Room.  ABC will take questions from a “live” audience, although these questions will all be pre-selected and under the complete discretion of the network.  Unfortunately, this network has long since become an arm of the Democratic Party – and any independent thinker is able to see that ABC continues to have a slobbering love affair (as Bernie Goldberg puts it) with the new president.

This adulation of the president is like nothing I have ever seen before, and it is quickly becoming much like a cult following.  I don’t think that using the term kool-aid in reference to Jim Jones is all that far fetched.

ABC will take questions in regards to the health-care program that Obama is trying to push through Congress which, much to his chagrin, is being criticized by members of his own party who are questioning the timing and dire need for the reforms he is currently proposing.

I have never in my young years seen a media outlet act on behalf of a president; paralleling more of what you would see out of communist Russia and Pravda, than a Republic like the United States.

This is an obvious attempt to try and help the President get his agenda through and I’m sure the questions asked will try to persuade and use propaganda on the American public.  I can guarantee that there will be several “heart wrenching” stories about individuals without health-care taken out of context.

The RNC has come out complaining about this blatant act of bias towards one party over the other and in particular one individual; Barack Obama:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

I would think that the American public would want to hear both sides of the issue and they have every right to have questions asked of both parties that are difficult (not softball-like).  Granted the station is boring, but C-Span does this already if you watch what takes place inside the House and Senate.  Why do we need another network attempting to change peoples’ minds?  Since Obama is meeting a lot of opposition on both sides of the aisle, is this a gesture from ABC to try and swoop in to save him?  This type of media bias makes me sick to my stomach.

Here is how ABC responded to the RNC’s letter.

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

The whole notion that ABC is deciding what is being asked is scary enough.  We all saw how Charlie Gibson disrespectfully interviewed Sarah Palin and how he and Diane Sawyer drooled all over Barack Obama.

I hope somebody checks to see if this is an FCC violation.  I’m sure there is more to come.

What is that song the Spice Girls sang?  “When two become one“

Share on Facebook

President Barack Obama is calling digital security a top priority, whether it’s guarding the computer systems that keep the lights on in the city and direct airliners to the right runway or those protecting customers who pay their bills online.

To oversee an enhanced security system for the nation’s computer networks, Obama is creating a “cyber czar” as part of a long-awaited plan stemming from a review he ordered shortly after taking office.

On Friday, Obama is expected to lay out broad goals for dealing with cyber threats while depicting the U.S. as a digital nation that needs to provide the education required to keep pace with technology and attract and retain a cyber-savvy work force. He also is expected to call for a new education campaign to raise public awareness of the challenges and threats related to cyber security.

The review, however, will not dictate how the government or private industry should tighten digital defenses. Critics say the cyber czar will not have sufficient budgetary and policy-making authority over securing computer systems and spending.

With the political schemes and games going on in DC since Obama’s election – it would come as no surprise if Obama’s administration and the progressives in Congress elected for a backdoor approach to control the Net.

The Fairness Doctrine was a “no-go” due mainly to the fact that word got out to too many people on what it actually meant/entailed.  There was discussion of the next approach which would be localization or another cleverly termed piece of legislation called media diversity.  Each form of media regulation would have loopholes allowing for specific media outlets or sites to be regulated and/or abolished if standards were not met.

From The Daily Uprising:

Today, President Obama will announce the creation of a new White House cyber-czar position with the power to promulgate security regulations and shut down private networks connected to the global internet.

There is no doubt that security measures are necessary to protect the internet. That’s why the last administration requested and got considerable funding from Congress for increased military and law enforcement internet security efforts from the NSA, Pentagon, FBI, and DHS. What there is still doubt about is how Obama’s plan to further fracture the United States’ efforts by adding Obama’s political team at the White House to the mix is going to help matters. We don’t oppose efforts to coordinate the nation’s internet defense amongst agencies, but when it comes to the White House determining security certification standards, micromanaging military procedure, or pulling the plug on networks, we dissent.

Given the Chrysler “Dealergate” uncovered by right-wing blogs, one could only assume that Obama and his cronies would attempt to use the Cyber Security Czar to block these blogs.  Most news nowadays comes from the Internet.  On a rare occasion I will tune into the news, but I tend to find that blogs and Internet forums provide me with up-to-the-minute information and become more and more significant.  TV news seems to run a day or two behind the blogosphere and what better way for the liberals to silence the opposition or dumb down the rest of America so they have no idea what is really going on!

Will the liberals cry, protest, and whine about Obama’s big “brothering” of the Net?  He has already expanded up on Bush’s wire-tapping and now he is going for the Internet… One would think this would be an issue for them…

GIRD YOUR BLOGS!

Share on Facebook