My. Imagine what results there might be.
As an aside, if you didn’t know (and likely you don’t), John Stossel is about 5’7″ tall and weighs, on a good day, about $1.25. “Delicate” and “bony” would be apropos. In New York City he has YOUR NEXT VICTIM HERE stamped on his forehead. Stossel is as imposing as a puffy Bugs Bunny slipper. I should know. I interviewed him at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, 2017.
So, did John Stossel, Libertarian, get a gun permit in New York?
“REJECTED.”
BZ
First on the agenda: the Drudge Report (though it’s nothing more than an aggregator) and Fox News. Then the entire internet.
EXAMPLE ONE:
First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:
Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship
by Paul Bedard
Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.
STOP. Read that first sentence again: “Finally making good on LONG-HARBORED ANGER at CONSERVATIVE media, DEMOCRATS on the Federal Election Commission voted in SECRET to PUNISH Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, USING AN OBSCURE LAW to charge the network with helping those on stage.”
Would that not be unlike Lois Lerner and the IRS who complained bitterly that no such thing was done until finally the IRS admitted that precisely that thing was done?
It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.
The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action. The vote was posted Thursday and is here.
Imagine the results had Demorats simply owned that board, as Demorats own the state of California on most every level?
It seems that CNN sponsored quite a number of Democrat debates. CNN sponsored four Democrat debates, of the ten documented — that’s almost half. The GOP had twelve debates, six of which were sponsored by Fox. That also is half. Any issue with the FEC?
Here’s the obvious kicker:
CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.
Do not think that the Demorats and Leftists are content to stop there. They absolutely, incontrovertibly, wish to control the entire internet and all its content — particularly if that content is right-leaning in nature.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Also from the WashingtonExaminer.com:
Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners
by Paul Bedard
Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.
“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”
What is diversity? In the eyes of Leftists, it is a One World Barbeque — that is, all persons saying, writing and thinking the same: a Leftist fashion. Dissension cannot be tolerated. What the FEC and Leftists and Demorats want is the same freedom of speech one now customarily finds on college campuses in America today; that is, little to none.
In this vein I wrote, many years ago in 2010, that I could foresee the time where I as a blogger would require a literal license to blog. To express my opinions and feelings.
Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”
Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.
Of course it’s under threat. Leftists and Demorat want absolute control of speech as well as most every other aspect of your life. With a SCOTUS that leans far left as would occur under the lying and brazenly-corrupt Hillary Clinton, you can quite certainly wave good-bye to your Bill of Rights, with the Second and First Amendments primarily in their PC sights.
“One of the things that is critical for this country is to reassert the value of the First Amendment, the fact that robust discourse, that is sometimes cacophonous, is nonetheless a value, in fact it creates value,” said Pai.
But wait; perhaps you thought I was kidding with the whole “my blog will be involved as will yours” thingie? Read on.
At a CATO Institute discussion on online speech Wednesday night, both said that regulators are eager to issue new rules that could put limits on what people could say on blogs, online news and even YouTube. Washington Examiner reporter Rudy Takala and Cato’s digital manager Kat Murti were also on the panel.
There it is in black and white. Do not for a moment believe that, somehow, miraculously, you will remain unaffected — particularly if you are a Conservative. Or a Libertarian for that matter — John Stossel, I’m looking at you, sir.
Pai, addressing Goodman, added, “The common thread of our experiences I think is this impulse of control, whether it’s the FCC and the impulse of the government to want to control how these networks operate, and the FEC to control the content of the traffic that traverses over those networks, and I think that certainly highlights the importance of the First Amendment.”
Goodman concluded, “We need to be ever mindful and vigilant not to let governmental agencies through 3-2 votes, or 4-2 votes at the FEC take that away from us.”
Let there be no mistake. Leftists and Demorats want control of our lives, complete and utter control of what we do, what we eat, where we live, how we live our lives and ultimately what we write, say and even think.
Leftists and Demorats would truly be pleased with a 1984 environment.
I can see an upheaval coming, ladies and gentlemen, if Demorats and Leftists keep removing our rights and our freedoms.
BZ
I submit that is a question you need to ask.
First, watch this video, an excerpt from the John Stossel show “Policing America: Security vs Liberty” recently broadcasted on Fox News, July 26th, involving USBP checkpoints up to 100 miles inland from an American border:
I find this shameful and repulsive, personally and professionally. As anyone in law enforcement (as I am) knows, there is the spirit or the law and the letter of the law.
A pastor had both of his vehicle windows broken and was Tazed from both sides when he refused to let USBP search his vehicle. He is Caucasoid and spoke clear English.
The issue? The federal law indicating “a reasonable distance from the border.” Is 60 miles reasonable? 100 miles? Yes, 100 miles. As Stossel points out, that’s where most Americans live, when you consider our borders north and south, and our coastlines east and west.
Some persons are installing cameras in their cars to document these abrogations, God bless them. This is pushback and they are patriotic for doing so. Again, see the video above.
The SCOTUS said that travelers can be briefly detained for the purpose of conducting a limited inquiry into residence status, as per United States vs Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976). Neither the vehicle nor its occupants can be searched, yet the video clearly shows that Americans are being told to submit to detentions, searches, and arrests resulting from non-cooperation when more than an ID check is demanded.
How does one conduct a brief check into residency status? Speak to the individual stopped, see if they speak English, check for a driver’s license and/or other forms of identification. Any prudent and reasonable LEO can tell you this readily.
What we see displayed above is what is known in law enforcement as “contempt of cop.” As in: you have pissed me off because you have dared to challenge my authority, and I am now making it personal.
John Stossel says “big government creates problems,” and that is certainly the case here, involving the Fourth Amendment. “It’s like living in occupied territory,” some lawful residents of the United States of America are saying.
More Americans, as Stossel says, are pushing back. As I submit they should, particularly if they possess video evidence of their incidents. Further, as an affected citizen in an incident similar to those above, I would be suing the federal agencies involved and then the individuals themselves because, as the agents themselves made it personal, perhaps they should take a helping of “personal” in return.
Let there be no mistake: I have been in law enforcement for 41 years. I have worked in a LE capacity for the federal government and for local agencies, where I have worked now for 35 years. I was a Field Training Officer (FTO) in Patrol and have been in training the bulk of my LE career. I taught my trainees to respect the foundational documents and in fact they had not only to conform to my agency training regimen, but my personal training regimen as well, which included knowledge about the Bill of Rights and its applicable amendments.
I emphasized that arrests and detentions should be built but upon solid probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and that we do not bluff. If the law is not on our side, then we don’t make a potential bad situation worse. We know, I would literally say (and wrote in my own adjunct training manual that I would hand out to my charges), when to back down.
Let me submit this for your consideration: if the USBP were literally “striking it rich” from vehicle blockades many miles within the United States proper, they and the Obama Administration would be crowing about it from the tallest of spires, the mightiest hilltops, far and wide, proving the efficacy of these policies. Not only that, the American Media Maggots, sycophants that they are, would plaster these statistics over TV screens and newspapers for days and days.
Except they aren’t. Which tells me one very salient thing: the stats are not bearing out the efficacy of this policy. Trust me, if these interior check points were literal gold mines of success and productivity you would know.
And as far as Representative Peter King (R) is concerned, he is wrong. Open your eyes. All you have to do, sir, is watch this video.
Big Brother is indeed watching. But in this case, watching the wrong Americans — whilst purposely allowing illegal invaders easy passage through our southern border.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.
This is not the America I remember from even, say, 30 years ago.
I still adhere to the age-old axiom and standard I was held to when I worked Detectives, in Theft, Child Abuse, Warrants, Robbery and Homicide: see below.
That is how it is done in a free United States of America where the police respect the foundational documents, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Should the USBP exchange their green shirts for Brown Shirts?
BZ