Tag Archives: Obama Lies

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Posted on by

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

Obama’s parting lie

Posted on by

Serial liars, like serial arsonists or serial wife-beaters, have a compulsion that frequently cannot be suppressed. Such is the case with Hillary Rodham Clinton, as is the case with Barack Hussein Obama, former president.

From the NationalReview.com:

Obama’s Final Whopper as President

by John Fund

He claimed that other countries don’t have voter-ID laws, though many do.

President Obama is known for telling some whoppers — “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” is perhaps the most infamous – so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he told a final one as president right before leaving office last week.

At his final press conference, Obama promised that he would continue to fight voter-ID laws and other measures designed to improve voting integrity. The U.S. is “the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote,” he claimed. “It traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery, and it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise. . . . This whole notion of election-voting fraud, this is something that has constantly been disproved. This is fake news.”

Okay, stop right there. I have, just on my blog, example after example after example, many on video, of blatant examples of voter fraud. I haven’t even referenced the James O’Keefe Project Veritas voter fraud videos. So just stop, Obama.

But you can’t. You don’t have it in you. You are mentally incapable of telling the truth. Your Brain Housing Group simply isn’t wired that way.

The argument over whether or not there is voter fraud will rage on, in part because the Obama administration has spent eight years blocking states from gaining access to federal lists of non-citizen and other possibly illegal voters. Even so, there is abundant evidence that voter fraud is easy to commit. The Heritage Foundation’s website contains hundreds of recent examples of people convicted of stealing votes.

Voter fraud, thy name is California. I wrote that, in my estimation, Hillary Clinton was able to win the popular vote simply because of the existence of California. Further, that a massive amount of votes for HRC resulted from illegals having access to and taking advantage of voting in California.

But Obama’s first statement — that the U.S. is unique in trying to enforce ballot integrity — is demonstrably false.

All industrialized democracies — and most that are not — require voters to prove their identity before voting. Britain was a holdout, but last month it announced that persistent examples of voter fraud will require officials to see passports or other documentation from voters in areas prone to corruption.

Idea: use this article for reference when an uninformed Leftist begins the standard Jim Crow argument against voter ID. Or you can show them this video:

Please note: all the Caucasoids are ignorant and biased.

BZ

 

 Share

Let the silencing of free speech commence

Posted on by

freedom-of-speechBecause, after all, you didn’t think it would stop at the internet, did you?

Silly person.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage

by Paul Bedard

In their biggest threat yet to conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are laying the groundwork to bar companies with even the tiniest foreign ownership from American politics, a move that could ban Fox, the Wall Street Journal and even the New York Times from covering political races or giving endorsements.

In a last-minute submission Wednesday, a top Democrat on the evenly split FEC proposed that the Thursday meeting of the commission begin the process to prohibit companies with foreign ownership as small as 5 percent “from funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Stop right there. Note: “Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.”

said in her submission, “Given everything we have learned this year, it blinks reality to suggest that that there is no risk of foreign nationals taking advantage of current loopholes to intercede invisibly in American elections. This is a risk no member of the Federal Election Commission should be willing to tolerate.”

Under Weintraub’s proposal, entities that reach her foreign ownership target would conceivably be banned from advocating for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Right. It’s okay if we sell most anything to foreign nationals but the precious press — it must be protected so that it may continue to be the pure, unvarnished and unbiased agent for the Left that it was and is. The Leftist bent of the American Media Maggots cannot be diverted for any reason. So, we’ll simply make up as much specious shite as possible since we already recognize the internet has been compromised.

Several media giants have at least 5 percent foreign ownership, some with as much as 25 percent. Included is News Corp, which owns Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also has foreign ownership, as do many politically active firms like Ben & Jerry’s.

Oh no. American ice cream has been tainted by foreign ownership.

That prohibition could include Fox commentator Sean Hannity or Wall Street Journal editorials. And, according to one analysis, because foreign nationals also are prohibited from making electioneering communications, those media would not even be able to mention Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if just covering them.

Democrats on the commission have been on a three-year campaign to limit the voice of conservative media, stopped by Republican commissioners who have warned that the First Amendment is under attack in the FEC.

Let us not forget that roughly two months ago the DNC was hacked and America learned the DNC was helping CBS to create the poll questions in a bias of clear and obvious proportions.

No. I’m not making this up.

Leftists, Demorats and Progressives really do wish to silence you — unless your speech, writings, opinions and thoughts are completely congruent with theirs. They will brook no opposition, no pushback, not even discussion.

The First Amendment is being attacked, openly, nakedly, right in front of our eyes, hiding in plain sight, because — guess who? — isn’t covering much of it at all.

This is orchestrated, this is purposeful, this is organized, this is an assault on your freedoms and my freedoms. Just wait a few minutes; the FCC will be piling on any moment now in the same manner.

America, are you listening? Are you seeing? Are you comprehending?

I fear you are asleep.

BZ

 

 Share

States’ suit in re ICANN: shot DOWN by OBAMA federal judge

Posted on by

free-speech-eliminatedA federal US District Court judge in the Southern District of Texas — nominated by Barack Hussein Obama on January 7th of 2015 — has denied an emergency request by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada to stay the relinquishment of ICANN control from the US to a globalist body.

Transfer now occurs at midnight.

From UPI.com:

Judge rejects plea from states to stop U.S. from giving up control of Internet

by Allen Cone and Doug G. Ware

GALVESTON, Texas, Sept. 30 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday rejected a last-ditch effort by four states to stop the U.S. government from handing over control of the Internet to an international body when the calendar turns to Saturday.

Judge George Hanks, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied an emergency request by the states — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada — for a temporary restraining order to interrupt the handover, which was scheduled for midnight Friday.

Attorneys general from the states filed the lawsuit Wednesday.

And there you have it. Your First Amendment protections on the internet surrendered not with a bang, but with a whimper.

The lawsuit argued that the states “will lose the predictability, certainty, and protections that currently flow from federal stewardship of the Internet and instead be subjected to ICANN’s unchecked control.”

The suit says Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet is an illegal transfer of U.S. government property and that it requires congressional approval.

Your grand and glorious Congress had its chance to intervene but decided — meh — not to.

No one forced us to do this. The United States was not under pressure to do so. The US was not sued in some globalist court in order to acquire this result.

It was the decision of one man.

Judge Hanks, however, ruled Friday that the plaintiffs failed to prove that irreparable harm would result from the handover and denied the injunction — clearing the way for the transfer to occur at midnight Friday.

And transfer it will.

BZ

 

 Share

US surrenders internet control for NO purpose

Posted on by

obama-internet-icannAnd the crunch day is today.

From Yahoo.com:

US prepares to cede key role for internet

by Rob Lever

Washington (AFP) – The US government is set to cut the final thread of its oversight of the internet, yielding a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant role over the online address system.

Barring any last-minute glitches, the transition will occur at midnight Friday (0400 GMT Saturday), when the US contract expires for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet’s so-called “root zone.”

When the agreement with the US Commerce Department runs out, ICANN will become a self-regulating non-profit international entity managing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the system for online “domains” such as .com.

US and ICANN officials say the change is part of a longstanding plan to “privatize” those functions, but some critics complain about a “giveaway” that could threaten the internet’s integrity.

That’s putting it mildly.

Let’s listen to Senator Ted Cruz:

Then, let’s watch Senator Ted Cruz with ICANN CEO and President Goran Marby regarding ICANN in the Judiciary Subcommittee:

Is it just me, or does Mr Marby veritably reek of dripping condescension, equivocation, superiority and aloofness? Yes. It’s just me.

To whom are we ceding, essentially, control of the internet? From Breitbart.com:

Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

by John Hayward

President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce.

Let the massive significance of that paragraph roil around in the fetid recesses of your brainulus for a bit.

Equal. Say.

I wonder: what other nation possesses a First Amendment? Oh. That’s right: no other.

In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.

Consider: Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey — all countries that have either already censored, taken down or negatively impacted the internet on numerous occasions. To them, uncensored speech is a danger and not a core freedom.

The rest of the world, taken in total, is very interested in suppressing various forms of expression, for reasons ranging from security to political stability and religion. Those governments will never be comfortable, so long as parts of the Internet remain outside of their control. They have censorship demands they consider very reasonable, and absolutely vital. The website you are reading right now violates every single one of them, on a regular basis.

As does my blog. There are already persons in the United States who believe I should not be able to write what I write here. That I should need a “license to blog” and that I and others should be forced to operate under the former FCC “fairness doctrine” which had no fairness attached whatsoever. If you wish to take down my blog you’ll certainly not care for my upcoming radio show on SHR Media.

As my headline indicates, the US under Barack Hussein Obama has determined to surrender control of ICANN and turn it over to a conglomeration of interests that have a history of little or no interest in free speech.

That begs the question: why? Why, indeed. This is another in a continuing series of capitulist, surrender-monkey moves where the United States, under Obama, manages to give away power and control under the guise of “negotiation” for little if anything in return; witness Guantanamo, witness Bergdahl, witness Iran.

For the answer we must, in my opinion, hearken back to Obama’s formative years under, literally, Communists (“Communism is not love.  Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” -Mao), Muslims and Socialists. Mr Obama was taught that America’s “colonialist ways” have damaged the entire planet and, for that, we must atone.

This country, the United States of America, shames Mr Barack Hussein Obama. There is little, in his mind, of which to be proud. Hence, his endless hammering on the various wedges that divide our country. Mr Obama has become and is the Divider-In-Chief.

From Obama’s spiritual advisor Pastor Jeremiah Wright, to his mentor (and co-author) Bill Ayers, to his idols Saul Alinsky, Richard Clower, Frances Fox Piven, Che Guevara and more.

Atonement, you see, now comes in the form of Mr Obama purposefully attempting to minimize the role America plays around the globe — leading from behind, if you will. He believes you are lazy. On this one I must agree, but with the appellation applied to those generational parasites sucking Free Cheese from my American Taxpayer vein. Odd, coming from a person who has built nothing in his life, managed not one payroll or even started a lemonade stand.

Obama is weakening our defenses. He is weakening the defenses of our allies. Mr Obama is dismissed as a buffoon by our enemies, Russia, China, North Korea, much of the Middle East, because they realize he is a true Paper Tiger and means little of what he says, particularly at this juncture. He emboldens our enemies and undermines our allies.

It is no shock, therefore, that he continues in the fine capitulist tradition he began in 2008.

To the most free internet you’ll see in this lifetime, wave “buh-bye.”

“There are no existential threats” to the US today, Mr Obama says.

Except himself.

BZ

 

 Share