Archive for the ‘censorship’ Category

Morning Quote

September 15, 2008

If you want to talk about censorship, if you want to talk about using poltics in order to suppress a certain thought, The Path to 9/11 – blocking The Path to 9/11 is that story. The mainstream media since 9/11 has exposed to a greater extent than any time in our history the degree to which the Democratic Party is the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart, PJTV Daily Sept. 11 – 9/11 and the Media

HT to The Smallest Minority

Obama and the First Amendment

August 4, 2008

It appears that Barak H. Obama and his campaign staff are not big fans of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Barack Obama Campaign IP’s caught shutting down Anti-Obama Blogs

At least one of the attacks in the latest wave of blog shutdowns this past week came from IPs assigned to barackobama.com.

We have reported twice in the last two weeks about the attacks on anti-Obama websites. [“Google, Blogger, Obama: Obamanation Shut Down My Blog!”]] & [BabbaZee’s “Anti-Obama Blogs Shut Down by Google, Obamabots”]

Speculation on who was behind the attacks has ranged from “Obama supporters” to “it’s no one, just a glitch” “to “it’s a browser problem”. [Site Meter causing Internet Explorer failure ]. This latter is a completely different issue from the blogs that got shut down by Google/Blogger.

A few liberal blogs and Instapundit have said there is no connection between this latest wave of blog shutdowns and the Obama camp.

Speculation can now be set aside–at least, in one instance.

Communist China running true to form

July 30, 2008

Nobody who pays attention can be surprised by this:
China to censor Internet during Games

China will censor the Internet used by foreign media during the Olympics, an organising committee official confirmed Wednesday, reversing a pledge to offer complete media freedom at the games.

Controlling information and punishing those who access information the government doesn’t like is what Communists do.

This reminds me of the Kos Kiddies/DUmmies gleefully listing those they would ban from the airways and print if they gained power.

File this one under blindingly obvious…

July 10, 2008

…except of course for so-called “progressives” who are actually trying to destroy the Bill of Rights. Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig points out that the anti-First Amendment “Fairness Doctrine” is a direct attack on constitutionally protected free speech:

HH: Do you favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

LL: I don’t think you can, under the First Amendment, restore the Fairness Doctrine, and I don’t have any desire to amend the First Amendment, no.

HH: And do did you think the Fairness Doctrine, or that Red Lion, was wrongly decided when it came down?

LL :In that technology context, maybe not. Certainly now in the context of the technology we have right, I don’t think it’s constitutional, no.

HH: On that note of extraordinary agreement, Professor Lessig, thank you for your time. I look forward to having you back another time.

LL: Thanks for having me.

This has nothing to do with “Fairness” and everything

I was censored!

April 14, 2008

Oh well, his photo stream, his right to delete comments he doesn’t like.
The image in question, a picture of far left extremist democrat Barak Obama in full cult of personality Che mode.
I didn’t bring that aspect up though, I just pointed out that he was clinging to his religion because he was bitter. After the person who posted it soapboxed about his running a campaign without the big money corruption the way “Republicans” and the Clintons did it, I pointed out that he made the ‘bitter people clinging to guns and religion’ comment at a fat cat fundraiser in San Francisco and was preaching to the choir in order to rack in the big bucks.

That is what probably annoyed him enough to delete my comments.
Oh, he just didn’t delete my comments, he went as far as to block me, to keep me from making any more comments that didn’t fit his far left liberal world view.
I guess it really is true that there is nothing more close minded and intolerant than a so-called “tolerant and open minded liberal.”

He probably doesn’t want to know about Michelle Malkin pointing out that Obama is taking money from the fat cat, big industry donors as well. It’s so obvious that even the far left leaning NPR is reporting it.

Ace chimes in with this delicious tidbit,”[Obama] just took $125,000 from Jack Abramoff’s old firm, too.

UPDATE: By way of Rob at SayAnything, Obama Takes $50,000 In Bundled Cash From Code Pink.

Code Pink, as you know, is a far left extremist group that protests against the United States Marine Corps and gives money to Islamofascist groups.

The co-founder of the radical anti-war group Code Pink has “bundled” more than $50,000 for Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and pro-troops groups are demanding that he return the money.

Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it to Obama’s presidential campaign, according to information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Citizen.

Evans and her son, a student who lives at her Southern California address, each also gave the maximum individual allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama’s campaign.

The donations have raised questions about Obama’s association with the more radical elements of his base. Code Pink has harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.” The group also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom it called “insurgents” fighting for their homes.

Not what you expect from someone who is supposed “to loosen the stranglehold big business and other special interests have over our government.”

democrats against the First Amendment

October 10, 2007

The last thing the democrats want is Freedom of Speech for those who disagree with them. The Prowler points out the thuggish (and that is being kind) behavior of congressional democrats using taxpayer money to silence political speech that they don’t want Americans to hear.

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”

the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of Limbaugh. “If we can’t silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008,” says a Senate Democrat leadership aide.

Mr Reynolds sums it up nicely:

They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, we’d see enemies lists, dossiers, and naked abuse of political and regulatory power in order to silence criticism and secure an unfair electoral advantage. And they were right!

That’s right kids, the left is the boogieman they tried to scare you with.

Liberals against Free Speech

June 21, 2007

Not much of a surprise for anybody who pays attention.
Here is the hard cold proof of the matter, direct from the far left so called “Think Tank” mislabeled “Think Progress”:

The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.

The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

Hardly surprising, the far hard left “liberal” extremists are calling for a return to the days of strict government regulation of political Free Speech on privately owned radio stations.

A commenter named Noahm sums it up:

there’s no conspiracy at work here. programmers would put on a talking fish if they thought it would get ratings. talk radio listeners want to hear conservative talkers. how do we know this? they get ratings, liberals don’t.


As one pundit put it
, “To be sure, conservative radio talk show hosts have a built-in audience unavailable to liberals: People driving cars to some sort of job.”

The great “experiment” in Liberal (actually far left extremist) talk radio “Err America” failed miserably. It couldn’t even stay on the air in the oh so “Blue” market of Boston.

The intolerance of the left

June 13, 2007

As Mr. Reynolds likes to point out, “THEY TOLD ME THAT IF BUSH WERE RE-ELECTED, government would be crushing speech it didn’t like. And they were right!

“Rush Limbaugh has long been a thorn in the side of liberals, but now, because of him, some Democratic politicians don’t even want to join with a local radio station to broadcast hurricane information. Radio station WIOD, AM 610, has been the official channel for emergency information from Broward County government for the past year. The County Commission, all Democrats, balked at renewing the deal Tuesday, unable to stomach the station also being home to Limbaugh’s talk show.”

They have got a not so little list…

April 15, 2007

Attack on Free Speech by democrats summed up

September 8, 2006

Ace has more.

Isn’t it interesting how many times we’ve heard that Hollywood is all about dramatizations and entertainment when the lesson conveyed is pro-left, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal? “Don’t take that seriously,” we are admonished, “It’s poetic license, darling.”

Now we have the 9/11 movie that will air this Sunday. It certainly appears that ABC’s head Iger is caving to pressure brought by the Clinton Foundation’s Bruce Lindsay. Why? Because the dramatization paints the Clinton Administration accurately. Of course, efforts at “It’s just a dramatization” somehow fall on deaf ears when you’re trying to tell it to someone who really understands the power of memes and mass communication.

Look, I’m not saying that the portrayal is letter perfect. I’m not saying that in its smallest, parsable details, it is accurate to the nth degree. And I’m not saying that I’ve seen the movie. But I’m listening to the discussion, and I’m listening to people who have seen the movie (Rush, Patterico’s co-blogger). And the portrayal is very likely as accurate as TV can be.

Why do I say this? First, because of the reaction by Clinton’s camp. If this wasn’t damning and true, then it would be damnably (and provably) false. Second, because all three of the “questionable” scenes in the above article are certainly believable given what we learned over the years about the Clinton Administration. Does it matter whether Berger slammed the phone down or laid it gently upon its cradle? Does it matter if Albright met the head of Pakistan’s State Security apparatus in a dark alley or whether she sent a message by a messenger? Does it matter that Clinton didn’t exercise leadership on a habitually self-serving, liberal, and disjointed foreign policy?

Yes. Yes it does. And from what I understand, this movie accurately portrays the lack of leadership and the lack of focus that was part and parcel of that foreign policy.

The Texas Rainmaker chimes in with quotes from the 9/11 Commission’s report:

Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

and

On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. “Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.

and this from 1998

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.

and

National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’“