PORTAL

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwLWFzEPVonC9dn44qIL5ASSs557asBGgx7UcyiQTM71fl7lk5yXWU1171I-LrLmpmXE6HCd_-iYRcWVrKJOX9kBzoht2EJ1hLyTZJgv5V7mkba99ZfFLH45gZCwNPwD0rHe25AfMkVWcX/s1600/animatfB.gif

Friday, November 19, 2010

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
by Mike Masnick

Thu, Nov 18th 2010 11:10am

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:
 
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.





Show birth certificate, or don't get on ballot!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=229373
BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility storm clouds on horizon for Obama

Posted: November 17, 2010

1:39 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Texas state lawmaker has filed a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to show their birth certificates to the secretary of state before being allowed on the ballot, and the measure could become effective as early as next year if adopted and signed into law.

The move by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, renews the threat to a second Oval Office term for Barack Obama that was posed last year when the state House in Arizona actually adopted the requirement, but the session ended before the Senate acted.

Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:


It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for the expected presidential campaigning for 2012.


Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama actually qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen," a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers.

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said. He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the information plan, since voters would wonder why they wouldn't want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

"If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he'll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he's a natural-born citizen," he said. "This is going to be significant."

Berman said he's convinced there are problems with Obama's eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were even aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is, in fact, eligible under the Constitution's demands.

WND requests for comment to the office of the Texas House speaker, as well as Democratic leadership, did not generate responses.

The Texas House is expected to be dominated by the GOP, with a roughly 2-1 margin, but in the 31-member Senate, Democrats will have probably 12 seats and might be able to kill off legislation using the chamber's requirement that there is support from two-thirds of the membership before holding a floor vote.



There, the state House of Representatives adopted a similar plan put forward by Rep. Judy Burges, but it died in the state Senate in the closing days of the session. Burgess has told WND she will work to bring the plan forward again.

A number of other states also have taken launched their own work on the subject:

Georgia has a plan by Rep. Mark Hatfield, House Bill 1516, introduced just as the last legislative session was closing. He told WND he expects to use it to create support for the plan when the legislature returns this winter.

New Hampshire had a proposal pending that would require candidates meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."

Oklahoma had a proposal that would be a referendum for voters on the issue.

South Carolina had discussions over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

Several other states have discussed requirements for candidates but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance so it's unclear whether they would have addressed Obama's situation.


Then there's Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.


Posey's H.R. 1503 states:


"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

Join tens of thousands of others who already have signed a petition to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.


There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii is a document that has made available to those not born in the state.


The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
A petition that has been launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah asks that state lawmakers do their duty in making sure the next presidential election will feature candidates whose eligibility has been documented.


Tens of thousands already have signed on.


"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," he said.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted moreo than half a million names.


For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.


"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first two years in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."














Double click on photos to view enlargement





Snopes got Snoped!

http://hubpages.com/hub/Snopes-got-Snoped

Snopes is run by a man and a woman, with no background or training in investigations, using Google.


Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once a negative article is posted by them, people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!"
But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But, over the past couple of years people started asking questions when Snopes was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inaccuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

So, if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means, do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.