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.

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.

WHAT ISLAM IS NOT...

http://www.nmatv.com/video/618/What-Islam-Is-Not

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume

April 3rd, 2010 7:15 pm ET

In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'

His claim turns out to be false.

 

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--

fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?

Further, consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

(Click on pic to enlarge to read the title of book)

There is more from Ross, however: 

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video. 

You would THINK a former Constitutional attorney would NOT make up Constitutional quotes!  ("We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal...")

Um, wrong founding document, Mr. President. It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " ~ John Adams

 

The many faces of freedom of speech on Facebook

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-many-faces-of-freedom-of-speech-on-facebook/   

Recently freedom of speech has been a victim of an extraordinarily well-organized attack by the left wing and islam. The latest example is the increasing islamisation of Facebook and the removal of the profile of ANYONE who expresses a dissenting opinion.  This social media that attracts millions of people every day has lately developed itself into a platform for the spreading of left-wing propaganda and especially Islamic propaganda.

The recent deactivation of personal profiles which have not at all violated ANY of Facebook´s rules are clear cut examples of the total submission and Dhimmitude to islam, now undertaken by Facebook. While anti-semitic profiles are flourishing on Facebook, one islam-critical profile after the next is being closed down without a logical or truthfull reason for it. Facebook literally bulges with hate-groups that call for killings on Jews, Danes (and other citizens of western countries), groups that indeed call for discrimination (believers vs. non-believers). That, by the way, is actually racism, according to the new definition of the term "racism". Groups that hate Denmark and who urge to the destruction of democracy, and are literally boiling with threats to Danes, Americans and discriminate against women. All this is actually violating Facebook´s rules.  By the way, Islam/Muslim is NOT A RACE!

But, in the name of political correctness, Facebook is not reacting to it! – or is it, perhaps in the name of freedom of speech? While all these hate groups are successfully flourishing on Facebook, and while all the hate group personal profiles threaten others and violate all sorts of Facebook rules on a daily basis, one after another the islamic critical groups are being shut down by Facebook, and the islamic critical personal profiles are being deactivated by Facebook – without any true violation.

Now, one might ask if criticizing islam is not violating Facebook rules.  It depends on how islam is defined. It certainly depends on how this criticism is being conducted. Indeed it depends on whether or not we are speaking about hate-groups and racism or about factual well-documented, direct quotes from the Quran itself, from the Hadiths, and direct quotes from the Islamic leaders and Holy men.  I shall account for how Facebook is becoming Islamized in a fully legal and democratic way. 

With the definition of islam as a starting-point there is clearly a difference between how Facebook defines islam and how islam critics define it. If we assume that Facebook defines islam as a religion, we must establish that Facebook is complying with it´s own rules since criticizing religion is not allowed according to the UN, and accordingly on Facebook.  There is every reason to be on guard towards critics on this religion. It seems only natural to ask if this applies to all religions. The answer must be a clear no. This only applies to islam. It is fully legal to call for the killing of Jews and other infidels, to discriminate against infidels and women, as well as to urge the destruction of democracy with all means at your disposal – all with the single aim to establish the khalifate and sharia law.  At least if you consider Facebook´s handling of the situational trendsetting practice. So, islam critics are per Facebook definition racists and will accordingly be deactivated without further discussion. Recently, a well-known islam critical personal profiles were deactivated without notice, despite the fact that no Facebook rules were violated.

 

The profiles were Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut. It was simply reported by moslems and left-wing activists for being offending or not a real profile.  Ok, so someone is offended by criticism of islam. According to the Danish Constitution, §77 (freedom of speech), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights such criticism is not illegal. These profiles have not violated any of the above referenced documents. On the contrary, freedom of speech has been used responsibly and with consideration. These profiles have, at any given time, openly declared themselves an opponent to any totalitarian regime and an eager opponent to racism. They have allowed themselves to consider islam a totalitarian regime, in which equality and freedom is non-existent. No law prohibits this consideration, and it is therefore outermost thought-provoking and alarming that Facebook obviously sees itself above the Danish and US Constitution and Bill of Rights!

With this as a starting-point, that the islamic criticism has been conducted by Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut, there has always been a sober tone, an anti-racist attitude and a factual approach to the discussion.  Contrary to what the left wing and certain moslems on Facebook wish to display, there is in fact, no valid reason for the deactivation of these specific profiles, since all Facebook´s rules have been complied with completely. The reason for the many reports must be found in the fact that these very profiles actually displayed the truth about islam in an – to islamisists – threatening way.  So Facebook choose to submit to the many moslem reports and submits completely to the Islamic demands.

Now with the starting-point and the rules about hate-groups and racism established, we must simply prove none of these have applied to the deactivated profiles. Many attempts have been made to make Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut to make statements beyond reasonable limits or even statements which are illegal. However, no one has succeeded in making either one of them state anything racist or hateful.  On the contrary, they have always emphasized that racism will not be tolerated, derogatory words or nicknames are unacceptable and that they are not criticizing muslims, as such, but rather the totalitarian ideology islam. Nevertheless the left wing activists and islam have succeded in creating the impression that Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut have violated Facebooks rules, with the result of their profiles being deactivated by Facebook. 

What is, really, going on here? Why is it such a problem some people have been kicked off of Facebook? Does that really matter in the overall perspective? It certainly isn´t a real social problem, is it? Yes! That is exactly what it is. It ought to be clear to anyone, this is not really about a profile on Facebook. This is about the basic values, the basic laws of this country. We have a set of values in this country, founded on charity and equality, respect and tolerance. We have a set of laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which ensures us these basic God given rights – and duties.

We live in a portion of the world where basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble in demonstrations and equality, are gifts granted by God.  However, we must not forget that millions of people have sacrificed their life so that we can enjoy these rights as we do today.  The Normandy coast on June 6, 1944, is just one such example. We are among the just 10% of the total population on Earth to enjoy these rights and privileges. These values and laws have, in the most abusive way, been undermined, by none other than Facebook.

This sanctimonious social medium, is atttempting to make us believe it is an open and tolerant to everyone, and is demanding a decent tone and manners, so politically correct it makes you want to vomit! This very site is totally inconsistent when it comes to enforcing it´s own rules! It is not about the people who were kicked off of Facebook. It is about the principle that these people have allowed themself to –with the Constitution in hand– criticize islam as being one of our era´s greatest threats to democracy. At the same time, Facebook is yellow from infected personal profiles and hate-groups against the West, against women, against Denmark, against sexual equality, against any equality as such, against Jews, against homosexuals, against infidels and non-believers, against Danes, against Americans, against "whatever" is western and above all against democracy. All of this is going on while the site is being used by millions of people all over the world without the slightest criticism!  It roars right in, on the corneas of the users like an express train, with no filter whatsoever, and indeed it is happening in the name of free speech.

Point in example, the deactivation of Anders Gravers´ and Aly Renruts' profiles...

This is a very dangerous development that we are witnessing. In the name of free speech, in the name of democracy, the advocates of free speech and democracy are being abusively harassed, threatened and now also brought to silence on Facebook, as it is increasingly becoming an islamic propaganda platform. All of this is happening right in front of our eyes without anyone interfering! In the name of democracy, democracy is being fought from the inside.

The last time we saw such in the world, was in Germany in 1933. The method is not different, nor is the goal. If we are to endure as a democracy we have to begin to understand just which threats to democracy are really being exposed to in our time.

A good place to start is Facebook.

We urge our readers to find  and expose the muslim hate-groups and left wing groups clearly violating Facebook´s criteria and to voice their objections to such, on Facebook.

Thor/Aly



Help Anders Gravers back on facebook – support this group:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=101770483205664 

Aly Renrut is also a VICTIM OF THE MUSLIM FIGHT AGAINST THE 1ST AMENDMENT ON FACEBOOK, AS ALY RENRUT (an ANAGRAM of her previous name: TURNER) HAS BEEN REMOVED!!!

Chandler man shoots, kills 2 suspected gang members

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html

by Jim Walsh - Sept. 6, 2010 05:00 PM

Published in: The Arizona Republic

The intruder who punched out a Chandler man while stealing beer at a keg party picked the wrong victim.

The man, who had been attempting to defend his wife during the beer theft, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fearing for his life and under attack, he pulled out a gun and fatally shot two men believed by police to be gang members early Sunday morning.

"People in Arizona carry guns," said Detective David Ramer, a Chandler police spokesman. "You better be careful about who you are picking on."

Ramer said police have concluded the shooter, who fears reprisals and whose name is not being released, acted in self-defense and have cleared him of any potential wrongdoing in the shooting deaths.

The names of the two men who were shot to death also have not been released by police.

The shootings occurred early Sunday morning in the 600 block of North Sunland Drive. A group of men showed up as uninvited guests at the keg party, paid a $2 admission fee, then became angry when the organizers started to shut the bash down, Ramer said.

"They thought they weren't getting their money's worth," he said.

The intruders were stealing the beer when they were confronted by a woman who had been attending the party, Ramer said. After the men started yelling at the woman, her husband attempted to come to her defense and was punched to the ground.

"This guy was punched, he was attacked," Ramer said.

When one of the intruders threatened the man with a gun, he pulled out his own gun and shot the two assailants to death, Ramer said. Police said they have documents confirming that the men are gang members.

Ramer said the husband showed restraint during the incident and only fired when he was threatened with a gun.

The man involved in the shooting had passed a concealed weapons course, Ramer said. Although he had a permit, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill earlier this year to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without one.

Chandler police have arrested seven other men and plan to recommend that they be charged not only with robbery but with murder because the slayings occurred during the commission of another crime, Ramer said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html#ixzz0yoP62Au8

NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push ...From EPA - THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

Environmental agency ponders whether lead in bullets is poisoning wildlife.

By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010

The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.

Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox charges in a letter to the EPA that the effort amounts to "a vehicle to implement gun control

" and could end hunting by most who can't afford the higher priced alternatives to lead.

[See who in Congress gets the most money from gun rights groups.]

At issue: lead, the most widely used material for making bullets, shot, and sinkers. The Center for Biological Diversity says in a 100-page petition that lead used by outdoorsmen and women can be blamed for causing deaths in some 130 species of birds like eagles. "Lead-based bullets fragment on impact, distributing toxic lead particles widely throughout carcasses, and making it impossible for scavenging animals or humans to avoid ingesting lead along with meat," says the center, joined on petition by the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and two other groups.

The NRA counters that claims lead is causing a horrific toll on wildlife is bogus. The proof, they say, is the population explosion of American Eagles around the nation, including some inside Washington's beltway.

But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.

Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.

Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.