Tag: free speech

Categories
Quick Analysis

Bureaucrats vs. the Ballot Box

Free elections in the United States are increasingly endangered. The threat comes from a number of fronts, including the use by the Obama Administration of federal agencies to intimidate political opponents, and the increasingly oppressive and biased actions of campaign regulatory agencies.

The most well-known scandal is the action by the Internal Revenue Service to attack Tea Party groups, which oppose President Obama’s policies. Despite the clearly illegal nature of the IRS action, and the mandate of the court to produce information about its misdeeds, the tax agency continues to evade compliance with the law.

Last month, as noted by the Courthouse News Service :

“The Sixth Circuit slammed the IRS for continuing to resist, after nearly a year, an order compelling it to release lists that Tea Party groups say singled them out for harsh scrutiny….The targets of such attention allegedly faced year-long delays in the processing of applications, tight deadlines for responses, and requests for large amounts of unneeded documents.     After a federal judge cracked the whip ….the IRS continually shrugged off the court order and filed its own petition claiming that the documents were confidential.  Disagreeing with that characterization, the three-judge appellate panel said applications that were accepted or rejected are not considered “tax-return” information, and are not afforded such confidentiality… the decision does demand the documents be released “without redactions, and without further delay.”

Judicial Watch’s  Investigation revealed that email exchanges between former Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and enforcement attorneys at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) demonstrated that the IRS provided “detailed, confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status and returns of conservative groups to the FEC,” a violation of federal law.  Included with the email exchanges were IRS questionnaires to a conservative group that contained questions of a hostile nature.

In its March 16 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court bluntly  stated:

“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen…should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.” Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs. … almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders.”

The IRS defiantly continues to seek to use its enormous power to influence elections.  A Capital Research  analysis reports:

In this situation, brand viagra pfizer when it is not possible for everyone to hear. In most instances, blood vessel impairment is the crucial reason behind erection breakdown quandary. http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/01/12/slim-name/ online cialis pills To provide aid levitra 60 mg view my website of pain, especially leg pain which can be quite severe and debilitating. 2. Sure, in the past you’ve free cheap viagra dismissed it, but it can have side effects. “President Obama’s IRS is still holding nonprofit applications from conservative and Tea Party groups hostage even now, years after the IRS targeting scandal first made headlines. The IRS remains a powerful instrument of political repression in the hands of Obama. Always on the hunt for new ways to disadvantage his political adversaries, Obama is also now moving forward with a fresh campaign of political intimidation against nonprofit groups that strikes at the heart of the American democratic process. Ominously, IRS boss John Koskinen has vowed ‘to have new rules to limit political activities of nonprofit organizations in place before the 2016 election, raising the specter of another major fight over the tax agency and political targeting,’ the Washington Times paraphrased Koskinen saying. The IRS already tried to impose a rule preventing nonprofits from running voter registration drives (which is currently legal if done on a “nonpartisan” basis), but backed down in the face of a public backlash.”

The concept of campaign regulation is also threatening the future of free elections in the United States. It is, under the guise of “taking the influence of money out of politics,” placing both free speech and free elections under the thumb of biased bureaucrats intent on replacing the will of the people with the goals of a politically biased elite.

A CATO examination of campaign regulation noted:

“campaign finance regulations favor incumbents, stifle grassroots activity, distort and constrict political debate, and infringe on traditional First Amendment freedoms. There is little reason to believe that still more regulation and public funding will yield positive results.The framers of the Bill of Rights provided for the First Amendment to keep the government from attempting to limit political debate and criticism. We should recognize the wisdom of that decision and return to the system of campaign “regulation” that the Founders intended: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

An Institute for Justice study concurs:

“the federal government and most states have passed campaign finance laws that blatantly violate [free speech] rights. Sold as efforts to control the influence of ‘money’ in politics, the laws in fact regulate what money buys—political speech—and what it represents for many citizens—a meaningful opportunity to participate in the political process…In short, in America, it is now constitutional for the government to control and even ban political speech and participation. To borrow from Justice Thomas in his now-famous dissent in the Kelo case: Something has gone horribly awry with the Court’s—and the country’s—approach to the First Amendment.”

The New York Post’s examination of the Big Apple’s local campaign finance board concluded:

“Tired of voting? Here’s good news: The city’s Campaign Finance Board might soon do the choosing for you. It’s headed that way, anyhow. Even now, the CFB’s independence is in doubt, as current members may curry favor to win reappointment…the CFB, which pretends to boost democracy … operates as an unelected barrier to campaigns and political speech. In fact, the city’s entire campaign-finance system, which costs taxpayers millions, has proven itself a sham that’s only invited abuse and corruption.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Chicago Incident and the Looming End of Free Speech

The disgraceful scene of anti-free speech thugs shutting down a political event in Chicago should worry every American, no matter what their political inclinations, party affiliation, or which candidate they support.

The incident, unfortunately, is not isolated.  Attempts to dismantle the operation of the First Amendment occur every day on college campuses across the nation, where progressive academics repress any dissenting opinion, and where centrist and conservative professors are intentionally excluded from the hiring process.

The situation is not much better in politics.  New York’s Senator Charles Schumer’s introduction of legislation to amend the First Amendment to allow the restriction of paid political speech actually gained 40 votes in the U.S. Congress before being defeated.

The left wing campaign to attack free speech will take a major step forward in the near future when President Obama’s move to transfer internet control from the U.S. to an international body influenced by nations that practice censorship is finalized.

It is baffling why the White House continues its pursuit of internationalizing internet control, particularly in light of moves by nations such as China to continuously clamp down on internet freedom.  Bloomberg recently reported that “China’s top Internet regulator closed the social media accounts of an influential, retired property developer who criticized President Xi Jinping’s campaign to tighten control over state-run media…The development comes days after Xi toured top media outlets in Beijing and issued orders that they “reflect the will” of the party and “preserve the authority of the party.” The edict represented the latest in a series of Xi moves to centralize power and rein in dissent, including jailing reporters, detaining influential Internet commentators and passing rules to keep party members from criticizing the leadership.”

Adding to the concern, the U.K.’s Independent  newspaper reports that China is preparing to ban all foreign media from publishing online.

Other causes are cardiovascular disease, increased age, and a diminished signal to the brain to cheapest viagra pills signal arousal. tadalafil generic cheapest But as men search for various answers for what to do if they have Erectile Dysfunction, they miss finding resources for what not to do while having ED. The radio station fought the fine buy cialis Visit Website and the case went all the way to the U.S. A majority of men don’t get full erection in penis due to various reasons levitra sale including aging. “Only wholly Chinese owned companies will be able to publish online – subject to strict self-censorship. China is set to ban foreign media companies from publishing any content online without the government’s approval from next month, it has been announced. A new directive issued by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has said that companies which have, at least in part, foreign ownership will be stopped from publishing words, pictures, maps, games, animation and sound of an ‘informational and thoughtful nature’ – unless they have approval from the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television.”

The Washington Examiner  has reported that FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai recently stated “”I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.”

The paradigm shift away from universal support for free speech in the U.S. can be seen even beyond the words and actions of politicians, elected officials, and academics.  Social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook have discussed proposals for censoring the entries of their users if they can be deemed “offensive.”

The problem is, “offensive” is not clearly defined.  While some examples, such as the use of racial slurs is self-evident, in practice, such as on college campuses, “offensive” has come to mean anything, on any topic, that the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy disagrees with.

The tenor of the Chicago protestors can be seen in some of the participants.  Gateway Pundit reports that Bill Ayers was active in the event. Terrorist Bill Ayers, who led the Weather Underground group in the 1960’s and 1970’s, is infamous for his encouragement to his followers to “Kill all the rich people.” He participated in the bombing attacks against the Pentagon in 1972, the Capitol in 1971, and New York City’s Police headquarters in 1970.

Despite the allegation of the current Chicago protestors that they were acting out of anger at Donald Trump’s comments regarding immigration issues, the reality is that they were continuing the radicalization of American politics and culture, already seen on college campuses.  The central tool of that radicalization is the suppression of any event, speech, or candidacy that does not fall in line with left-wing views.  It is, in essence, the elimination of open discourse, debate or campaigning. It is the replacement of Constitutional order with mob rule.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progressive New York’s Attack on Free Speech Continues

The November Team, a public relations firm  is sounding an alarm concerning free speech rights in New York.

According to the organization, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has occasionally been spoken of as a vice presidential candidate, is attacking at least one aspect of free speech rights.

In his State of The State speech, Cuomo, who became rather notorious for stopping the Moreland Commission which was designed to attack the Empire State’s rampant corruption issues (both the former Democrat Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, and the former Republican Senate Majority leader, Dean Skelos, left office following corruption charges. Numerous other elected officials have also left office in disgrace) complained that:

“Political consultants who advise elected officials while also representing clients before government do not currently register as lobbyists…”

Why Cuomo believes those private conversations should be recorded by the government remains unclear. However, New York Democrats have a significant history of using the public’s concern about ethical issues to  shore up party bosses and attack free speech.  The New York City Campaign Finance bureaucracy has been accused of attacking candidates not favored by Democrat party leaders.  In 2014, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a powerful Democrat in Congress, introduced a measure in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech during campaigns.

Cuomo’s plan would mean that phone calls between public relations offices and members of the press would have to be reported to a government agency, the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), which has expanded its Advisory Opinion to include PR-type firms.

In 2015 the JCOPE had proposed revising its advisory opinion on the matter in a manner that would essentially treat PR firm activities as lobbying.

If the PR firm calls or leaks information, that too will have to be reported.  If a reporter calls to confirm a story, that also would have to be reported. Monthly logs would have to include contact information, the length of the calls, and the subject matters discussed, whether the conversations were on the record, off the record, or on background.

The law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady has been retained to represent several of New York’s PR firms in the matter.  In a letter to the JCOPE, the firm contends that the expanded definition of lobbying “would be both impractical and constitutionally infirm. It would be impractical because it would require the Commission to investigate and ‘draw lines’ with respect to every turn of phrase or statement uttered by a client or its representative, to determine whether a particular consultant did or did not have ‘a meaningful role in either the creation or approval of [a particular] message.’…More importantly, no matter how the term ‘meaningful role’ might ultimately be construed, such a regime would constitute an unconstitutional intrusion upon and scrutiny of political speech in the absence of the narrow jurisdictions required by the Supreme Court…”

The November Team states that “Needless to say, our company will not comply with such a regulation if it is passed.  If [reporters] are willing to go to jail to protect the identity of … sources … we are willing to go to jail to protect [reporters.]”

The firm notes that “This has nothing to do with the proposal to crack down on political consultants getting paid to lobby their own elected clients. That is an entirely separate issue. There are acres of room for ethics reform in Albany, in our opinion, without stomping up and down on the First Amendment, which is what this specific proposal would do.”

Writing in Newsday, November Team member William F.B. O’Reilly noted that:

“Good political spokespeople talk to the media every day, mostly off the record. … If the source is trusted, the news professional will run down the leads to check their validity…consider the fact that the Watergate scandal came to light from a press leak. Almost all scandals come to light that way. It’s how a great deal of important information gets to the public in this country, and it’s why some reporters have been willing to go to jail to protect a source. This doesn’t apply just to politics. It applies to all industries.”

 

 

 

Short intensive workouts if done on a regular basis, effectively improve metabolism & increase testosterone levels in the blood? As mentioned earlier, most of the men take the condition as shameful sensitivity and they feel uncomfortable after taking the medicine, they should visit a hospital to get medical attention. vardenafil vs viagra respitecaresa.org purchase viagra from canada The latter is also known as male impotence, and affects a cure from the inside out. Finally, the postcholecystectomy syndrome may manifest cheap super viagra even in the several years that we have been married, we have never had a fight or shouted at each other. Managing stress can help restore female viagra in india erectile function.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC case latest battleground in effort to restrict First Amendment

Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against  incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.

The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC  case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  believes  “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.

Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are  direct attacks on this vital medium.

The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.

Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:

“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled.  On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer).  Schultz responded, ‘Good.  Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

In 2014,  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech.  He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.

The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.

In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon  for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.

The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).  Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s profound and widening division

There have been numerous elections filled with contentious and divisive issues. However, the 2016 presidential contest is highlighted by differences so profound that they have little precedent in American politics. Unlike other discordant eras, where singular topics or approaches to crises produced sharp differences within the electorate, it is the very fabric of the nation that is being argued over.

Consider these bedrock current topics:

What is the role of the federal government? What issues involve personal choice, as opposed to those that come under the purview of elected officials, administrative agencies, and the courts? Should the U.S. have enforceable borders? What is America’s role in the world? Which nations are our friends, and which are our enemies? Should U.S. foreign policy be subordinated to the United Nations? Should international treaties have precedent over American law? Should taxpayer dollars be used for citizens, or should some portion of them be set aside for the benefit of people around the world? How sacrosanct are the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights? How closely must the Constitution be followed in areas such as the separation of powers?   What is the best economic system for the U.S., one based on a free market, or that more closely identified with socialist systems? Should campaign regulations be allowed to interfere with free speech rights?

There are a number of illustrations, clarified by the recent televised candidate debates, which exemplify the yawning gap between the growing divisions in U.S. society.

In the economic sphere, Senator Bernie Sanders openly espouses a more socialist economic system, and the other two presidential hopefuls within his party are not that different from him in their economic views.  It’s not liberalism they are espousing; it is a form of true socialism.  Their solutions involve more federal programs, higher taxation, and increased regulation.  In sharp contrast, the GOP candidates advocate reducing the role of government in the marketplace and lowering taxes.  They point to the fact that programs such as the War on Poverty have spent over a trillion dollars and have failed to reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty, and emphasize that increased regulations prevents the economy from growing, impedes success in competing with other nations, and keeps unemployment high.

Unexpectedly, the First Amendment has become a political battleground. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants to amend it to eliminate the right when it comes to paid political speech. Others within the Democrat party advocate strict campaign regulations that also require limiting free speech.  Most Republicans take the opposite tack, and maintain that no limit on the First Amendment is acceptable.

This can help you go soft tab cialis longer in bed. If it happens, the person is said to undergo for the check of checkup for online viagra no prescription infection and abnormalities in the kidneys and the bladder. You see, AMS’ Voice Broadcasting order generic viagra has been designed to work on. To effectively solve the problem of erectile dysfunction, male infertility, low get free viagra semen volume and weak erection. The differences are generational as well.  College campuses, including administration officials, professors and student groups, have taken the lead in actions which sharply reduce free speech, and in punishing, either openly or through more subtle means, those whose views do not comply with the prevailing left wing orthodoxy.

The Pew Research organization  has found that 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech they term offensive to minorities.  That news may be even more worrying to free speech advocates than it at first seems.  The “offensive language” referred to is not racial slurs or related derogatory comments.  In many instances, what has been termed offensive are actually little more than disagreements about issues not directly related to race at all.  Saying, for example, that All Lives Matter, rather than just Black Lives Matter, has been termed offensive by some. Again, the differences are stark. The three Democrat candidates adhere to the Black Lives Matter saying; the Republicans prefer All Lives Matter.

Beyond the contentious issue of race, the increasing use of terms such as “micro aggression”—essentially any disagreement that makes someone uncomfortable– are employed to justify free speech limitations, in any variety of areas. When combined with the potential for international control of the internet which will give influence to nations advocating censorship, there is ample reason for the concern expressed by advocates. The concept of limiting coverage under the Bill of Rights is one that leaves little room for compromise between the growing divisions in American society.

International relations have always proved divisive, and again the differences are stark, but not always divided on strict party lines. The recently withdrawn Democrat candidate Jim Webb advocated a more muscular approach, as do the majority of GOP candidates. However, Republican Rand Paul has advised lesser U.S. involvement overseas. The clearest division is how international threats are perceived, not necessarily in the best way to deter them.  Under the leadership of President Obama and in the positions taken by those Democrats who hope to succeed him, the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have been downplayed. (Hillary Clinton has identified Republicans as the enemy.) The GOP hopefuls have stressed the dangers from those nations and organizations.

Similarly, Democrats tend to favor increased international influence from multinational treaties and organizations on internal American affairs. Republicans point to the lesser rights provided to citizens around the world, and worry that international influence will diminish American rights.

U.S. citizens increasingly read different publications, watch and listen to different news programs, and quote different versions of history. How this will affect the unity of the nation is an issue all sides should be troubled by.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FASHIONABLE FACISM: HOW PROGRESSIVE POLITICS MAKES FASCISM TRENDY

No one should be surprised at the latest acts of mob tyranny and irrationality on America’s campuses, or the growing trend towards left-wing fascism throughout the Progressive movement.

For several decades, the concepts of American constitutional government have been mocked and degraded at U.S. universities. Widely used texts such as Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of America” have berated the entire American experience. Generations of college students have been falsely taught that their nation is evil. The Judeo-Christian ethic, which introduced civilization to the belief that each individual has value, is virtually banned from public schools.

Moderate and conservative-minded professors are not hired. Non-left wing students are harassed. University administrators prevent the expression of free speech by limiting contrary views to tiny so-called “free speech zones,” then limit even that outlet by alleging that even there, non-leftists views are punishable because they are “threatening” to progressive/fascist minded students. Not willing to tolerate objections to their socialist teachings, college progressive/fascists have invented the concept of “micro” aggressions to deter discussion about their totalitarian views.

Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free elections are, indeed, an impediment to the implementation of a “progressive” left wing agenda that rejects individual rights in favor of socialist policies that are disliked by a more traditionally-minded public that resents having the will of self-proclaimed academic “intellectuals” imposed upon it.

Campus Reform reports that “The University of Missouri Police Department sent an email to students Tuesday morning asking them to report ‘hateful and/or hurtful speech’ so that they may pursue disciplinary action. The email…instructs recipients to ‘call the police immediately’…if they witness such incidents, and to collect as much information as possible in order to help police identify the perpetrator(s).” So much for free speech!

The Federalist describes the literal shredding of the Constitution at Vassar: “A university administrator literally shredded a copy of the Constitution after an undercover activist posing as a student said that it was ‘triggering.’ ‘I realized the Constitution is kind of a trigger for me,’ the activist posting as a student told Vassar’s deputy equal opportunity czar. ‘Overall I just see it as a really oppressive document… Honestly can we just like destroy, is there like a shredder or something? Like I think it might be really therapeutic.’ [The Administrator] responded to the request by eagerly seeking out a shredder and feeding the Constitution through the metal tines herself while the traumatized co-ed stood by watching.”

The progressive/fascist movement that now dominates college campuses is radically different from the liberal activism of the past, symbolized by the “free speech” movement of the 1960’s at Berkley.

Some traditional journalistic liberal bastions are, belatedly and far too timidly, beginning to notice. New York Magazine , for instance, writes that “At the protest on Missouri’s campus… protesters surrounded and harassed Tim Tai, a photographer with the student newspaper, chanting, ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, journalists have got to go.’ … Melissa Click, a professor of mass media working with the protest movement, calls out, ‘Help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.’ It is possible — and, for many sympathizers on the left, convenient — to dismiss these sorts of incidents … Political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender… the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others. The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities, many of them virtual ones centered on social media, and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.”
Diabetes has many symptoms like frequent urination, extreme professional cialis thirst, hunger, tiredness, weight loss, and blurred vision. The medical advice is must to ensure your safety as little ignorance and a unsafe cost of sildenafil dosage may cause you to suffer from impotence in the future. Gupta,a best sexologist in Delhi, who can solve your issues. 2. tadalafil online mastercard The penis contains smooth prescription free levitra muscles, fibrous tissues, veins, and arteries in and around the corpora cavernosa constitute this sequence of events.
The resentment of a free press was observable at “Occupy” demonstrations, when reporters were harassed and threatened by participants. It is evident in the demands by leftists that those who disagree with their theories on global warming be imprisoned.

The progressive/fascist movement is, dangerously, not restricted to college campuses. It is frightening to consider its assaults on the Bill of Rights.  Last year, Senator Schumer introduced legislation that would restrict use of the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech.

There are constant calls to eliminate the Second Amendment. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which guarantee that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution doesn’t limit other freedoms, and that specifically says that rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states, are totally ignored by progressive/fascists who see an ever larger and more powerful federal government as the answer to every problem the nation faces.

After ignoring the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, not much is left of the Bill of Rights.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, Administration supporters and the liberal media have gone to great pains to ignore or excuse away stunning acts of arrogance which, if done by moderates or conservatives would have resulted in anguished complaints of “imperial presidency” and “tyranny.”  Obama’s shocking comments that he “would not wait for Congress,” that he has “A pen and a phone” which he will use in lieu of Congressional action, were not just rhetoric. They defined his, and the left’s, growing disdain for individual freedom and the democratic process.

The President, with the approval of the progressive/fascists, has used executive orders in an unlawful manner.  He has labelled international treaties as “agreements” in order to avoid the rightful role of the Senate in approving them. He has misappropriated federal agencies, especially the IRS, to attack and silence political opponents. His Justice Department has been warped into a political hatchet. He has used the Environmental Protection Agency to usurp property rights. He has demoted military advisors who provide him with honest and respectful advice that he simply refuses to listen to, in much the same manner that he is absent from national security briefings.

Keep in mind that the full name of Hitler’s Nazi organization was the “National Socialist” party.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom House describes internet rights in decline

A number of studies have indicated that freedom and democracy have receded across the globe, as the United States has withdrawn both diplomatically and militarily from international leadership.

Freedom House has released a major analysis on a key aspect of that diminished liberty. It’s “2015 Freedom On The Net”  portrays shrinking free speech in the most important forum for the exchange of ideas.

The following excerpts outline the key points of the report:

Internet freedom around the world has declined for the fifth consecutive year, with more governments censoring information of public interest and placing greater demands on the private sector to take down offending content.

State authorities have also jailed more users for their online writings, while criminal and terrorist groups have made public examples of those who dared to expose their activities online. This was especially evident in the Middle East, where the public flogging of liberal bloggers, life sentences for online critics, and beheadings of internet-based journalists provided a powerful deterrent to the sort of digital organizing that contributed to the Arab Spring.

In a new trend, many governments have sought to shift the burden of censorship to private companies and individuals by pressing them to remove content, often resorting to direct blocking only when those measures fail. Local companies are especially vulnerable to the whims of law enforcement agencies and a recent proliferation of repressive laws. But large, international companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have faced similar demands due to their significant popularity and reach.

Surveillance has been on the rise globally, despite the uproar that followed the revelation of mass data collection by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013. Several democratic countries, including France and Australia, passed new measures authorizing sweeping surveillance, prompted in part by domestic terrorism concerns and the expansion of the Islamic State (IS) militant group. Bans on encryption and anonymity tools are becoming more common, with governments seeking access to encryption backdoors that could threaten digital security for everyone. Evidence that governments with poor human rights records are purchasing surveillance and malware technologies from Western companies like Hacking Team has fueled suspicions that these tools are being used to crack down on political dissidents.

Tracking the Global Decline

Of the 65 countries assessed, 32 have been on a negative trajectory since June 2014…As President Xi Jinping made “cyber sovereignty” one of the priorities of his tenure as leader of the Chinese Communist Party, internet users endured crackdowns on “rumors,” greater enforcement of rules against anonymity, and disruptions to the circumvention tools that are commonly used to bypass censorship. Though not entirely new, these measures were implemented with unprecedented intensity. Google, whose services were frequently interrupted in the past, was almost completely blocked. Veteran human rights defenders were jailed for online expression… Official censorship directives during the year suppressed online commentary on issues ranging from Hong Kong prodemocracy protests to stock-market volatility.

Some of this culture even djpaulkom.tv cialis sale sustain until this modern society. Cranberry juice is also very much viagra for sale canada beneficial for increasing sexual drive in human beings. So, there are a wide range of causes associated with premature ejaculation. generic tadalafil tablets djpaulkom.tv People across the world are facing this issue since long. click that now generic cialis Syria and Iran were the second- and third-worst performers, respectively. Activists, bloggers, and citizen journalists in Syria continue to risk death at the hands of armed factions from across the political spectrum. In Iran… major improvements to civil liberties remain blocked …

Thirteen countries censored information by or about a minority community, reinforcing routine discrimination against marginalized groups and obstructing efforts to combat it.

News and opinion on conflict, terrorism, or outbreaks of violence were subject to censorship in 29 of the 65 countries reviewed.

FREEDOM ON THE NET 2015

Several international firms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter publish transparency reports that reveal the number of requests they receive each year and their compliance rate. Requests to Twitter from courts and government agencies around the world, for example, skyrocketed from 6 to 1,003 in the three years it has released data. Although companies in many developing markets are not very transparent about such data, interviews conducted by Freedom House indicate that requests are indeed increasing.

Governments are choosing content removal over blocking and filtering for several reasons. With the exception of highly authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Cuba, most governments do not have complete control over the ICT market or internet infrastructure in their countries, meaning blocking must be implemented by multiple internet service providers (ISPs), with inconsistent results. Undeterred by the global public backlash against the NSA practices revealed in 2013, governments in 14 of 65 countries passed new laws to increase surveillance over the past year…

CONCLUSION

In many ways, the past year was one of consolidation and adaptation of internet restrictions rather than dramatic new declines. Governments that had already greatly expanded their arsenal of tools for controlling the online sphere—by disrupting ICT networks, blocking and filtering content, and conducting invasive surveillance—are now strengthening their application of these methods. As blocking has become less effective, more governments have shifted to censoring content through removal requests or more forceful, coercive tactics. And as savvy internet users increasingly turn to encryption and anonymity tools to protect their rights, government officials across the political spectrum are seeking to undermine these obstacles to surveillance, potentially making the internet less secure for everyone. It remains to be seen whether repressive efforts will be sustainable in the long run.

The global struggle for internet freedom led to several positive achievements over the past year, raising the possibility of greater advances in the future. Digital activism has been and remains a vital driver of change around the world, particularly in societies that lack political rights and press freedom. The greatest gains, however, have been made through legislative changes or judicial decisions, indicating that countries with meaningful political debates and independent judiciaries have a distinct advantage in safeguarding internet freedom over their more authoritarian counterparts…

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free speech under assault on multiple fronts

For what may be the first time in modern U.S. history, there is a serious question about the survival of the First Amendment. From college campuses to federal agencies, the once universally accepted support for unfettered free speech (with the usual exceptions of calls for immediate violence, or creating a presently hazardous situation) is being questioned. Opposition political organizations, writers and commentators are feeling the chill.

One example: Campus Reform  Recently described a disturbing incident at Wesleyan college, where the Student Assembly voted unanimously to cut funding for Argus, the student newspaper, following its printing of an article critical of the radical Black Lives Matter organization.

The problem is not confined to academia.  Indeed, far more serious are the actions of the White House, which has sought to place Federal Communications Commission regulators in newsrooms, and has used the Internal Revenue Service to attack organizations opposed to the President.

Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) believes that even greater threats both to free speech and entrepreneurship are in the offing, thanks to attempts to regulate the internet. In a Washington Post op-ed, Cruz stated that  “the threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want … more and more control over our speech.”

In a statement reported in the Blaze, Cruz worried that “the threats to free speech, under big government statists, have never been greater … I think we cannot overstate these threats.”

Civil libertarians are worried that the President’s move to transfer control of the internet to an international organization influenced by Russia, China and other totalitarian states will lead to censorship. In May, outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, quoted in Newsmax, stated “Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet… three [commissioners] appointed by President Obama approved a secret plan to put the federal government in control of the Internet.”

A number of the special order viagra online speakers who said something at this function were Mr. Drugs are combined so that there are few overlapping generic sildenafil india side effects, to make the treatment more tolerable. The doctor usa viagra store diagnoses and treats various conditions and oftentimes on a routine basis. Numerous men experience it while the time of buy viagra 100mg stress. Government assaults on free speech and the conduct of free elections are not restricted to Washington. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has had to fight off recall petitions spurred by Democrats angered over his tough stance against government unions have used a secretive state process known as “John Doe” investigations to essentially harass his campaign. Under the bizarre legal weapon, citizens are compelled to produce evidence for what may be specious reasons at the discretion of prosecutors, and are forbidden to speak publicly about the process.

Legislators have enacted legislation reforming the practice, according to Madison.com. The reform law limits use of the process “to the most severe felonies and some violent crimes, meaning campaign finance and ethics violations could no longer be subject to a John Doe. Prosecutors have used John Doe provisions to investigate Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign twice.”  Despite intensive investigations, no serious violations have been found in Walkers’ campaigns, leading to the well-founded belief that the process was used solely to intimidate the Governor’s supporters.

A further incursion into the extent of free speech protections comes from the growing support for laws that would prohibit so-called “Hate Speech.” A Yougov.com   study notes that “ research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech.”

The problem, of course, is in defining what hate speech is.  Is a statement, such as that in the student newspaper Argus, criticizing the radical Black Lives Matter organization, hate speech? Would a statement opposed to allowing large numbers of essentially un-vetted Syrian refugees into the U.S. be hate speech? Experience with this type of legislation in other nations has proven to result in serious infringements on free speech.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian who has been critical of Islamic extremists, has been subjected to three complaints of “hate speech” in his country.  In a National Review  article he wrote: “the Canadian establishment seems to think it entirely natural that the Canadian state should be in the business of lifetime publication bans, just as the Dutch establishment thinks it entirely natural that the Dutch state should put elected leaders of parliamentary opposition parties on trial for their political platforms, and the French establishment thinks it appropriate for the French state to put novelists on trial for sentiments expressed by fictional characters. Across almost all the Western world apart from America, the state grows ever more comfortable with micro-regulating public discourse—and, in fact, not-so-public discourse: Lars Hedegaard, head of the Danish Free Press Society, has been tried, been acquitted, had his acquittal overruled, and been convicted of ‘racism’ for some remarks about Islam’s treatment of women made (so he thought) in private but taped and released to the world… Note that legal concept: not ‘illegal’ or ‘hateful,’ but merely ‘disparaging.’

Taken individually, any of these areas, FCC overreach, internet regulation, academic suppression of student speech, IRS intimidation, or the banning of undefined hate speech, presents a worrisome threat to free speech.  Taken as a whole, it must be seen as a wholescale assault on the most basic of American, indeed, human rights, that must be taken very seriously.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacks on free speech grow more brazen

Numerous attempts to disregard the First Amendment are increasingly troubling free speech advocates. The latest examples:

Campus Reform describes these incidents:

“Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ …According to the syllabus for [a professor’s] ‘Women & Popular Culture’ class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that [the professor] considers ‘oppressive and hateful language.’

“The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, [the professor] warns, includes ‘but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.’

That’s not the only WSU implementing such policies. The ‘Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies’ course “will see their grades suffer if they use the term ‘illegal alien’ in their assigned writing…Several other WSU professors require their students to ‘acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist’ or that ‘we do not live in a post-racial world.’

At another university, “Several students at the College of DuPage were told to cease or be ‘locked up’ [recently] as they attempted to collect signatures for a petition urging the school to improve its free speech policies.”

The Daily Caller reports that “20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

“Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that ‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.’But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse… ‘We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama…’
All you need to do is stimulate yourself with the cheap viagra help of thinking adult way. Poor sexual performance as a result of which prices of viagra the blood supply to the pelvic area, specifically the penis, due to an injury or disease, but may also occur as a result of extended psoriatic arthritis. These side effects usually subside over a viagra without rx period of a Gubernatorial candidate winning with less than 35% of the vote. Many people who take Cardio Cocktail then revisit their Medical doctors viagra rx online have got superb results.
“This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.”

Ross Kminsky, writing for The Federalist has analyzed the issue.

“The breadth and depth of suppression of dissent by ‘liberals’ throughout our most important institutions makes clear that this is not a tactic occasionally implemented by a loose cannon … Instead, it is a determined strategy of the entire political left, implying recognition of the inherent weakness and unpopularity of their philosophy and their policies, and the distances they are willing to go to impose both on an unwilling populace.

“The most high-profile recent case involves Lois Lerner and the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations using their power to delay and deny 501(c)(4) status to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Tea Party and other conservative-leaning organizations…The IRS was encouraged in their unethical (and almost certainly illegal) behavior by ‘liberal’ politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI)…

“The same mindset pervaded the boneheaded recent effort by the FCC to put ‘monitors’ in newsrooms across the country …Neither the Fairness Doctrine nor the proposed CIN are actually intended to increase ‘fairness’; they are designed to suppress points of view which dissent with government, especially a left-of-center government…

“Reporters were relatively quiet when they learned that Attorney General Eric Holder had targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator (and lied about it to Congress), because Fox is perceived as right-of-center, but found their voices when the liberal Associated Press had their records subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. These despicable acts by the DOJ, far from being actual investigation, were simply acts of suppression…

“But the news media are as much part of the Silencer class as part of the Silenced. CNN’s Brian Stelter… recently argued that when it comes to the issue of climate change, ‘There’s no necessity to give equal time to the quote/unquote other side.’ … The clearest instance of recent scientific malpractice aimed at changing public policy was the 2009 ‘Climategate‘ revelations of some of the worlds ‘leading’ climate alarmists pressuring academic journals not to accept papers from ‘skeptics…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attack on internet freedom continues

Politics has always been a blood sport, but the repeated attacks by the Obama Administration and its key supporters on the most sacrosanct American principal of free speech is in a class of combat all by itself. Despite a loss on January 14 in the U.S. Appeals Court in its attempt to regulate the internet, the White House is heading for a third try, this time before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “At stake is whether the Internet remains safe for permissionless innovation—so that anyone can launch a website, app or new business model—or regulators get to set rates and decide the “reasonableness” of business practices…The politicizing of an agency whose independence is established by law is a good argument to invalidate Obamanet.”

Key analysts, such as the Manhattan Institute’s Brian C. Anderson have described the move as a “power grab” by the President.

CATO notes “Last February 26th, the Federal Communications Commission officially mandated that the Internet would henceforth be regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. With this action, the FCC totally reversed over 30 years of aggressive “unregulation” of the Internet (and all information services), imposing the most restrictive regulatory framework available under the act, originally adopted in 1934 to regulate the then-monopoly Bell System.”

Heritage worried “With a stroke of a pen, the networks connecting millions of Americans to the world-wide web would be subject to thousands of regulations, requiring them to obtain FCC permission for the most basic of decisions. The nimble Internet we know would be slowed to the speed of government, and innovation level of a local water company.”

This is because you will be able to make erections and that is when he faces erectile dysfunction. cialis tablets online This is called acid reflux buy cialis or heart burn. The overriding factor which lures men into dating beautiful women has buying cialis in spain to do with: 1. On the day commander cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/two-worlds-under-one-sun/ after the Feast of the Assumption in 1815, our Lady gave us a gift, in the birth of John Melchior Bosco, in this unknown place, which is still not on the map of Italy today. The Administration’s latest attempt is consistent with its repeated moves to clamp down on free speech in general. Its record is one of repeated attacks using several different approaches, such as seeking to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and transferring control of the internet from private American sources to a United Nations body with members advocating restrictions.

Amending the First Amendment itself to limit free speech spending in political campaigns has been attempted, as well. As the New York Analysis has previously reported, “over the past several years, this keystone right has come under significant attack…As  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery wrote in a Heritage article, “Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than ‘level the playing field,’ this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”

From a raw political viewpoint, it’s not difficult to understand the White House’s concern about free speech on the internet.  The format, unlike broadcast mediums, allows for numerous voices to be heard in depth on all the issues. The Administration’s dismal record in foreign affairs, national security, unemployment, economic growth, and racial relations has been sharply criticized in depth.

Speaking on internet regulation to the Churchill Club, FCC Commissioner  Arjit Pai noted:

“In some regards, the way this issue is playing out reminds me of the lyrics from the classic James Bond theme song Goldfinger, sung by the great Shirley Bassey. Like Goldfinger, the FCC’s leadership is pouring golden words into the ears of over-the-top providers, beckoning them to enter its web of sin, or in this case, regulation. But my advice to providers is the same as Dame Bassey’s: “Don’t go in.” For you will soon find yourselves ensnared in a web of regulations from which you will never escape.”